"An Open Letter to Cock de Gorter and the CSVN Board"

[Chris Whittington]

In the case of something like ccc, if you wish to understand it, it's important to consider its purpose from POV the owners and/or effective controllers, and, in such a case, to deny it exists in order to increase sales revenues would seem a bit dumb. Business exist in order to maximise revenues and profits, no?

Sure, which is part of the reason why OpenChess was started. However, faulting the membership for not being consumers is also a bit dumb.

Your penultimate paragraph is a bit of a cheek. talkchess is not just *A* comp chess forum, it was set up by a group of producers/creatives to continue the role of the effective producer/creative forum rgcc without also being spammed by stroppy endusers and members of the public. ie a place for creatives to discuss. This original role has essentially been hijacked by the shop ICD who wanted all along no more than a replacement for the redundant CCR, ie control over a media channel to encourage endusers into their space and provide the more fanatical amongst them of a feeling of "home". It never made sense in a creatives forum to give endusers a vote with the result that enduser hobby ideology dominates and creatives go elsewhere.

Or are you saying a creatives forum was never acceptable to you in the first place?

Not at all. In fact, I think that creatives need a place for discussion away from the noise necessarily created by non-creatives. You just can't have it both ways -- if you open the doors for everyone, including testers, normal users, freaks and cranks, you can't tell all of those people you let in to stfu and let you have your discussion.

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

your first sentence is not my position, and seems pointed at HW, so I'll ignore it ...

your other idea is badly flawed, it will need a committee to decide who is in and who is out, and that will rapidly turn into the sort of power centre you won't like (unless of course you're the committee, in which cxase you'll like it, but few others will). How would you identify new people as time went on? Bad idea.

Better idea is somewhere pre-structured to do the task, but without the possibility of cliques or one party groups arising to try and control access etc.

It may be possible to morph this place into something desirable. It is not so important to keep out everybody else non-creative, there's no reason to prevent anyone from reading and it is quite conceivable that anyone could write as well - it's just necessary to prevent the attitude amongst endusers and public that they own the place, or whatever expression one would use. The problem with ccc/talkchess is that some maniacal endusers feel at home there, feel it is their right to chase out creatives who oppose the Iraq war, for just one example, and so on. It was the icd shop that deliberately gave them the "at home" feeling by introducing the one man one vote. Oh and don't make a contract with Frohlick to plaster the walls with right wing christian national enquirer filth - that's hardly useful either.

[kingliveson]

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

No. The purpose of the forum (AFAIC) is to provide an independent, uncensored, non-influencable discussion platform revolving around the topic of computer chess. If a group of the membership believes that their discussion needs to be held in a smaller circle of specialists, I don't see how that's in conflict with independence or lack of censorship. We don't let everyone read what we write in the moderator forum, either -- it's a sub-discussion which isn't relevant for most members.

I'm not saying that this is my greatest wish for the forum, but I'd like to acknowledge the validity of the issue that Chris is concerned about.

Jeremy

It would definitely be a bad idea in my opinion because the mod forum is something totally different. A bad idea because those technical knowledge shared need to be public especially on a Open Chess forum -- with it private, it's wasted knowledge. A bad idea again, because it creates classes within the forum. Such type of forum should be a stand-alone forum.

I remember when Don D. suggested that there might be a private Rybka version (which he hasn't seen) much more stronger than any chess engine out there today -- but then what good is a private chess engine which no one else except one gets to test? Even if 5 people got to see and test this "amazing" chess program, still, what good is it?!

[Chris Whittington]

another approach could be to move away from the top down nature of all the forums, including this one. Top-down meaning it's in the hands of the people who set it up, control flows from the top and is ultimately exercised by punitive sanctions at the gate or on posts.

Bottom-up has been demonstrated effective by Twitter, the users make their own forum and no users forum is like any other. All it seems to require is a bit of thought in setup, and the use of follow and unfollow, each user decides who he wants to read, and thus creates his own forum group. Positive feedback comes from being followed, and negative feedback by being unfollowed. Follow lists are open for all to see. Moderation is not needed at all, it is up to each participant, in effect, to decide who he wants to follow/read. Spammers, OT's, idiots etc will rapidly find nobody reads them, so what's the point of their writing? etc.

The result is a self-regulating democracy, where people are rewarded for the brilliancy of their posts (or, for some, their fame). I could drone on, but you get the point .....

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

No. The purpose of the forum (AFAIC) is to provide an independent, uncensored, non-influencable discussion platform revolving around the topic of computer chess. If a group of the membership believes that their discussion needs to be held in a smaller circle of specialists, I don't see how that's in conflict with independence or lack of censorship. We don't let everyone read what we write in the moderator forum, either -- it's a sub-discussion which isn't relevant for most members.

I'm not saying that this is my greatest wish for the forum, but I'd like to acknowledge the validity of the issue that Chris is concerned about.

