Author: odell hall
Date: 16:35:28 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 19:15:03, odell hall wrote: >On January 12, 2000 at 13:36:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 12, 2000 at 10:28:01, Jeff Anderson wrote: >> >>>I thought the point of the moderators was to keep things getting into out of >>>control nonsense, but instead the moderators seem to very much enjoy >>>contributing to the nerdly CCC soap opera. They start entire new threads about >>>a post they have deleted and why they have deleted, and then they reply to that >>>thread themselves before anyone else. They announce members that have been >>>suspended in long overly-dramatic public letters. They participate in big >>>arguments about what dirty word someone has said, or which phrase was >>>politically incorrect. They bicker more than anyone else in this entire forum. >>>Generally the moderators are the biggest contributor to mammouth off-topic >>>threads. >>> The moderators are doing a bad job, and actually causing more problems for CCC >>>than would occur if they did not exist at all. The moderators should err on the >>>side of sins of ommision rather than sins of comission. >>>I realize this post itself may contribute to the clutter on the CCC message >>>board, but I hope it is a first step in returning things to a state where the >>>moderators do not feel it is there duty to post their every thought publicly, >>>and create a problem much bigger than if they did not exist at all. >> >>There has been an excess of response in some recent cases. >> >>I don't believe we've made any announcements when people have been suspended, >>and perhaps we can be criticized for this, although it is the opposite of your >>concern. I replied to Odell Hall regarding his, because he made it a public >>issue. >> > > > Bruce this is completely untrue!! I never brought up my suspension in any of >my post and was rather shocked when the moderators brought it up, and >selectively displayed the post which makes me look bad. No one here was even >aware of my suspension and nothing I said was in reference to my suspension. I >was talking about unfairness in moderation and never even remotely used the word >suspension nor did I even suggest it. I think it was completely irresponsible >for the moderators to dig up all these post from months ago. First of all they >selectively brought out the post that would make me look bad. Remember there was >month's of negative post and threads that were the cause to me making some of >those nasty remarks. It's not like I just suddenly lost my mind and started >attacking people for nothing. This is the picture that the moderators would like >to portray. There were attacks against my post that began to form an abusive >pattern which eventually led up to me using some of the unfortunate language >that I did. Everytime I would make a post expressing my opionion on the GM >Question for instance, Robert hyatt would make some kind of sarcastic comment >attacking my intelligence, calling me foolish or using an insulting metaphor, >When i tried to respond to these insults, they were simply ignored or some of >his disciples would try and justify his comments. Once i complained to >moderation and was told that they would speak to him about it. Over time i knew >I was fighting a losing battle and it was clear that nothing was going to be >done about it because hyatt had much more support than i could hope to get. >Which led to increasing frustration and eventually I reached a limit to where I >simply exploded. Ofcourse based on the threads that you displayed it makes me >look like a mad raving lunatic who exploded with little provaction. I am sure >that any reasonable person if they could see the "complete" picture over months >of abuse, certainly would understand how one could lose his cool. > > >>The thread suggesting that two members be banned should have been immediately >>deleted, in hindsight. >> >>This kind of thing goes in cycles, and assuming that my co-moderators are >>willing to stop, and various other people are willing to stop, the only traces >>of this in a few days will be the archives. >> >>I don't think there is any easy way to handle moderation. If you decide you >>want no moderation, you get an influx of net-stalkers, people who want to repeat >>the same rant constantly, off-topic bickering, etc., and we would still get >>these incredibly long angry threads, with the added problem that the threads >>might never actually end. CCC was founded by people from r.g.c.c., >>specificially to avoid the problems evident there. >> >>It is possible to go the other direction as well, I'm very concerned that we'll >>eventually undergo a period where posts will be deleted and people will be >>banned for simple disagreement with majority positions. >> >>bruce By the way I am checking out of this disccusion which is really a waste of time, So you guys can have the last word, I hope you enjoy 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.