Author: Will Singleton
Date: 09:41:19 06/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1999 at 12:26:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 09, 1999 at 00:35:00, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On June 08, 1999 at 23:26:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 08, 1999 at 17:37:01, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>and _that_ is a problem. You were _not_ elected to set rules. You _were_ >>>elected to _enforce_ the existing rules. And nowhere do the existing rules >>>say "if you disagree with a moderator's deletion policy, this can not be >>>discussed herein." >>> >>>If we want such a rule, I'd think the group could decide that as a whole. >>> >>>That is why the US Government has a legislative branch separate from the >>>judicial and executive branches. Because you can't both write the laws, >>>interpret them, and then enforce them. We know what that is called. And >>>it is not spelled 'democracy'... >>> >> >>Hello Bob, >> >>I wrote my election platform after reading the CCC Charter. The existing rules. >> I didn't make them up, didn't even interpret. I suppose you have forgotten the >>part of the Charter where it says: >> >>"You are further agreeing to abide by the decision of the moderators should a >>post of yours be deleted and/or if you should lose your membership privileges >>after due consideration of the moderators. You also will be agreeing that the >>decision of the moderators is final." >> >>Hello? Did you read that part? Accuse me of making up rules, and being a >>dictator, do you? ;-) >> > >Yep... because the designated function of a moderator is to remove posts that >the membership here would consider objectionable. _not_ to (a) remove posts >that the moderator considers objectionable; (b) define a rule that says that >moderator decisions can _not_ be discussed. > >I have no problem reading at all. Nor in understanding. The moderators (you) >work for _us_. Not the other way around. Get the distinction? we elected you >to enforce _our_ intentions to not allow personal attacks. We did _not_ elect >you to start defining _other_ topics that are not permissable. > >Simple, really. You were out of control. I and others were not happy about >it. We voiced our opinion. You deleted those as well. That is _not_ >acceptable nor is it what I voted for you to do. In any form. And I _did_ >vote for the three that were elected plus others last election... > > > > >>Cmon, Bob, it's pretty clear. How can anyone come up with a different >>interpretation after reading that? If you want to change the Charter, fine, but >>don't accuse me of making it up out of thin air. >> >>Will > > > >Where do you see in the charter that a moderator can define topics that are >not allowed? The charter attempts to stop personal attacks _only_. Not >discussions about message board policy... that is what you tried to stifle, >and you were wrong. > >And again, we 'hired' you to enforce the 'law', not to make it, not to interpret >it. But with your interpretation, you could delete every post here, and we >don't get to question that? I don't think so... Not only do I disagree, but I fail to understand you at all. Nothing new about that. Will
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.