Author: KarinsDad
Date: 16:37:31 06/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 1999 at 18:56:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 04, 1999 at 18:51:00, James T. Walker wrote: > >>Why can't we have 6 moderators? All these people will be good moderators. I >>think one of the main problems is no-one can watch the Board all the time. >>Seems like more moderators would be a big advantage?! More chance of someone >>picking up a bad post before it gets too far. >Very possibly, you like them all fine but others do not. Some may feel strongly >that certain persons should not be moderator. Besides, I happen to know of at >least one who would rather play Russian Roulette with 3 bullets missing instead >of zero. >;-) > >You make a good point. I would like to expand it. Everyone here is a moderator >[or should be]. You see something offensive, you click on the moderators email >form and the matter is taken care of immediately. Thousands of moderators are >*much* better than 3 or even 6. I think we already have hundreds (thousands seems a little high) of potential moderators already. People are already sensible for the most part. And, they have the option of Emailing a moderator. I think more than 3 moderators is an attempt to decide by committee. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that. With 3, you can have them make reasonable decisions between themselves without having to wait for Email responses from more people. Also, if you had 6 moderators, there would be a higher chance of any given post being deleted, hence, there would be a greater potential for abuse and/or mistakes which in turn would create controversy. We definitely need less of that, not more. The simpler, the better. And, I doubt any of the moderators read all of the posts, so you have to rely on the rest of the forum to handle that for you anyway. So, there is almost always someone on duty. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.