OpenChess

Ovyron wrote:All that sounds too complicated and unnecessary, in my opinion, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I like top-bottom control as long as it seems to be working.

Chris Whittington wrote: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.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Ovyron wrote:All that sounds too complicated and unnecessary, in my opinion, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I like top-bottom control as long as it seems to be working.

I tend to agree. Forget I said anything. However:

Chris Whittington wrote: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.

In what way is "preventing the attitude among endusers and public that they own the place" different from the formation of cliques? The only difference is that your clique is implicit, rather than explicit. Anyway, upon further consideration, I think all of this sounds like a bad idea, and we don't need to change anything right now.

jb

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:In what way is "preventing the attitude among endusers and public that they own the place" different from the formation of cliques?

What a ridiculous question. It (talkchess) was originally a creatives forum, run by and for creatives/producers. By your argument if potato farmers make a forum to discuss potatoes, foolishly give reading/writing and voting rights to the general public, any potato farmer who says "this is crazy" when potato eaters start attacking potato farmers, is part of a "clique"? Nuts. There's a need for the creatives and producers in any field to be able to discuss with each other without having to deal with interventions from the non-creatives. That is all.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:In what way is "preventing the attitude among endusers and public that they own the place" different from the formation of cliques?

What a ridiculous question. It (talkchess) was originally a creatives forum, run by and for creatives/producers. By your argument if potato farmers make a forum to discuss potatoes, foolishly give reading/writing and voting rights to the general public, any potato farmer who says "this is crazy" when potato eaters start attacking potato farmers, is part of a "clique"? Nuts. There's a need for the creatives and producers in any field to be able to discuss with each other without having to deal with interventions from the non-creatives. That is all.

Dude, that's exactly what I said above, which you then proceeded to argue against. Anyway, this discussion has wandered very far afield...

Jeremy

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:In what way is "preventing the attitude among endusers and public that they own the place" different from the formation of cliques?

What a ridiculous question. It (talkchess) was originally a creatives forum, run by and for creatives/producers. By your argument if potato farmers make a forum to discuss potatoes, foolishly give reading/writing and voting rights to the general public, any potato farmer who says "this is crazy" when potato eaters start attacking potato farmers, is part of a "clique"? Nuts. There's a need for the creatives and producers in any field to be able to discuss with each other without having to deal with interventions from the non-creatives. That is all.

Dude, that's exactly what I said above, which you then proceeded to argue against. Anyway, this discussion has wandered very far afield...

Jeremy

Dude is an americano-specific term, and possibly a bit rude, as a resister against creeping americanisation of everything I have no real idea because I avoid these terms.

No Parlo Americano on international forum, they (or many of them) believe they own the world already.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:In what way is "preventing the attitude among endusers and public that they own the place" different from the formation of cliques?

What a ridiculous question. It (talkchess) was originally a creatives forum, run by and for creatives/producers. By your argument if potato farmers make a forum to discuss potatoes, foolishly give reading/writing and voting rights to the general public, any potato farmer who says "this is crazy" when potato eaters start attacking potato farmers, is part of a "clique"? Nuts. There's a need for the creatives and producers in any field to be able to discuss with each other without having to deal with interventions from the non-creatives. That is all.

Dude, that's exactly what I said above, which you then proceeded to argue against. Anyway, this discussion has wandered very far afield...

Jeremy

Dude is an americano-specific term, and possibly a bit rude, as a resister against creeping americanisation of everything I have no real idea because I avoid these terms.

No Parlo Americano on international forum, they (or many of them) believe they own the world already.

I considered removing it, but it so terrifically expressed that eye-rolling, teeth-gnashing feeling I was experiencing at the moment. I didn't grow up on the West Coast, but sometimes, you just have to say "dude". No disrespect intended.

jb

Chris Whittington wrote:oh, well, perhaps I should slip into French occasionally, casse-toi, pauvre con, no disrespect intended.

Chris Whittington wrote:casse-toi, pauvre con,