Author: Amir Ban
Date: 07:13:07 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 08:46:08, Robert Hyatt 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? > >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? > The facts made or assumed in the original post were: 1. "ban is ahead of crafty on ICC": This was true when he wrote it, (this may change, but was still true last time I was logged in). 2. "crafty is now playing against ban again": This was briefly true a few days earlier, but when the post was written was no longer true. I think few people on CCC noted that you are will censor (an ICC mode indicating "noplay" + "I hate you too") ban from now on since your announcement of this was buried in a heap of insults and profanity (the 'snot' post). 3. "The reason for 1 is 2": since 2 is wrong, this is a moot point, but citing the only 2 games you allowed to play recently, your only basis for calling the post a 'troll', shows that you are mistaking your opinion for unshakable fact. My value judgement on 3 is that you can play whoever you want, but if you don't want to play, you should stop claiming in any way that the result will be in your favour. About your failure to correct 2: You jumped on the poster with your 2 games, but failed to correct his statement and make him aware that you are noplaying ban (something he innocently didn't know). Making such an argument while concealing the most relevant information is lying, and you have quite a few lies of this nature in your recent posting. I'd like to think that you concealed this fact because you are ashamed of it. It's indeed something to be ashamed of. Crafty's rating collapse is not connected to ban, obviously, since I don't play crafty. You say it's because of a bug, but ICC watchers also noted that you lost those points to Ferret, who returned after a long absence. Crafty's current rating spike in fact started with noplaying ban & Varguz and ended with the return of Ferret. Amir >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 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.