Questions regarding the Election and Nomination Process

[mariaclara]

............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.

[Rolf]

... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.

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.

IMHO.

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...

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:

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 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.

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.

[bob]

... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.

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.

IMHO.

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...

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:

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?

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...

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 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...

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.

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...

[Sam Hull]

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...

You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out that

(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-

[Graham Banks]

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...

You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out that

(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-

Both very good points Sam.

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.

[geots]

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...

You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out that

(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-

Hi, Sam. Impossible to disagree with anything you have said. Not surprising, as you have been as good a moderator on CTF as Graham has on CCC.

The Best,

George

[bob]

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...

You are of course completely entitled to your opinion, but with respect I will point out that

(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.

(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**"?

So delete the post, or leave it alone. Nobody has the right to change someone's words, whether by insertion, deletion, or raw modification.

(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.

If the majority here don't object to the editing idea, that's fine. It is simply important enough to me to influence whether I want to participate or not. Simple as that...

[Sam Hull]

(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**"?

(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.

(b) I suppose if you think knowing the specific content of peurile insults and abuse is important you have a point; personally I don't see the value of such knowledge to the forum.

(c) If an author puts invective in one post and valid content in another, you would (I assume) delete the abusive post and leave the other intact. But if he combines the identical statements in a single post, everything must go and deleting the abuse alone is suddenly a bad idea. Sorry, I don't get it.

So delete the post, or leave it alone. Nobody has the right to change someone's words, whether by insertion, deletion, or raw modification.

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.

Again, we're not "changing someone's words"--we are not inserting any words, and we are not doing any raw modifications. We are deleting--exactly the same thing you advocate, different only in degree. Which is a more drastic offense against an author's meaning--removing four of his words or removing all of them?

(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.

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.

But as far as that goes, if your moderators are not trustworthy it doesn't really matter what policies are in place, does it? One more reason to vote with care in the upcoming elections ...

Thanks for expressing your thoughts on the topic; I have offered mine, and we can agree to disagree.

-Sam-

[Steve B]

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.

actually it did not work that way in practice

and it is hardly the case that mostly foul language has been edited out.(if that is the current spin defending the past editing that has gone on here)

only just recently i was a party to a recent debate here where some posts were totally deleted in their entirety(no notice given about the deletion at least not to me) and other posts in that same thread were heavily edited and some only slightly edited and some of the words edited out were not foul language by any stretch of the imagination and in some cases the mod actually added comments in red..

this caused the context of the thread and the debate to be confused and disjointed

god only knows how often that has been occurring here
as i don't read every thread i had no clue how bad it has gotten

this is the obvious problem with moderators having powers to edit rather then delete only
its too discretionary

deleting only has worked perfectly for 8 long years and there is simply no compelling need to change it

none what so ever

[dj]

Steve B wrote:

this caused the context of the thread and the debate to be confused and disjointed

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.