Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:43:23 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1999 at 20:12:33, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On July 22, 1999 at 19:28:18, Mark Young wrote: > >>I never did understand the moderation representation on CCC. We vote for three >>moderators, but instead of having two of the three moderators agreeing to delete >>a post, we have three three kings that do as they will when they see a post they >>think should be deleted. This approach kills the representation of the mass of >>CCC. Not a very logical way to represent the voters. >> >>Under the circumstances of how the moderators represent the voters I understand >>and agree with your reasons for resigning. As it stands now if one moderator can >>delete posts at will without the consent of at least one other moderator, this >>leave you unable to represent your position and view as moderator that you ran >>and were elected on by the voters of CCC to represent. > >It depends upon how you see the job of moderator. I view post deletion as a >police function, mainly. You wouldn't expect the cops to get together and vote >before they arrested someone, would you? > >The voting process has no hierarchy or decision process built in. We elect >three moderators but we don't give them any framework for dealing with each >other. My first point of business was to try to establish a framework, but we >never got together and did it. > >I think this is only the second time that something was deleted, it has been >mostly quiet so far. > >I don't think that moderators are above the charter, and I will react the same >way to a moderator post as to any other post. If I had seen any other member >post that I would have deleted it. > >bruce As a former moderator I take credit for inventing the "on-duty" procedure. When I was lobbying for it, I described it to my fellow moderators (Don Dailey & Bruce Moreland) in these terms: Having one moderator on duty doesn't mean that he has all the power. The principle of majority decision still holds. The moderator on duty acts as a sort of chairman, decides the agenda, and asks the two others to vote on stuff. He can act alone only in cases that are too simple to bother the others, or have already been discussed by the moderators and the action is what was agreed should be taken in such a case. IN ANY CASE, if the moderator on duty already knows of a dissenting opinion by another moderator, he's not allowed to act alone and must get the opinion of the third moderator. This was my understanding of the rules, and they were followed with no exceptions that I can remember. It doesn't seem the present moderators have worked out any such procedures, or at least that's my impression from the posts in this thread. If they were following the procedures set above, I would consider Bruce's action to be illegal, since he should have assumed that Fernando, by posting what he did, disagrees with him, and he had to resort to majority vote. I think Bruce showed very poor judgement here. His action would not deserve much comment against an ordinary member, and would probably be perfectly justified, but for the moderators to start censoring each other does not make sense, for reasons that have nothing to do with the charter. What we have now can be called a constitutional crisis. Experience shows that the post of moderator needs quite a bit of talent for politics and diplomacy. I hope the voters will remember this next time. Amir
This page took 0.01 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.