Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:46:08 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 00:40:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Subject: Re: Moderation: Junior ahead of Crafty in ICC! > >>Posted by Bruce Moreland on November 01, 1999 at 17:03:59: > >>>>>What an arrogant tone. The man just reported data and I don't see the data >>>>>itself denied. It's clearly against the charter of CCC. You should be an >>>>>example instead of humiliating people. >>>> >>>>Exactly what part of the charter is being violated here? >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>Never mind. >>> >>>Sigh. >>> >>>Ed >> >>No, really. Here is the whole post: >> >> Sorry, but your "troll" is wrong. Crafty and Ban won't play >> again. Crafty's rating dropped because I broke a couple of >> serious things in the eval last weekend, one being the 'bad >> trade' code. I have not felt like fooling with it to fix it, >> so its rating has continued to drop, steadily. And will >> likely continue to do so until way late tonight or tomorrow >> some time when I fix what is wrong. >> >>There is nothing wrong with the above paragraph, other than the use of the >>word "troll", which I will cover after the next paragraph. >> >> If you'd stop trolling, and do your homework, Crafty has been >> at 3100-3200 for several weeks, during which "ban" was playing >> it regularly. Had no harmful effect on its rating whatsoever. >> Until I managed to break it myself. Which I do from time to >> time... >> >>Here is some stuff: >> >>1) He points out that the guy has posted trolls, which is a not terribly nice >>conclusion. I think that a reasonable person could argue that it is an >>accurate conclusion. >> >>2) He tells the guy to do his homework, which is a not nice thing to say. >> >>I would have a hard time labelling either of these comments abuse or personal >>attack. Bob is obviously not pleased and delighted, but I don't think that >>means that he is violating the charter. There's nothing that leaps out and >>says to me, "That is terribly awful, it must go." >> >>I've only seen Bob's antagonist post perhaps three things in the past week, >>and they are all negative comments about Crafty's behavior on ICC, with little >>substance or background, and only a first name for the complainant. And >>here is another base post on the same topic. I think Bob deserves some latitude in >>his response. >> >> Now back to normal fishing mode... >> >>I don't know what the preceding sentence means, but I doubt it is the >>source of your complaint. >> >>I invite you to continue this discussion if you wish, if the alternative is >>for you to walk away with the opinion that I can't see the obvious. >> >>bruce > > >Okay fair enough. > >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? Because it _was_ a troll. He said "since I had -noplayed 'ban' ban had passed me in the ICC ratings. Had he looked, he would have noticed that since I -noplayed ban, we had played two games, crafty won one and drew one. So wouldn't you say it _unlikely_ that was the cause of Crafty's rating drop? If you look at a couple of other posts by the same author, you find the same modus operundi.... > >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. > >Ed That is a narrow view. Why don't you go back to the beginning of each thread. I didn't post the first one there. I didn't start the thread about the "incredibly large noplay list of crafty", I responded factually and accurately why the post was mistaken. I don't buy the 'turn the other cheek' philosophy.
This page took 0.01 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.