............stan's d man, dudes..
..................................hehehe.
Lighten up, go outside the house, get some other hobbies besides anything chess-related, go on vacation, watch the news.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Lighten up, go outside the house, get some other hobbies besides anything chess-related, go on vacation, watch the news.
Bob, let me take this into a very personal question for the best of the quality of the process of communication in CCC. BTW I agree with you in all points, content-wise. However beyond or above the mere content there is another important channel in this exchanging of messages. And my interest is to invite you to certify the following context:bob wrote:The problem is that the _potential_ is there. I didn't say it has happened, although in at least a couple of posts, deletions have given rise to alternative interpretations when sarcasm becomes lost due to deleted text...mhull wrote:I agree that would be extreme. However, I've not seen words "put into" mouths but rather "taken out of" mouths (so to speak). Always characterizing such deletions as "putting words into mouths" doesn't seem like objective assessment, but more like presenting hyperbole for the lack of a better argument.bob wrote:... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.
IMHO.
OK, there's room for multiple interpretations there. In my case, take it literally. "I don't care". Meaning _exactly_ that. I don't know him, have never met him, have not communicated with him here at all until this issue came up, etc. So it really does not matter to me whether he stays, leaves, or anything else. Wasn't meant as an insult or anything else, just a simple statement of fact...Rolf wrote:Bob, let me take this into a very personal question for the best of the quality of the process of communication in CCC. BTW I agree with you in all points, content-wise. However beyond or above the mere content there is another important channel in this exchanging of messages. And my interest is to invite you to certify the following context:bob wrote:The problem is that the _potential_ is there. I didn't say it has happened, although in at least a couple of posts, deletions have given rise to alternative interpretations when sarcasm becomes lost due to deleted text...mhull wrote:I agree that would be extreme. However, I've not seen words "put into" mouths but rather "taken out of" mouths (so to speak). Always characterizing such deletions as "putting words into mouths" doesn't seem like objective assessment, but more like presenting hyperbole for the lack of a better argument.bob wrote:... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.
IMHO.
We all know that personal 'attacks' are against the charter and therefore Graham was correct when he mentioned the perhaps unintentional use of insulting wording in an otherwise well intended and informative posting. Of course Harvey was insulting you when he called you hypocrit. Now - could you do that step and admit that you also attacked him when you wrote that you didnt care if he stayed or left?
I didn't pay any attention to the personal stuff myself, I was interested in "the actions that were taken" only, because they were contrary to the rules we have used in these events since the first CC tournament I played in in Houston in 1976 (ACM event). I told Steve to "butt out" simply because he did not have (a) the programmer's perspective on why this rule is so important; (b) the background to know that this rule has been used since the first computer chess tournament in 1970; (c) the experience of having attended many of these events to see just how seriously the participants take that rule. (granted, it has become more lax of late, as a couple of recent WCCC actions have shown, but that doesn't make any of the actions excusable or acceptable, just points out that even the ICGA TD sometimes has his head buried in a dark stinky place...I think this is a good example for this other channel, let's call it speech-power or social competence, that is used to dominate with one's arguments. I dont know Harvey at all. But since he's been connected with HIARCS he cant be unimportant for computerchess. If he failed, and he failed badly, then it could be worth while to use the psychological chanel to heal the pain one must have caused with one's arguments on the pure content based channel. Since you didnt help much on this repairing, I always thought that Graham locked the thread to give Harvey some moments to relax and to realise the whole mess. Because - I see a huge psychological problem if a real expert like Harvey makes such 'simple' and 'basic' mistakes. How could this happen? But it happened in the heat of a tournament. I wished you would have seen that of course it was your duty to set the record straight and to speak the final verdict and at the same time you could have brought peace again with an example from history, even your experience with troubled doctorands, because what has happened is no isolated and rare failure for human beings. And I am ready to give you more examples out of real sciences.
I simply don't like either the actual events that have been happened, nor the potential actions that could be taken to abuse this particular feature. Adding or deleting words or sentences makes it too easy to completely change the meaning of a post, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant...
To Graham this all should say that a minor deletion of the term 'hypocrit' would forge the whole message of the momentarily troubled writer, so that nobody could have helped him. Since we are a little community we all live with our own faults and we are real individuals because our failures among other things. The mere idea of editing someone's expressions, his speech, is against the author and the history of the whole community.
You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out thatbob wrote: I simply don't like either the actual events that have been happened, nor the potential actions that could be taken to abuse this particular feature. Adding or deleting words or sentences makes it too easy to completely change the meaning of a post, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant...
Both very good points Sam.Sam Hull wrote:You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out thatbob wrote: I simply don't like either the actual events that have been happened, nor the potential actions that could be taken to abuse this particular feature. Adding or deleting words or sentences makes it too easy to completely change the meaning of a post, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant...
