Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:57:00 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 16:59:55, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 I wasn't only applying the 2-vote idea to deleting moderator posts, but to deleting _any_ post, which was suggested by others (and which I don't like). Ed, Enrique and I were the first 3 moderators. They were (apparently) fairly close to each other time-zone wise, but 7-8 hours off from me. Which means that there are big windows where I can't reach another moderator, and the same where they can't reach me... that makes voting very difficult.. as it does other decisions like kicking someone out, or whatever... world-scale time is a pain at times... > >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.