Author: jonathon smith
Date: 03:30:21 01/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2000 at 11:49:18, Bruce Moreland wrote: >I deleted a thread today, and I feel like I should explain why I did it. >Curtiss started another anti-Shredder thread this morning, this one entitled >"ATTENTION DONT BUY SHREDDER 4 READ MY POST TO FIND OUT". > >None of the content of the post was especially offensive, it was simply a >statement of opinion about this program and a few others. > >But he posted essentially the same post yesterday, only 20 hours previously. >It's still visible on the first full page of CCC messages as of this time, and >will be here until later this evening. He's posted on this topic at least once >in the recent past, as well. > >My reason for deleting his new post is that it constitutes a negative campaign. >I don't think it is right that someone should be start a thread with the same >topic every day, especially while ignoring all responses to previous threads. > >I don't want to make it seem like it is somehow against the charter to hold an >unpopular opinion and repeat it in context, as part of a discussion. But this >thing with Curtiss clearly crosses a line. It's an obvious campaign, and I >think that prevention of this kind of thing is one reason we created a moderated >forum. > >Please feel free to offer your opinion. > >bruce Thank you. Opinion offered ..... ChrisW says he did read: "remove this account as he posted this shit again" Faber "You're totally right to delete that crap" Diepeveen as alternative intelligent opinion, and thought, possibly not alone, that Curtiss's poor quality post was perhaps of higher quality than the responses quoted above. However, to Curtiss's post: It was (a) all in upper case, (b) without punctuation, (c) semi-illiterate, (d) opinionated, (e) with out data to back it up, unless the alleged 27 move victory against Shredder was true, (f) non believeable, (g) mindlessly repeated. ChrisW suggests there are two possibilities: 1. Curtiss is a badly educated child who likes to shout his mouth off and doesn't bother to read any responses. ChrisW thinks that this is the case that Bruce wants to believe. ChrisW thinks Bruce generated this thread beause of a Manichaean world view which wishes to reduce the moderation question to one in which various well-defined and generally agreed extreme cases are cited as suitable examples. ChrisW thinks that Bruce now needs a new extreme case to quote from, since he is now slightly disturbed that his five times quoting of the prior example, "**** you, no really **** you", probably merely had the effect of increasing the insult-threat-hurt quotient of that post onto whoever it was targeted. 2. Alternatively, Curtiss is yet another incarnation and fake identity, and the postings were designed specifically for a purpose. ChrisW says he thinks case (2) is more likely. ChrisW's experience is that persons with a literacy and logic level such as that displayed by Curtiss, learn quickly, throught the school of hard knocks, that their best option is not to write anything, anywhere, anytime. ChrisW thinks it more likely that the posts were written by soembody else with the following aims in mind: a) to place Bruce into the 'elitist' dilemma. The post is semi-moronic. "We" are not semi-moronic. "We" don't want to be associated with semi-morons. etc. In other words it is a moderation question which is never stated. By posing the question of what *level of stupidity* does so irritate persons who wish to maintain discourse on a higher level, the Curtiss post raise the never-spoken question of 'elitism' in computer chess newgroups. Where comes the dividing line? Moderation means dividing lines. Now ChrisW happens to know the answer to Bruce's position on this. Bruce wrote, at the time of the start of the board: "CCC should be to discuss computer chess. The Komputer can stay on rgcc and answer pesky end-users queries there". ChrisW quotes this from memory, but the content and sentiments are accurate. b) To further probe Bruce's Manichaean weakness. Which is that he favours those who he has defined as the 'good guys'. This accusation is made most often in relation to Bruce's alleged protection of Hyatt. In the world of fast moving and disappearing posts all that remains is the impression. It is known that Stephan Meyer-Kahlen tends not to post, especially not in such a case as Curtiss's. It is also known that Bruce thinks Meyer-Kahlen is one of the good guys. Therefore a mindlessly stupid attack on the Meyer-Kahlen program is likely to bring Bruce out in some sort of defence. Bruce is aware of the charges of favouritism, therefore the Curtiss posts are/were designed to place Bruce in a difficult position, increase his stress level slightly, to try and provoke a mistake. And to try and further strengthen the 'impression' of favouritism via the predictable Bruce response. In the event the Curtiss post did provoke a mistake. The responses of Diepeveen and Faber. Their posts will remain. Curtiss's will not. Agressive, vulgar postings are permitted. Depends entirely on who makes them. Depends entirely whether or not they are part of an attack on a 'moronic' outsider, or an attack on a 'respected' poster. This, says ChrisW, is the real double-standard that runs through the CCC board. ChrisW says the board is effectively arranged into a caste system, the upper echelons of which are protected *whatever* they do or say. This is why Hyatt can and does insult on the level of "prozac and triptazine", or can tell ChrisW that he (ChrisW) was banned from CCC for making 'outrageous' statements on rgcc - when everybody knows that the maker of 'outrageous' statements on rgcc was actually Bob Hyatt (try a search on Hyatt Watch, or email ChrisW for suitable keywords, if you are not convinced). This double standard is inevitable from the process. The idea is to defend the upper echelons from critism. To defend them from thoroughly justified criticism. They can say what they want, on any topic, on rgcc it was necessary to take it all the way to refute them, because they *never* admit to be wrong. Here they don't need to admit to be wrong, because Bruce and the moderation system will delete the critics. For those of you who dislike the Hyatt way, remember, you support the system that supports it.
This page took 0.01 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.