Is ChrisW Right??

[benstoker]

since current mod does not allow _any_ discussion remotely mentioning IP* and family without moving it to the members-only forum, those are blocked

There are still three mods last time I looked, although for some reason I don't seem to be getting much help.

Once it was made clear that it was only links to the Ippo engines that weren't allowed, I invited my fellow mods to put back any of the recent discussion threads that they wished, as long as links were removed. That was straight after Sam posted that I had misunderstood the wording of the directive given.

Cheers,
Graham.

You do realize that this issue has surfaced a _bunch_ of times. Almost immediately after being elected, the rampage began, if you recall...

Yes - it happened twice.
The first time was when my fellow mods allowed a link. I objected very strongly at the time because I believed they'd broken an agreement that had been made earlier.
The second time was a few days back when I wrongly understood "not encouraging people to acquire these engines" meant more than just disallowing links.

Cheers,
Graham.

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

[bob]

since current mod does not allow _any_ discussion remotely mentioning IP* and family without moving it to the members-only forum, those are blocked

There are still three mods last time I looked, although for some reason I don't seem to be getting much help.

Once it was made clear that it was only links to the Ippo engines that weren't allowed, I invited my fellow mods to put back any of the recent discussion threads that they wished, as long as links were removed. That was straight after Sam posted that I had misunderstood the wording of the directive given.

Cheers,
Graham.

You do realize that this issue has surfaced a _bunch_ of times. Almost immediately after being elected, the rampage began, if you recall...

Yes - it happened twice.
The first time was when my fellow mods allowed a link. I objected very strongly at the time because I believed they'd broken an agreement that had been made earlier.
The second time was a few days back when I wrongly understood "not encouraging people to acquire these engines" meant more than just disallowing links.

Cheers,
Graham.

Not sure what +you+ mean by "it happened twice" but it happened _many_ more times than that. From editing posts. To deciding that _any_ post mentioning IP* or Robo* should be deleted, moved or whatever.

if it had just been only twice...

[Graham Banks]

since current mod does not allow _any_ discussion remotely mentioning IP* and family without moving it to the members-only forum, those are blocked

There are still three mods last time I looked, although for some reason I don't seem to be getting much help.

Once it was made clear that it was only links to the Ippo engines that weren't allowed, I invited my fellow mods to put back any of the recent discussion threads that they wished, as long as links were removed. That was straight after Sam posted that I had misunderstood the wording of the directive given.

Cheers,
Graham.

You do realize that this issue has surfaced a _bunch_ of times. Almost immediately after being elected, the rampage began, if you recall...

Yes - it happened twice.
The first time was when my fellow mods allowed a link. I objected very strongly at the time because I believed they'd broken an agreement that had been made earlier.
The second time was a few days back when I wrongly understood "not encouraging people to acquire these engines" meant more than just disallowing links.

Cheers,
Graham.

Not sure what +you+ mean by "it happened twice" but it happened _many_ more times than that. From editing posts. To deciding that _any_ post mentioning IP* or Robo* should be deleted, moved or whatever.

if it had just been only twice...

Okay - I thought you were referring to the major moderator disagreements.

Firstly the only post I have edited was to remove a link to a forum that has pirated commercial engines available for download. I do not believe that posts should be edited in any other way.
Secondly, yes, there were occasions very early on in the term where I moved some threads to the EO subforum. I won't lie about that. However, I stopped doing that.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Sam Hull]

The problem is links. People post links all the time. Occasionally on JamPlay someone will post a youtube link to some new tune they recorded. And when you click the link you are prompted to login before you can see the video. Others post links to non-login videos that anybody can see.

That's the point here. Someone should be able to cite a discussion in CCC/CEO and the link should work. But it won't. Yet posting a link to the programmer's forum will work just fine.

If you are logged in links work just fine. Nobody could publicly link anything on the old CCC, as I'm sure you remember.

