Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 14:13:28 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 07:56:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On July 23, 1999 at 07:15:15, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On July 23, 1999 at 05:34:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On July 23, 1999 at 05:14:22, Roger D Davis wrote: >>> >>>>On July 23, 1999 at 04:28:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure where you got these ideas. >>>>> >>>>>When I saw Fernando's post it was immediately obvious that if I left it, the >>>>>next morning there would be at least one email from a member complaining about >>>>>the post. The complaint would suggest that that kind of post didn't belong in >>>>>the group. It would ask that the post be deleted. It would express confusion >>>>>as to why anyone would think that such a post belonged here. And this person >>>>>might reply to the post, expressing similar sentiments in the group, etc. >>>>> >>>>>I don't think that it is too strict to say that CCC shouldn't become the dirty >>>>>joke forum, is it? >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>I think perhaps people can disagree intelligently about deleting Fernando's post >>>>without agreeing that CCC should become a dirty joke forum. >>>> >>>>As I noted in a reply to KarinsDad, the issue is how it was done, not the post >>>>itself. >>>> >>>>If it was obvious that there would have been complaints, then IMHO, you should >>>>have left it. Then you could have argued that the post needed to be brought to >>>>the attention of the CCC forum at large, since people are complaining, and >>>>because CCC has heretofore lacked a mechanism whereby moderators moderate each >>>>other. >>> >>>This is a ridiculous assertion. If it was obvious that complaints would occur, >>>the best thing to do is get rid of the damn thing before they occur. It's a >>>moderator's fiduciary duty to delete such a post ASAP. >> >>Actually, it's an opinion, not an assertion of fact, not a claim about reality. >>That's why I put IMHO. Moreover, the opinion doesn't exist in isolation, in >>which case it would indeed be absurd, but was put forward in the service of >>establishing a mechanism that might eliminate these conflagrations. The letter >>of the law needs to serve it's spirit, which is that CCC go forward harmoniously >>for all of us, and that means seeing the total situation in areas where there >>are as yet unresolved ambiguities. Again, IMHO. > >Sorry, I missed the IMHO the first time. I'll downgrade that to an IMHO absurd >opinion. :-) > Thanks for your graciousness in this matter. :-) >>> >>>There's a perfectly good mechanism whereby moderators moderate each other, and >>>Bruce used it. That Fernando got all bent out of shape about it is tough luck. >> >>It has nothing to do with Fernando. I am not taking sides with Fernando. It has >>nothing to do with sides, and everything to do with moderation and the loss of a >>moderator. >> >>If there's a mechanism, then I must have missed it. What mechanism already >>exists that empowers a moderator to delete another moderator's posts? > >The delete button. That didn't work well...hence all these threads about it. > >Moderators >>delete posts at different thresholds of relevance, we know that. Assume that >>Moderator A deletes Moderator B's posts. Moderator B then gets pisses and adopts >>a low threshold for deleting Moderator A's posts. He doesn't delete obviously on >>target posts, just those for which a defensible argument of irrelevance can be >>created. So then the two argue and argue about it, and have a little war. You >>don't need to be Bruce or Fernando to have such a war, or to create ill will. >> >>But you're saying that there is already a mechanism in place to stop this. >>Please tell me what it is, and I'll stand corrected. > >Moderator C, I'd hope. > That's what I was proposing, that the third moderator join A or B before one of their posts could be deleted. >>> >>>>If you had asked what the group wanted to do, the group would have come to some >>>>consensus, and that consensus might well have reigned in the rogue moderator, or >>>>not. Fernando might still have resighed. Either way, the result would not have >>>>been your action and not your responsibility, but that of the group. You would >>>>have been applauded for your democratic principles, and there would have been no >>>>appearance of presumptuousness. >>> >>>We voted for representatives so that we could be a direct democracy anyway? >>>Please. >>> >> >>I didn't say we did that. I said that Bruce's actions would be perceived as >>being congruent with democratic principles. > >Did you not suggest that Bruce solicit the opinion of the membership? That >would seem like a return to direct democracy. Or did I misunderstand you again? I suggested it as a way of handling ambiguous cases, one particularly relevant here since we are now a moderator down. I was not advocating that we upend the moderator system. > >>>>My position is that the content of Fernando's post is irrelevant, since CCC >>>>lacked (and still lacks) an explicit mechanism whereby the moderators can >>>>moderate themselves in a principled way in which personal popularity can never >>>>play a role (with this last sentence, I'm trying to make an abstract point, >>>>here, not point a finger, by the way). >>> >>>I disagree with the first sentence, see above. >>> >>>>Now, however, it appears that we have two moderators instead of three, and you >>>>and KarinsDad have more work to do, and we still need an explicit mechanism >>>>whereby the moderators can moderate themselves without any appearance of an >>>>abuse of power. >>>> >>>>Roger >>> >>>Dave >> >> >>Roger > >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.