Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 16:23:32 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"
For what is worth I would define "troll" somewhat differently as "a post
made deliberately provocative in order to stimulate responses". Perhaps this is
too broad but I think your dictionary definition is definitely too narrow. In
particular I don't think a troll has to be deliberately wrong.
To me, "arrogant" is at least as insulting. Maybe others will disagree
but that in a way is my point. Some trouble on this board would be avoided if
people were more willing to consider the possibility that their post is being
interpreted by others in an unintended way or that they are interpreting someone
else's post in an unintended way. This is particularly important in reference
to posts by people you don't respect. For example if you think someone is an
idiot it is easy to fall into the trap of interpreting even his sensible posts
in an idiotic way.
James B. Shearer
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.