On the other side of the argument is that in a non-publicly viewable forum there is opportunity to exchange ideas on controversial and/or emotionally charged topics (which regularly develop into heated arguments salted with intemperate words) without having every word you say, tagged with your "real name," permanently recorded and available for the entire world to Google. (One answer to the question you asked twice in another thread.)

Links work for members. Privacy protects members. The board exists for members. Anyone with a legitimate interest in what is discussed here can take 45 seconds of his time and become a member. Just like in the good old days.

-Sam-

And since current mod does not allow _any_ discussion remotely mentioning IP* and family without moving it to the members-only forum, those are blocked. I don't write things on a forum that I don't want others to see. That would seem to be a bit stupid, would it not? This seems to be a case of some write things that _others_ don't want the world to see, IMHO.

Well, you are entitled to your HO, but it's erroneous. You also tend to lump your disagreement with the actions of one moderator with board policy, as though one is responsible for or necessarily reflects the other. That isn't the case.

There is no agenda here except to provide an environment where member discussions can be carried on in a reasonable manner. When you left RGCC you "hid" the whole forum for nine years. Does that mean people were saying things you didn't want the world to see? Of course not.

Certainly I saw no request for a members-only forum to discuss engine origins, although the forum itself is a reasonable idea were it not members-only.

Well, Bob, evidently it hasn't occurred to you that without access to my e-mail, PMs, and the mod forum there is an awful lot you don't see.

People post links to other forums all the time, here. Yet we can't do the same on other forums.

Why not make everything in CCC visible AND let the general public post in all forums as well? Why limit them to read-only access? Why let only members post? Are you afraid of what someone might say? Is it wrong for moderators to carry on internal discussions in non-public venues? Shouldn't everyone be able to read and evaluate their deliberations? Some would be interested in reading your PMs and e-mails - why don't you publish them all in a worldwide, publicly accessible forum? Are things said in there that you don't want the world to see?


-Sam-

[Graham Banks]

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

I'll leave it to the experts.

[bob]

The problem is links. People post links all the time. Occasionally on JamPlay someone will post a youtube link to some new tune they recorded. And when you click the link you are prompted to login before you can see the video. Others post links to non-login videos that anybody can see.

That's the point here. Someone should be able to cite a discussion in CCC/CEO and the link should work. But it won't. Yet posting a link to the programmer's forum will work just fine.

If you are logged in links work just fine. Nobody could publicly link anything on the old CCC, as I'm sure you remember.

On the other side of the argument is that in a non-publicly viewable forum there is opportunity to exchange ideas on controversial and/or emotionally charged topics (which regularly develop into heated arguments salted with intemperate words) without having every word you say, tagged with your "real name," permanently recorded and available for the entire world to Google. (One answer to the question you asked twice in another thread.)

Links work for members. Privacy protects members. The board exists for members. Anyone with a legitimate interest in what is discussed here can take 45 seconds of his time and become a member. Just like in the good old days.

-Sam-

And since current mod does not allow _any_ discussion remotely mentioning IP* and family without moving it to the members-only forum, those are blocked. I don't write things on a forum that I don't want others to see. That would seem to be a bit stupid, would it not? This seems to be a case of some write things that _others_ don't want the world to see, IMHO.

Well, you are entitled to your HO, but it's erroneous. You also tend to lump your disagreement with the actions of one moderator with board policy, as though one is responsible for or necessarily reflects the other. That isn't the case.

There is no agenda here except to provide an environment where member discussions can be carried on in a reasonable manner. When you left RGCC you "hid" the whole forum for nine years. Does that mean people were saying things you didn't want the world to see? Of course not.

Since you were not there, some background. We considered several alternatives. rec.games.chess.computers was an unmoderated newsgroup. It is a non-trivial (and lengthy) process to change that. And we had enough rabble-rousers that would have been difficult to do anyway. I don't remember who first contacted ICD, it was not me although I had known Steve prior to CCC. It was proposed as an alternative, and after trying it, my first comment was "this sucks with two straws. Can't read/post offline, can't buffer posts and read when I want. NO threaded view. Requires a login and signup. Etc." But we ultimately went with it as the only way to escape the 90% noise in r.g.c.c.

