Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:40:38 06/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1999 at 01:44:48, Will Singleton wrote: >On June 09, 1999 at 21:43:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 09, 1999 at 12:41:19, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>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 would have been a good post to delete. No content of any kind. I don't >>see what you don't understand. Your stance on "no discussion of moderation >>decisions" is not supported by the CCC charter, nor by the communications >>between the 'founders', nor by popular support within the group. So where did >>this decision come from, and how is it 'justified'? >> >>Do you think we gave you a license to do whatever you feel like? Doesn't that >>sound like what the "SS" guys did in 1940's Germany? We only want the current >>rules enforced. Not 'new' rules made... >> >>at least, speaking for myself... > > >Troll away, Bob. Ditto, Will... And you don't think we have a moderator problem?
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.