Author: Will Singleton
Date: 14:37:01 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 16:33:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 08, 1999 at 13:13:09, Will Singleton wrote: > >>Sounds pretty reasonable, on the whole. Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's >>say a member becomes angry over his deleted post, and re-posts the message, >>along with some commentary about how he can't understand why the post was >>deleted, here everyone, look at it. Or, someone takes it upon himself to >>re-post the messages of other members that were deleted. And, say further that >>this person is well-known and has some standing in the chess community. >>Hypothetically speaking. What do you do? > >The point of the word "hypothetical" is that you refer to something that didn't >happen. In this case this did happen, I did it. I made it hypothetical because I didn't want to re-hash the actual incident. One can certainly speak abstractly about real events that have occurred in the past, in an effort to determine how the event might be handled in the future. > >I did it because you were kicking people in the face. It became apparent that >it had become very easy to delete a post, and that you were doing it often, upon >little provocation, and with no notice. This made me furious and still does. You have a flair for colorful language, I sometimes appreciate that. But I dispute your characterization of my actions. Moreover, the fact that you become furious does not empower you as a pseudo-moderator. Turn it around. What will you do as a moderator if someone becomes furious at you, and re-posts his and others' deleted messages? What if everyone did it? > >As far as I can tell, you and Harald are both into this, but I can't believe >that Peter is, despite occasional posts by people other than Peter that you guys >are acting together. We all have exercised our ability to remove messages in a timely fashion, subject to peer review. > >You made it clear from before day one that you wouldn't tolerate discussion of >"moderation issues" on CCC. I think that was a crock then and I think it is a >crock now. A moderator should not have the power to absolutely forbid any >discussion of his decisions. Your election was not a mandate to do this kind of >thing. > When we were elected, we spent a week or so working out a method of moderation. After some negotiation, this was eventually written out and agreed to. Some of us may have supported certain items more than others, but the document was accepted by all. And it included the provision to disallow discussions of deleted messages. >This is a very sad place when you have to save the URL's of posts you make that >disagree with a moderator on some issue, so you can go check later to see if >they are still there. > Now don't confuse the issue. There is a clear distinction between a prohibition of the discussion of moderator issues, and disallowing complaints about the removal of a specific post. One can certainly discuss how and why and if posts should be deleted (though I was opposed to that before, as you say). The intent is to prevent argument on each individual action (could be a lot), while preserving the ability to argue in the abstract. The latter will address the former, with less grief. Will
This page took 0.01 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.