Originally posted by RagnorakOf course I wouldn't be happy for that to happen. I don't actually think it would, and given the moderation regime in force at the moment, why couldn't that happen now?
So you're happy for RHP to become the new KKK hangout?
D
BTW: You read my posts as being hostile. I read yours as being intellectually snobby. 😉
And if it did, would we all be powerless to resist? Would young chess players start wearing pillow cases? Or would their ridiculous views be soundly rejected?
Are you that scared of free speech?
And why on earth do you think I'm being an intellectual snob?
Originally posted by ivangriceUnfortunately, it doesn't make for a very enjoyable environment, as evidenced in another unmoderated forum which stopped being fun when 1 seriously racist A hole joined in.
And if it did, would we all be powerless to resist? Would young chess players start wearing pillow cases? Or would their ridiculous views be soundly rejected?
Are you that scared of free speech?
And why on earth do you think I'm being an intellectual snob?
"posts that subscribe to this view are rightly rejected as crass by thinking people, and the unintelligent use of profanity simply devalues the post. "
Implying, I assume, that you are lumped in with the "thinking people" here who look down on posters who may not be able to express themselves as well as others.
D
Originally posted by no1marauderYou accuse me of not being clear about my view that I want no moderation of the Forums. I prove that I have been clear. Perhaps you could acknowledge that?
WTF??????????????????
I've been arguing the position I just espoused before you were even a subscriber at RHP.
EDIT: Correction - I misread your profile. I've been arguing the position I just espoused for about a year and a half.
My view is founded on a principle; yours on an accommodation with an inconsistent system. I want to know what moderation is for. You don't care as long as you're happy with the fudged compromise. I may be more idealistic than you (I doubt it), but no-one has yet given me a good reason why no moderation would not work. All I am being told is: don't rock the boat, Russ owns the site, if you don't like it go away. It's not good enough.
You are, I believe, a lawyer (I may be mistaken on that). The law is a principle; its implementation can sometimes give rise to inconsistency, but it has a purpose, and attempts are made constantly to address the inconsistencies. Why are you happy with this moderation accommodation?
Originally posted by RagnorakYou assume too much. We all have the faculty of assessing others' posts (we all 'think'😉. If I don't agree with how a point is made, I form a view of the person making it and my assessment of that person's future posts is coloured by that view.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make for a very enjoyable environment, as evidenced in another unmoderated forum which stopped being fun when 1 seriously racist A hole joined in.
"posts that subscribe to this view are rightly rejected as crass by thinking people, and the unintelligent use of profanity simply devalues the post. "
Implying, I assume, that you a ...[text shortened]... who look down on posters who may not be able to express themselves as well as others.
D
IQ has nothing to do with it.
I can remember a number of people I would view as fools being on this site over the past couple of years. All of them have left without being banned, because the community is not fragile.
Originally posted by NordlysTo be clear:
Ivangrice has been going on and on about saying that he wants NO moderation at all in the forums, and he has never contradicted himself about that point. My opinion about this is a bit different, I think a certain amount of moderation may be necessary, and in some cases (when no interesting content is lost due to moderation) I don't care one way or the other ...[text shortened]... been what I have been most worried about, I know it's not possible to be entirely consistent.
1) IMO, no moderation is necessary in an internet forum;
2) MO is not the O of the Site Administrators;
3) Given 1 and 2, I have consistently advocated as little moderation as possible.
4) The Site Admins have made it clear that they regard extreme profanity as a unacceptable. That is their prerogative. While I may disagree with that, I don't think it's worth a big fight over. Basically, we all pretty much know what extreme profanity is and refraining from using it is no big deal.
5) But when you start drifting from those areas, it gets too murky and unclear for any consistent guidelines to be created. What is an insult? Is you "want to kill babies" said to someone who favors abortion rights an insult? I would take it as such. Is "you favor mass murder of Muslims" to someone who wants military action against Muslim country X an insult? They may very well take it as such. The point being that, unlike profanity, there just aren't any reasonable lines that people can know in advance on insults or "flamming". Thus, to moderate extreme profanity because lines can be drawn that are clear to a "reasonable man" but not moderate "flamming" because lines cannot be drawn is not inconsistent. It is logical and rational.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe still come back to the question - what is moderation for?
To be clear:
1) IMO, no moderation is necessary in an internet forum;
2) MO is not the O of the Site Administrators;
3) Given 1 and 2, I have consistently advocated as little moderation as possible.
4) The Site Admins have made it clear that they regard extreme profanity as a unacceptable. That is the ...[text shortened]... ing" because lines cannot be drawn is not inconsistent. It is logical and rational.
If we are not prepared to answer it, but simply moderate swearing because it is relatively easy to do so...well, what 'good' is being served there?
Originally posted by ivangriceTo answer your last question, I'm "happy" with the accomodation, even though it is suboptimal IMO, because it's reasonable and rationale and the great bulk of speech is allowed. If you belonged to any other chess sites on the web (as I do) you would know that RHP has the most active, most interesting and least moderated Forums of them all. And that ain't bad.
You accuse me of not being clear about my view that I want no moderation of the Forums. I prove that I have been clear. Perhaps you could acknowledge that?
My view is founded on a principle; yours on an accommodation with an inconsistent system. I want to know what moderation is for. You don't care as long as you're happy with the fudged compromise. ...[text shortened]... ntly to address the inconsistencies. Why are you happy with this moderation accommodation?
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, I accept that. I just think it could be better, and that we shouldn't be afraid of truly free speech.
To answer your last question, I'm "happy" with the accomodation, even though it is suboptimal IMO, because it's reasonable and rationale and the great bulk of speech is allowed. If you belonged to any other chess sites on the web (as I do) you would know that RHP has the most active, most interesting and least moderated Forums of them all. And that ain't bad.
I think that the present level of moderation has the right balance. Most get quite a bit of latitude regarding content and profanity, probably none more than me. The important thing is to realise where the line is drawn - stick a toe over from time to time and nobody will notice. Pitch a tent over there and start selling oranges and you'll be gone.
skeeter
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're so sexy when your assertive.
To be clear:
1) IMO, no moderation is necessary in an internet forum;
2) MO is not the O of the Site Administrators;
3) Given 1 and 2, I have consistently advocated as little moderation as possible.
4) The Site Admins have made it clear that they regard extreme profanity as a unacceptable. That is the ...[text shortened]... ing" because lines cannot be drawn is not inconsistent. It is logical and rational.