Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:38:38 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 00:40:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >I will describe what I see as a big problem in current and all previous >moderation but let's discuss the posting in question first. > >First the word "troll", my dictionary says: "sending an article to an (Internet) >discussion group with a deliberate mistake in the contents with as only goal >to receive as many as possible reactions" > >Thus in the very first sentence the intentions of the poster are questioned and >marked as bad. I call this against the charter of CCC. When I read the original >post I see nothing like that, just some data he found on ICC. The data can be >right or wrong and if wrong it should be said so but why mark it as bad >intentions? It's no worse than the same guy saying in another post that the reason Crafty has a high rating is that it has a huge noplay list. Maybe that made Bob a little angry? Like I said, I think it is possible that a reasonable person could label that post a troll. I'm not saying I would have, but I'm not holding myself up as the archetypical reasonable person, either. So I disagree that what Bob said is against the charter, unless the charter is very tightly invoked. I think that there needs to be room for people to disagree and express and work out some frustration. I don't want to create a situation where people can pin-prick each other to death, and the only ones who have to pay for it are those who those who can't keep absolute control when defending themselves. In this circumstance, Bob is a clear target. >Furthermore I object to the patronizing tone but you can argue about that as >everybody has its own definitions of that. > >Normally I wouldn't have replied as I did but looking at all the things that >happened the last week I felt I had too, call it the last drop. > >What bothers me in moderation from the very first start of CCC is the fact that >some have more privileges than others. Some can say more than others. The >fact that some of us have written a good chess program doesn't give them the >right to behave different in writing style and wordings than the rest of CCC. We >have all signed the charter of CCC. > >I have seen correct "knock it off" warnings from moderators to members of CCC >but it does not happen to a limited number of the so-called well known people >even if they do worse. > >Although I understand all the possible reasons moderators might have to protect >the so-called well known people a bit, here is why I consider it as unfair after >all: > >a) It's a clear case of a double standard. Imagine you get a warning and see >someone else doing worse and get away with it. > >b) People will leave because of that, it has happened in the past. > >c) It will force people to tip-toe walking, what is allowed and what is not >allowed? It's not so clear as some others apparently have a different status. > >In my opinion ALL should EQUAL. If I write something that is of bad taste I >should be rewarded with the very same "knock it off" from moderators as any >other CCC member. > >That's my only point. For the rest I am more than happy with CCC and how it is >run by the moderators. They do a fine job I doubt I ever will be willing to do. It is not a particularly fun job because you are confronted with a constant flood of crap and people expect you to react various way simultaneously. And guess what, there's no correct way to behave a lot of the time. It is my personal intent to be flexible in order to protect controversial posters whose presence adds to the group. There is considerable gray area with regard to what is "abusive" and what is not, and I do the best I can in each case. I won't excoriate Bob over tinkly stuff like this. I think that this recent mess is about personalities, not posts. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.