Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:13:19 11/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 1999 at 08:52:25, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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 would be sincerely sorry to see you leaving this place.
Your work is useful and appreciated. Just realize that:
* You cannot write as if you were teaching lessons to everybody here. This is
very irritating. I am willing to understand that you don't realize it, exactly
as I did not realize I have been arrogant in some of my previous posts. The
reactions of some people helped me to understand, so maybe you could admit that
if people tell you something, well, there is maybe some truth in it.
* The "commercial" programmers deserve respect for their work. Most of them need
another job because chess programming does not make you rich. Most of them have
been faced with the technical problems you had to solve yourself. Some have
found brighter solutions.
* Maybe you have lived for too long in the jungle (rgcc) but here in CCC you
don't need to bite everything that moves around you.
Except the points above, I am always pleased to read your technical
explanations. I find them clear, and I know people appreciate the time you spend
in answering over and over the same questions.
Consider the complains, think about them, and let's live in peace.
Christophe
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.