It is _still_ a lousy replacement for usenet news, which doesn't require that one server handle all traffic, which causes one critical network path that can make things slow, as CCC is today. usenet news transfers posts non-stop so that all servers have a copy of everything. When you read, it is at local LAN speed, not at the speed of whatever CCC is hosted at.

But all that aside, it was chosen as the only alternative that was deemed workable, and it succeeded. But now we start getting into issues of suppression without any proof whatsoever, and taking a forum that has become fairly well-known, where other message boards quote us via links all the time, and suddenly, for the one forum that probably provides more useful information about the legality of program, and that is off-limits. And no, when I am on another site and it sends me to a passworded forum, I do _not_ join. I just hit "back" and miss whatever data I might have found useful. That could easily be avoided here, and I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be avoided. The only plausible explanation is to keep the content out of the general public's eye.

Certainly I saw no request for a members-only forum to discuss engine origins, although the forum itself is a reasonable idea were it not members-only.

Well, Bob, evidently it hasn't occurred to you that without access to my e-mail, PMs, and the mod forum there is an awful lot you don't see.

Do you _really_ want to say that a majority of CCC members asked you to create a members-only forum for engine origin discussions? Or do you more realistically want to say that the current moderators asked for a new forum, and most likely one or two (counting cff moderators) wanted it members-only?

When we split general and programming topics, there was a membership discussion about the idea before it was implemented. This just came "down from above" somewhere...

People post links to other forums all the time, here. Yet we can't do the same on other forums.

Why not make everything in CCC visible AND let the general public post in all forums as well? Why limit them to read-only access? Why let only members post? Are you afraid of what someone might say? Is it wrong for moderators to carry on internal discussions in non-public venues? Shouldn't everyone be able to read and evaluate their deliberations? Some would be interested in reading your PMs and e-mails - why don't you publish them all in a worldwide, publicly accessible forum? Are things said in there that you don't want the world to see?


-Sam-

I like the signup to post idea, because it provides a moderation tool to keep out those that only want to create noise. Rolf as but one example. But I see no reason to make it login to read/write. Else why not make the whole thing members-only to be consistent? Makes absolutely no sense to have six of one, half dozen of the other, without any rhyme or reason as to which is public and which is members-only, except from (apparently) moderator input.

We elect moderators to moderate. Not establish forum policy.

[benstoker]

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

I'll leave it to the experts.

Nuremberg defense.

[Graham Banks]

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

I'll leave it to the experts.

Nuremberg defense.

I get the impression that you'd have come up with some sort of smart answer no matter what my reply was.

[benstoker]

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

I'll leave it to the experts.

Nuremberg defense.

I get the impression that you'd have come up with some sort of smart answer no matter what my reply was.

You act without ability to justify your actions. You avoid even the opportunity to justify your actions and beliefs. You create havoc and discord by your actions that you cannot justify. You are convinced of the truth of your position without any need or even any apparent desire for proof or evidence of any kind. You have in various ways fought to chill discussion of ip*. You take one person's unsubstantiated, unsupported, vague singular clone accusation as apodeictic truth and then carry out a 'moderation' policy explicitly designed to stymie public debate of the ip* issue. You are perhaps singlehandedly responsible for the forum schism. Or you certainly pushed it off the cliff. And all you can say to justify your actions is "I'll defer to the experts."

So now that the experts have spoken you are silent. A naked man in a tree.




of censorship

[bob]

Banks, what if anything can you offer to counter the BB study?

I'll leave it to the experts.

The "experts" have already weighed in on this months ago. No proof of any kind to support the ipp* family is a clone claim. Yet we went thru the hundreds of complaints from you about each and every ip* post while we were mods, and as soon as you were elected, here comes the delete button. "leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.