About Some Elasticity in Moderators

[fern]

Certainly I am a reasonable person. I do not ask officially this or that amount of non topic posts. Even Less I ask high doses of them. I just ask for some tolerance when some of them appears, provided they are not toxic. And I say this because more than once a post by me or Blincoe, full of what we think is humor -yes, we could be mistaken- has been erased because someone asked that, which I do not understand. WHY?
Which is the damage?

Fern

[syzygy]

I will give the latest example.

Code: Select all

"The R v F threads bored everybody and belong to EO. If I have time, I may be moving a branch to avoid the hijacking of this thread. I suggest not to populate it more." 

 Miguel

So the moderators lock a thread because that R v F threads bored everybody.

Ehm no. Posts that were hijacking the thread were removed (edit: will be, I guess). Those posts belong in the subforum that was created for such posts for the very reason that they bored (most) everyone.

Were in the charter is it written that moderators can lock a thread, and dictate computer chess topics like R v F thread. Because they think it is boring. Computer chess topics and replies are covered in section 1 of the charter.

Code: Select all

the Computer-Chess Club is a moderated message board

"moderated"

I will lock it until we have time to sanitize it.

[syzygy]

Certainly I am a reasonable person. I do not ask officially this or that amount of non topic posts. Even Less I ask high doses of them. I just ask for some tolerance when some of them appears, provided they are not toxic. And I say this because more than once a post by me or Blincoe, full of what we think is humor -yes, we could be mistaken- has been erased because someone asked that, which I do not understand. WHY?
Which is the damage?

I don't think I read those posts and I was certainly not the one complaining about them.

But I do understand if posts are removed that are actually funny.
I don't think a post should be removed because the moderators don't think it is funny. The consequence is that a post should not be allowed to stay only because the moderators think it is funny. You'd get people rightly complaining about preferential treatment of other (funny / respected / belonging-to-the-furniture) people.

I do agree that a difference can be made between off-topic toxic posts and off-topic good/bad attempts at humour. I believe such a difference is being made.

[mwyoung]

I will give the latest example.

Code: Select all

"The R v F threads bored everybody and belong to EO. If I have time, I may be moving a branch to avoid the hijacking of this thread. I suggest not to populate it more." 

 Miguel

So the moderators lock a thread because that R v F threads bored everybody.

Ehm no. Posts that were hijacking the thread were removed (edit: will be, I guess). Those posts belong in the subforum that was created for such posts for the very reason that they bored (most) everyone.

Were in the charter is it written that moderators can lock a thread, and dictate computer chess topics like R v F thread. Because they think it is boring. Computer chess topics and replies are covered in section 1 of the charter.

Code: Select all

the Computer-Chess Club is a moderated message board

"moderated"

I will lock it until we have time to sanitize it.

Let not take the charter quote out of context. It is moderated under the conditions of the charter. Here is your quote in context.

Code: Select all

Thus, the Computer-Chess Club is a moderated message board which is open to the general public (known as "members"). Its purpose is to allow the members to disseminate and exchange information as it pertains to computer chess without the distractions of personal attacks and off-topic posts. 

 Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages: 

 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess 
 2. Are not abusive in nature 
 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others 
 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations 
 5. Are not of questionable legal status. 

And lets remember why EO was created, to stop debate that a group did not like in violation of the charter.

From the charter, the spirit of our club.

Code: Select all

It was felt that a group where a full range of computer chess ideas could be discussed, and, if necessary attacked, without also making personal attacks on the deliverer of the ideas

Instead we stop debate or threads, because we just don't like them, or find them boring. In violation of the charter.

We get what we deserve....

[syzygy]

Messages aren't being deleted there. Hijacked threads are being addressed. The discussion can continue where it belongs.

[Dan Honeycutt]

Certainly I am a reasonable person. I do not ask officially this or that amount of non topic posts. Even Less I ask high doses of them. I just ask for some tolerance when some of them appears, provided they are not toxic. . .

I think toxic is the key. Posts about computers in general, chess in general or attempts at humor are not likely to evolve into a slug-fest. Not so posts about politics or religion. I think with just a small measure of common sense a moderator can distinguish between the toxic, or potentially toxic, and the not toxic.

Now, if a post shows up that the moderators feel is too far afield, then what? Current policy is to archive it. Threads are not moved to CTF unless the CTF moderators give concurrence. I think that can be relaxed. If a post is clearly a troll then axe it. However, if it is an attempt to introduce a topic that the poster has an interest in then - assuming I am reelected on the CTF side - I would invite the CCC moderators to simply move it to CTF. I trust their judgment and if it turns out we have differences of opinion we can settle that.