Jeremy

It would definitely be a bad idea in my opinion because the mod forum is something totally different. A bad idea because those technical knowledge shared need to be public especially on a Open Chess forum -- with it private, it's wasted knowledge. A bad idea again, because it creates classes within the forum. Such type of forum should be a stand-alone forum.

I remember when Don D. suggested that there might be a private Rybka version (which he hasn't seen) much more stronger than any chess engine out there today -- but then what good is a private chess engine which no one else except one gets to test? Even if 5 people got to see and test this "amazing" chess program, still, what good is it?!

[kingliveson]

another approach could be to move away from the top down nature of all the forums, including this one. Top-down meaning it's in the hands of the people who set it up, control flows from the top and is ultimately exercised by punitive sanctions at the gate or on posts.

Bottom-up has been demonstrated effective by Twitter, the users make their own forum and no users forum is like any other. All it seems to require is a bit of thought in setup, and the use of follow and unfollow, each user decides who he wants to read, and thus creates his own forum group. Positive feedback comes from being followed, and negative feedback by being unfollowed. Follow lists are open for all to see. Moderation is not needed at all, it is up to each participant, in effect, to decide who he wants to follow/read. Spammers, OT's, idiots etc will rapidly find nobody reads them, so what's the point of their writing? etc.

The result is a self-regulating democracy, where people are rewarded for the brilliancy of their posts (or, for some, their fame). I could drone on, but you get the point .....

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

No. The purpose of the forum (AFAIC) is to provide an independent, uncensored, non-influencable discussion platform revolving around the topic of computer chess. If a group of the membership believes that their discussion needs to be held in a smaller circle of specialists, I don't see how that's in conflict with independence or lack of censorship. We don't let everyone read what we write in the moderator forum, either -- it's a sub-discussion which isn't relevant for most members.

I'm not saying that this is my greatest wish for the forum, but I'd like to acknowledge the validity of the issue that Chris is concerned about.

Jeremy

It would definitely be a bad idea in my opinion because the mod forum is something totally different. A bad idea because those technical knowledge shared need to be public especially on a Open Chess forum -- with it private, it's wasted knowledge. A bad idea again, because it creates classes within the forum. Such type of forum should be a stand-alone forum.

I remember when Don D. suggested that there might be a private Rybka version (which he hasn't seen) much more stronger than any chess engine out there today -- but then what good is a private chess engine which no one else except one gets to test? Even if 5 people got to see and test this "amazing" chess program, still, what good is it?!

I have never found enough reason to create a twitter , myspace, or facebook account -- perhaps am behind the times -- so my knowledge on how it works might not be a accurate. Since you dont get to approve your followers, and your followers can post on your user forum (twitter approach), then spam can still find its way through. Even then, such type of social medium serves a different purpose than a forum as this one.

[Hood]

leave, go elsewhere, vote with your feet

Do not you think that it is better to programm sth then write such crap ?

[Hood]

if you have a pile of shit in front of your house, do you allow it to stay there ?

Of course not but i will avoid to be too near :_)

[Chris Whittington]

another approach could be to move away from the top down nature of all the forums, including this one. Top-down meaning it's in the hands of the people who set it up, control flows from the top and is ultimately exercised by punitive sanctions at the gate or on posts.

Bottom-up has been demonstrated effective by Twitter, the users make their own forum and no users forum is like any other. All it seems to require is a bit of thought in setup, and the use of follow and unfollow, each user decides who he wants to read, and thus creates his own forum group. Positive feedback comes from being followed, and negative feedback by being unfollowed. Follow lists are open for all to see. Moderation is not needed at all, it is up to each participant, in effect, to decide who he wants to follow/read. Spammers, OT's, idiots etc will rapidly find nobody reads them, so what's the point of their writing? etc.

The result is a self-regulating democracy, where people are rewarded for the brilliancy of their posts (or, for some, their fame). I could drone on, but you get the point .....

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

No. The purpose of the forum (AFAIC) is to provide an independent, uncensored, non-influencable discussion platform revolving around the topic of computer chess. If a group of the membership believes that their discussion needs to be held in a smaller circle of specialists, I don't see how that's in conflict with independence or lack of censorship. We don't let everyone read what we write in the moderator forum, either -- it's a sub-discussion which isn't relevant for most members.

I'm not saying that this is my greatest wish for the forum, but I'd like to acknowledge the validity of the issue that Chris is concerned about.

Jeremy

It would definitely be a bad idea in my opinion because the mod forum is something totally different. A bad idea because those technical knowledge shared need to be public especially on a Open Chess forum -- with it private, it's wasted knowledge. A bad idea again, because it creates classes within the forum. Such type of forum should be a stand-alone forum.

I remember when Don D. suggested that there might be a private Rybka version (which he hasn't seen) much more stronger than any chess engine out there today -- but then what good is a private chess engine which no one else except one gets to test? Even if 5 people got to see and test this "amazing" chess program, still, what good is it?!

