Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:10:52 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Bruce Moreland on November 02, 1999 at 02:38:38: > >>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. Sounds very reasonable, 2 but's: - You then need to change the charter a bit? - Where is the limit? And this limit is it equal for everybody? I think it's an open door for double standards, hardly to avoid, maybe impossible to avoid? >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. Yes, and so are a few others. >>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. I agree and I don't like to be in your shoes. Small wonder you are doing this job for the second time. But if ALL are EQUAL you would have one problem less. Just catch the person who STARTED the problem whoever he is. In principal ignore all the defence follow-ups. >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 get the point no doubt, being reasonable is certainly a way to go and has been practised since the start of CCC and frankly CCC has been doing well. But the exceptions will remain. Some people will be hurt for no good reason and worse may leave as happened in the past. You are more or less obliged to give some of us more space because of their "easy target" status. The tip-toe walking will remain as it is not clear what is allowed and what is not allowed, worse, apparently some of us are allowed to say more. About ALL are EQUAL... The only disadvantage I see is that it will put moderators in a more difficult position. Giving some of us a public warning may force them to leave and there maybe is a good chance moderators will get a part of the blame for it. I think some of us have a responsibility here and I am ready to take my part. I know people want us to write about computer chess and not to fight with each other. Hope this contributes something to the discussion. Ed
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.