(a) We are talking exclusively about deleting profanity and insults which are not suitable for this environment. No one is "adding" to anyone's words, and moderator deletions in a post are always clearly marked as such (i.e., [Deleted] ). An author who feels his post needs clarification after his cusswords and ad hominems are removed is free to expand on his ideas in a subsequent post provided he does so within the rules. He can also complain loudly and in detail about moderation if he chooses. I really don't see the danger you express concern about in this regard.
(b) In 13 months of moderation I have edited abusive language out of literally hundreds of CTF posts. I have yet to receive a single complaint by an author that his meaning was distorted by these deletions. (A time or two I have had to go back and re-edit to clarify who said what in a multi-layer post.) Personally I think your concerns in this area are without foundation, but if you can offer actual examples where moderator edits have put false words in someone's mouth or substantially changed his meaning--or even if you can demonstrate how deleting profanity and personal insults might do so in a theoretical case--I am certainly open to changing my view.
-Sam-
Sam Hull wrote:You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out thatbob wrote: I simply don't like either the actual events that have been happened, nor the potential actions that could be taken to abuse this particular feature. Adding or deleting words or sentences makes it too easy to completely change the meaning of a post, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant...
(a) We are talking exclusively about deleting profanity and insults which are not suitable for this environment. No one is "adding" to anyone's words, and moderator deletions in a post are always clearly marked as such (i.e., [Deleted] ). An author who feels his post needs clarification after his cusswords and ad hominems are removed is free to expand on his ideas in a subsequent post provided he does so within the rules. He can also complain loudly and in detail about moderation if he chooses. I really don't see the danger you express concern about in this regard.
(b) In 13 months of moderation I have edited abusive language out of literally hundreds of CTF posts. I have yet to receive a single complaint by an author that his meaning was distorted by these deletions. (A time or two I have had to go back and re-edit to clarify who said what in a multi-layer post.) Personally I think your concerns in this area are without foundation, but if you can offer actual examples where moderator edits have put false words in someone's mouth or substantially changed his meaning--or even if you can demonstrate how deleting profanity and personal insults might do so in a theoretical case--I am certainly open to changing my view.
-Sam-
You are completely missing my point.Sam Hull wrote:You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out thatbob wrote: I simply don't like either the actual events that have been happened, nor the potential actions that could be taken to abuse this particular feature. Adding or deleting words or sentences makes it too easy to completely change the meaning of a post, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant...
(a) We are talking exclusively about deleting profanity and insults which are not suitable for this environment. No one is "adding" to anyone's words, and moderator deletions in a post are always clearly marked as such (i.e., [Deleted] ). An author who feels his post needs clarification after his cusswords and ad hominems are removed is free to expand on his ideas in a subsequent post provided he does so within the rules. He can also complain loudly and in detail about moderation if he chooses. I really don't see the danger you express concern about in this regard.
(b) In 13 months of moderation I have edited abusive language out of literally hundreds of CTF posts. I have yet to receive a single complaint by an author that his meaning was distorted by these deletions. (A time or two I have had to go back and re-edit to clarify who said what in a multi-layer post.) Personally I think your concerns in this area are without foundation, but if you can offer actual examples where moderator edits have put false words in someone's mouth or substantially changed his meaning--or even if you can demonstrate how deleting profanity and personal insults might do so in a theoretical case--I am certainly open to changing my view.
-Sam-
(a) "A great f***ing idea" would not be edited (except perhaps to add the stars). Only abusive or offensive statements are being deleted--those which are forbidden by the charter.bob wrote: (1) if you delete profanity, you change the meaning of the statement. "that is bullshit" becomes "that is <blank>" What is missing? "A great f***ing idea" or "a piece of sh**"?
News reports chop up and abbreviate the content of speeches, statements, and interviews every day. Networks bleep bad language out of R-rated movies and live talk shows. Publishers edit authors; newspapers edit letters to the op-ed page. Words in public discourse get edited every day of the week.bob wrote: So delete the post, or leave it alone. Nobody has the right to change someone's words, whether by insertion, deletion, or raw modification.
It is even easier to argue that there is potential for mods to abuse the power to delete posts in their entirety--using some small pretext to erase everything someone says. Remember the debate on the old board about using the word "clone"? A mod (especially one with an agenda) could fully delete every post containing such a term and completely eviscerate one side of a debate.bob wrote: (2) the potential is there for great abuse. A moderator gets into a spat with a member, and then says "you have done this several times already..." and edits old posts to make his point. The potential is simply unacceptable and unnecessary.
actually it did not work that way in practiceGraham Banks wrote:
I've never received complaints after editing out personal insults or profanity either, and I have never changed a poster's words or added extras in.
Regards, Graham.
This is certainly one of my main concerns. I have been pursuing this issue on CTF, where several threads have become almost meaningless in the past month. The problem arises primarily when there is a lengthy time-period between the appearance of potentially "objectionable" words and phrases and their deletion. They may be quoted several times before action is taken. As I have pointed out on CTF, I always take care to try to avoid directly quoting anything I think may be edited/deleted for that very reason.this caused the context of the thread and the debate to be confused and disjointed