Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:52:25 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 00:57:37, Micheal Cummings wrote: >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? >> >>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 > >I support everything that Ed has said here. And I only asked for both to forget >about it, which has not happened. But my opinion on the reply post from Bob is a >very big over reaction. > >This persons post could have been asnwered by bob is a very calm easy >correction. But he got stuck into this guy big time. Attacking him, accusing him >of trolling. If bob had just gave a simple correction that this result was wrong >and said why without the attack, there would have only have been this guys posts >and bobs reply. and not all these other posts. > >This person got the wrong impression and did not have all the data to make this >statement. But how many people make statement knowing everything. This does not >give someone the right to trash and insult someone, when a kindly reminder of >what the actual facts are would do. > >Go and take out all the insults and harsh remarks in bobs post and bob would >have a post which he should of written in the first place, and none of this >would be bought up. > You are reading the wrong post. There are no 'insults' in it at all. There is a simple declaration that it is a troll, followed by a rebuttal of the main point. An insult is "you are an idiot" or "you are dumb as a rock". Not "this is a troll". It is hard to make a statement of fact an insult. >Going by the definition, bobs reply post is more of a troll than the original >post, bobs post has clearly cause more responses than this original post. > >I get the impression that because Bob has left and come back so many times that >manybe moderators give more freedom to him, as to not upset him. And this is the >same for the rest of the high profile chess programmers and people in this >forum. Which is what I always say, moderators have to play politics for the best >for this forum. We need to attract good people in chess and manybe sacrafice >standards for these higher profile people and treat more harshly the lesser >people :( Bob has not "left and come back many times...". I stopped posting one time after the enormous rolf/thedodo/etc problem on r.g.c.c. I am definitely more than willing to stop, permanently, however. I just need to be nudged by the right people (the ones that do _not_ troll). > >I think this is done without moderators even realising it.
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.