TalkChess.com

[Moderation] I have moved Ed's thread on engine similarity to the Engine Origins section. Because any discussion of actual similarity of engines (rather than on the methods to measure it) reflects directly on their origin.

Normally I would leave it up to the poster to decide which audience he wants to address. But engine origins are a sensitive subject, usually leading to heated controversies, and the Engine Origins section was created for the purpose of keeping the remaining computer-chess sections peaceful. I don't think it would be a good policy to allow discussion of engine origins elsewhere.

There also is a line of thought that considers accusations of cloning / unacknowledged deriving a personal attack or insult, in violation of the charter. This would certainly be true when such accusations were uttered without (convincing) evidence. People have actually been banned over incessantly violating the charter this way. There must be a way of reporting and subsequenty exposing wrong-doing, though; the Engine Origins section seems the natural place for this. Therefore I will not treat pointing out evidence for "over-enthousiastic borrowing of code" in the Engine Origins section as a violation of the charter.

Well, the thread was going fine, no insults seen, no accusations seen, just questions asking for explanations. Did you receive any user complaints ?

Yes, I did. More than one. I would not have cared myself; I was not even reading it.

Although I am sure not everyone will be happy with it, adopting the policy described above was the best solution I could think of.

Rebel wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:18 am Well, the thread was going fine, no insults seen, no accusations seen, just questions asking for explanations. Did you receive any user complaints ?

The similarity topic should be disregarded as a troll. That is, the topic creates insulting, pointless or hostile argument.

Well, one user was very unhappy with your thread. I think it was not very wise from him to call it a 'troll'.
No idea who complained though, but I agree with HGM that EO is the right forum for this finally.

hgm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:24 am Yes, I did. More than one. I would not have cared myself; I was not even reading it.

Although I am sure not everyone will be happy with it, adopting the policy described above was the best solution I could think of.

Okay.

hgm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:24 am Yes, I did. More than one.

Probably the same people that voted for you, and will vote again for you in next elections

Happy customers.

When are we going to get some transparency about the people reporting threads and causing forum disruption without consequences because they can remain anonymous and moderators obey them? My guess... never.

I treat complaints as confidential, and was not planning on changing this policy. People must not feel impaired by fear for petty harrassment in retaliation for flagging wrong-doing. By the nature of things it are the most aggressve and viscious members that violate rules, and have a tendency to bully other people.

Moderators do not 'obey' complaints any more than judges obey district attorneys in criminal court cases. It is their task to independently judge whether postings violate the charter (in which case they are censored or removed alltogether), or disruptive to ordered discussion (in which case they might be locked or moved). The complaints merely act to bring matters to our attention.

hgm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:07 am I treat complaints as confidential, and was not planning on changing this policy. People must not feel impaired by fear for petty harrassment in retaliation for flagging wrong-doing. By the nature of things it are the most aggressve and viscious members that violate rules, and have a tendency to bully other people.

Moderators do not 'obey' complaints any more than judges obey district attorneys in criminal court cases. It is their task to independently judge whether postings violate the charter (in which case they are censored or removed alltogether), or disruptive to ordered discussion (in which case they might be locked or moved). The complaints merely act to bring matters to our attention.

This is all fair enough, but I have a thought or two.

1. Without transparency, what is to stop a moderator from inventing an 'anonymous complaint' (or two) to further their own interest on a matter. For example, I know that you and Ed don't always see eye-to-eye and there's some bad blood. Is there a 3rd party mod who verifies that said complaints exist from real established members?

2. This brings to mind the hole in your judge analogy.

Perhaps a moderator is nothing more than a judge, but a plaintiff still has to make their case in open court, right?

If a judge and prosecution team prepared to indict a suspect for say, sexual harrassment, even in this case they'll never say "an unknown, anonymous person has made a complaint against you and we find you guilty"...this is unfair and against the spirit of legal transparency.

Instead, they'll be asked by the prosecuter: "Would you be willing to make your statement in an open court?"