Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:22:52 06/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
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... There is a valid difference of opinion. I am not pleased that so many posts were deleted either, but I am not going to crucify someone who thought they were doing the right thing about it. IMO his interpretation of the charter and prior decisions was unfortunate, but neither unbelieveable nor ridiculous. Your second paragraph contributes only sensonalization to the discussion, and IMO is unfit for an audience. For this reason, I requested that the post be deleted. Unfortunately, they have decided to leave it on, perhaps so as not to give you an excuse to flip out. Dave
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.