Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:18:07 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 19:36:20, Michael Cummings wrote: Note: In all the below, I'm assuming that the moderator team will come to some agreement on banning members. I think this has to be a last-resort thing. I think in general I'd rather have the agreement of all three before getting rid of anyone. >1. >Will you be less tolerant when a new member posts off topic troll related >threads when they first join and continue to post off topic for most of their >posts there-after. Will you ban this new member easier than if a long time >established memeber started doing this. > I think so. I think some people come here and don't really understand the difference between a moderated forum and usenet. After a warning, if it's clear they're not interested in CCC, let's just get rid of them. >2. >If a new members post something which starts a fight, which is not computer >chess related and ends up blown into a huge CCC rumble, eg the (bella sexist >threads) what will you do or say to this new member. > I think it might be tough to blame a new member for starting a huge fight since it might have been inadvertent. If there's obviously a pattern, then the same applies as in q1, above. >3. >If a member is a computer chess related thread say to another member, that their >testing methods are wrong and that there results will have little point or >value, do you regard this as a insult to a fellow member. > Not particularly, but it depends on how it's expressed. I think that it would be much better if some alternative is proposed, but it's perfectly possible to say this without being offensive. >3a. >If one moderater finds that the post is fine and another does not, what will you >do if that person complains to you because you are a moderator that thinks this >is a valid opinion and wants there post bought back. Will you support his >efforts. (note - do not answer that you think the testing method post was wrong >and you do not support it, just answer that you are a moderator that would >support it and what you would do) > I think this sort of thing should get ironed out behind the scenes. If another moderator deletes something I wouldn't have deleted, I'd back up the moderator, even if I didn't really agree. >4. >Someone posts a saying or quote which to you is acceptable but you admitt is >strong, and you get moderator emails saying that that it is very offensive, >maybe due to culture or religion. > Depends on the nature of the post and the number of objections. I'm very sensitive to the use of language, and I would be loathe to impose my standards on everyone here. >5. >Will you be a moderator who will have less tolerance for new members who have >strange names, eg (ChessGod) and has a free hotmail or email account, and posts >chess releated trolling rubbish. Will you ban these account, knowing that we do >have Sean and other trouble making people constantly creating new accounts. > As I said in my moderator philosophy, I wish everyone would use their real name. I try to look for "content" in a post. If there's a pattern of inflammatory statements without content, I think I'd have a word to see what the member was trying to achieve. >6. >A member complains that he has been reciving emails from another member who is >sending him "how to make a million dollars" and "join this sex site and get a >free video", and that this member is using other members emails to use for their >spam emails. > A very tough question and not something I've considered. I think if there's a clear pattern of bothering several members, I'd get rid of an account, because it's a mis-use of CCC. I guess a single member being bothered in this way is not the same sort of thing, but I'm not sure I know what I'd do about it. Andrew
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.