Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 13:59:55 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
The moderators are unlikely to post especially noxious messages, so eight hours probably isn't much of a problem. That won't catch an especially destructive moderator, but hopefully that individual would not have been elected in the first place. So maybe scope isn't much of a problem. Roger On July 23, 1999 at 11:35:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 23, 1999 at 04:55:33, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>You read a bit into my message, Karinsdad. I didn't suggest that we leave >>irrelevant posts on for 8 hours, or any period of time. I also did not suggest >>that the moderators were immune to moderation. I also consider it irrelevant >>whether Fernando abided by the CCC charter, or not, and IMHO, it is irrelevant >>whether his post was deleted, or not. And whether my view is typical of society >>is off the point. >> >>What is relevant is the way that it was deleted. I'm not arguing with the ends, >>just the means. We need to keep our moderators, cause it's hell getting people >>to do the job. That means we need a mechanism whereby if actions are taken to >>delete a moderator's post, another moderator doesn't get blamed, thus creating >>these threads, which is what just happened. >> >>I have proposed such a mechanism. I am not taking sides, and I have not been >>taken in. It is completely possible that Fernando should not have posted what he >>did and that Bruce should not have deleted it. If you focus on the ends, the >>actual post, then it's an either-or issue, Fernando versus Bruce. >> >>But if you focus on the means, the issue is DUE PROCESS, and how a mechanism >>which simulates due process can be created with three moderators, so that we can >>work another kink out of our little forum. Otherwise, there is always a >>potential for one moderator to abuse another, or to make power plays that rely >>on his or her personal popularity (and I am not saying that that is what Bruce >>did, only that such a thing is an abstract possibility). >> >>Roger >> >> >> > > >your approach is very restricted in scope. We have three moderators. One is >going to post something that should not be posted. A second notices this and >now needs to contact the third. There is a fair chance that this will take at >_least_ 8 hours due to world geography. How do you handle that? To make this >work, we would need _nine_ moderators, three each in different 8 hour time >zones. So that at any point, there is a good probability that 3 of the >moderators can get in contact as it is 'prime time' there. > >Bruce lives in Pacific time (NYC - 3 hrs). I don't have any idea where >Karinsdad lives. Fernando lives at (roughly) NYC + 6(or 7) hours. They are >too spread out and when the original post showed up around NY time 2200 hours, >if the third moderator happens to be in Europe, then Bruce would be out of luck >until the next day... because by the time Europe is waking up, he has long since >gone to bed... > >voting doesn't work unless you have enough 'voters' spread around the world to >avoid time-zone problems... > > > > >> >> >> >> >>On July 23, 1999 at 01:21:52, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On July 23, 1999 at 00:05:23, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>>The tactful thing for Bruce to have done would have been to write to Fernando, >>>>express his opinion about Fernando's post, and ask Fernando to delete his own >>>>post. Failing that, he should have appealed to the other moderator for >>>>consensus, and both should have approached Fernando to delete his own post. If >>>>the other moderator disagreed, the post would have stood. Thus, the moderators >>>>can moderate themselves, but one moderator cannot moderate another, since the >>>>moderators are, after all, on the same level (who has the most votes is >>>>irrelevant, since CCC is a fluid membership). >>>> >>>>All of this would (and should) have taken place in private. >>>> >>>>Roger >>>> >>> >>>Gee, I don't remember making up such a rule when we started. Let's leave >>>inappropriate posts on the forum for 8 hours until the offending poster gives >>>permission to delete it. >>> >>>I also do not remember a rule that moderators were immune to moderation. I >>>believe we all agreed to the the CCC guidelines when we joined, even the >>>moderators. >>> >>>Quite frankly, if any mistakes were made, it was by Fernando, not Bruce: >>> >>>1) Fernando didn't object when I forwarded back in June the previous moderators >>>guidelines which recommended that we allow a single moderator the freedom to >>>delete as necessary and said I thought they were good guidelines. >>>2) Fernando posted an inappropriate post (and then posted it again in Spanish, >>>hmmmmm, didn't he agree to abide by moderators decisions like the rest of us >>>when he signed up? I guess he thinks he's above all of the CCC guidelines). >>>3) Fernando made a stink about it when Bruce deleted it and did not talk to >>>Bruce and I via Email in private when it happened (and yes, resigning and >>>pointing fingers while doing it is just another way of making a stink). Bruce >>>did not bring it into the open, Fernando did. >>> >>>The post was quite frankly not worth anyone's time, it was not worth defending, >>>it was not worth resigning over (I'm sure Fernando has an ulterior motive such >>>as not wanting the job) and it sure as heck wasn't worth the crapstorm that >>>resulted here (as Fernando knew it would). >>> >>>Your view Roger is so typical of our society. The "criminal" is the victim >>>(giving Fernando or any moderator the delayed option of deleting his own post >>>over and over is like giving Karin the key to the cookie jar). >>> >>>Horse hockey. Fernando started this whole thing and made himself out to be the >>>victim. Very smart of him. He took you and a bunch of other people in. Bruce >>>didn't step on Fernando's toes, he did his job. Fernando made it out to be an >>>aggressive action against himself. Uh huh. >>> >>>And of all of the people in the world, I cannot believe I am defending Bruce's >>>actions (he and I almost always disagree), but he is in the right and Fernando >>>is in the wrong. IMHO. >>> >>>KarinsDad :| >>> >>>PS. I let tact fly out the window (as seen above) when I read for the umpteenth >>>time yet another way that the moderators should have been tactful and how they >>>should have done their job. As if the people posting this type of tripe are >>>always tactful (not talking about you specifically Roger, your post was very >>>tactful, just annoying to me personally due to it's point of view). >>> >>>The tactful thing for Fernando to do was to resign for personal reasons if he >>>really felt that strongly and leave all of this other junk in the closet where >>>it belonged.
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.