Best
Dan H.

[michiguel]

I will give the latest example.

Code: Select all

"The R v F threads bored everybody and belong to EO. If I have time, I may be moving a branch to avoid the hijacking of this thread. I suggest not to populate it more." 

 Miguel

So the moderators lock a thread because that R v F threads bored everybody.

Ehm no. Posts that were hijacking the thread were removed (edit: will be, I guess). Those posts belong in the subforum that was created for such posts for the very reason that they bored (most) everyone.

Were in the charter is it written that moderators can lock a thread, and dictate computer chess topics like R v F thread. Because they think it is boring. Computer chess topics and replies are covered in section 1 of the charter.

Code: Select all

the Computer-Chess Club is a moderated message board

"moderated"

I will lock it until we have time to sanitize it.

Correct, hijacking a thread on purpose for a personal agenda or interest with a complete disregard of the people participating is generally abusive and a violation of point 2 of the charter. Particularly if that is off-topic for the sub-forum. It is extremely offensive for the OP, who wanted to discussed a particular topic. Hijacking threads have been one of the most annoying characteristics of this forum for a long time, and we made a case to make sure we protected the intentions of the OP. We were crystal clear about it and we run four times with the same spirit. Once we promised something to the membership, we are going to uphold it.

This is not the same as a thread that drifted onto other themes. Generally is someone who butt in and disrupts the conversation. They have all the right to give their opinion... in another thread of their own.

We never redefined the charter. Our job was to make the best interpretation possible, and make decisions based on that, which is also covered in the charter.

I found this thread really weird, because some discussion is about things we never did, and about things we were supposed to do, but we actually did.

Miguel

[mwyoung]

Messages aren't being deleted there. Hijacked threads are being addressed. The discussion can continue where it belongs.

The moderators do not have the power to decide what is hijacking. A thread can splinter off in many directions, and do all the time. What the moderators are here for is to uphold the charter, not dictate the members computer chess topics or computer chess topic replies.

Chess replies are covered in the charter.

Code: Select all

Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages: 

 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess 

The powers of the moderator are covered in the charter.

Code: Select all

A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club, and to take, if necessary, suitable sanctions against offenders. 

The charter clearly states the moderators role is to uphold the spirit of the charter of the computer chess club. Not dictate computer chess topics or replies.

[michiguel]

"...no reason to force these people to read off-topic posts here..."

That is what you say and I consider it to be an extreme position as much NOBODY force nobody to read nothing.
The argument that there is other forum for that is specious. Sometime the lightly off topic subject is nevertheless connected with the content of this forum, not with the other. It is off topic, but at the same time in-topic precisely because this is computer chess place.
In fact it is the fact it is off topic which sometimes gives his interest and sometimes even charm to those posts.
In CFT all ifs off topic, so to say, so nothing is.
I really do not understand that obsession with not tolerating nothing "off topic" as if they pollute the place beyond repair.

Fern

A famous quote "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and nobody wants to look at anyone else's."

I've been a moderator too many times to count. I hold two viewpoints that apparently not everyone agrees with.

(1) an occasional off-topic post (perhaps more chess than computer chess, or more hardware than chess) I consider to be perfectly acceptable,

That was our policy.

just as surely as you can go to a computer science conference but ask a question about the SR-71 blackbird since the designer happens to be there. It would be a bit excessive to turn the entire discussion toward the SR-71, but an off-topic post, within reason, is acceptable. No politics or religion or such should get into the mix however, as there are fora for those subjects.

(2) I've never gone with the "one complaint and the moderator has to take action" point of view that has become quite the norm over the last couple of years.

False. I did stats in our first term. Half of the complaints led to no action, and most actions originated from us, before a complaint was filed.

I used to look at the complaints, look at the relevant post, and make a decision, sometimes with the other two moderators, sometimes not, based on what I see. Too much personal stuff involved when someone complains, and quite often the complaints are less about the post and more about the poster.

I've always felt lightweight moderation is the best approach, NEVER editing a post (something that still happens on occasion here)

We never edited a post.

and only deleting post for the most egregious cases. You should run again, you were a good one. You seemed to have the same philosophy as I did. Those were the days. Today things are often too draconian.

Miguel

[syzygy]

Messages aren't being deleted there. Hijacked threads are being addressed. The discussion can continue where it belongs.

The moderators do not have the power to decide what is hijacking.

Of course they do. They are moderators. They have discretionary power.