I have never found enough reason to create a twitter , myspace, or facebook account -- perhaps am behind the times -- so my knowledge on how it works might not be a accurate. Since you dont get to approve your followers, and your followers can post on your user forum (twitter approach), then spam can still find its way through. Even then, such type of social medium serves a different purpose than a forum as this one.

I'm not suggesting that forums become "social media", simply that it might be worth considering emulating one aspect of social media such as twitter which is the bottom-up user control.

It's true you don't get to approve your followers, in the sense that it is the follower who makes the decision to follow you. But it is not true that spam gets through.

Suppose X, Y and Z are set up so they all follow each other - everything each one writes is sent to the others. Now McC wants to spam or stalk, but nobody of X,Y,Z follows him. He can send a Tweet to X by tweeting "@X you are stupid", but Y and Z won't see it, nor will anyone else, unless they make a deliberate effort to find McC's tweets. AXwill see it, but he can ignore it on the basis that nobody else has, so he needn't waste his time making a refutation. McC can't spam the entire group. Perfect, no? Bottom up censorship, carried out in whatever way each individual wants, and not because some idiot moderator makes a global decision.

I'm fairly confident that with some thought, and tweaking of forum software, it ought to be possible to get a user defined follow/unfollow system that would do away with the need for moderators.

In fact, you could end up with one giant forum, split into self-defined yet fluid interest groups, some people crossing over between groups, being in more than one group simultaneously and each person defining for himself who he does and who he doesn't want to follow.

[Chris Whittington]

leave, go elsewhere, vote with your feet

Do not you think that it is better to programm sth then write such crap ?

You are forgiven for misinterpreting my writing. It helps to have the rest of the thread btw.

[kingliveson]

I'm not suggesting that forums become "social media", simply that it might be worth considering emulating one aspect of social media such as twitter which is the bottom-up user control.

It's true you don't get to approve your followers, in the sense that it is the follower who makes the decision to follow you. But it is not true that spam gets through.

Suppose X, Y and Z are set up so they all follow each other - everything each one writes is sent to the others. Now McC wants to spam or stalk, but nobody of X,Y,Z follows him. He can send a Tweet to X by tweeting "@X you are stupid", but Y and Z won't see it, nor will anyone else, unless they make a deliberate effort to find McC's tweets. AXwill see it, but he can ignore it on the basis that nobody else has, so he needn't waste his time making a refutation. McC can't spam the entire group. Perfect, no? Bottom up censorship, carried out in whatever way each individual wants, and not because some idiot moderator makes a global decision.

I'm fairly confident that with some thought, and tweaking of forum software, it ought to be possible to get a user defined follow/unfollow system that would do away with the need for moderators.

In fact, you could end up with one giant forum, split into self-defined yet fluid interest groups, some people crossing over between groups, being in more than one group simultaneously and each person defining for himself who he does and who he doesn't want to follow.

The forum structure and organization remains the same I guess with just addition of follow/unfollow. Though I much prefer the even level approach where one can just open the forum and decide what to read and where to post for all to see.

[Chris Whittington]

I'm not suggesting that forums become "social media", simply that it might be worth considering emulating one aspect of social media such as twitter which is the bottom-up user control.

It's true you don't get to approve your followers, in the sense that it is the follower who makes the decision to follow you. But it is not true that spam gets through.

Suppose X, Y and Z are set up so they all follow each other - everything each one writes is sent to the others. Now McC wants to spam or stalk, but nobody of X,Y,Z follows him. He can send a Tweet to X by tweeting "@X you are stupid", but Y and Z won't see it, nor will anyone else, unless they make a deliberate effort to find McC's tweets. AXwill see it, but he can ignore it on the basis that nobody else has, so he needn't waste his time making a refutation. McC can't spam the entire group. Perfect, no? Bottom up censorship, carried out in whatever way each individual wants, and not because some idiot moderator makes a global decision.

I'm fairly confident that with some thought, and tweaking of forum software, it ought to be possible to get a user defined follow/unfollow system that would do away with the need for moderators.

In fact, you could end up with one giant forum, split into self-defined yet fluid interest groups, some people crossing over between groups, being in more than one group simultaneously and each person defining for himself who he does and who he doesn't want to follow.

The forum structure and organization remains the same I guess with just addition of follow/unfollow. Though I much prefer the even level approach where one can just open the forum and decide what to read and where to post for all to see.

well, it would probably need a bit more thought than just follow/unfollow. If the default condition for a new user was to be following nobody, how would he know who to follow? If default was to follow everybody, then spammers and stalkers have their immediate audience. A possibility would be default to follow nobody, but have access to everybody's public lists, for example TC might have built a public programmers list, you could choose to start by following that (for example). Or users could declare themselves, programmer, tester, enduser etc etc and be pointed at like and so on. Dunno, needs thought.
Twitter has the concept of trending topics, you can follow a topic. You could have a list of frequent posters and follow part of all of that etc