Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:21:36 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 19:43:23, Amir Ban wrote: >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'm sorry, but I totally disagree with that concept. Moderators were elected to remove post _they_ consider to be inappropriate to this forum. They were not elected and given special privileges of posting something that requires _two_ other moderators to remove, while the rest of us can be excised by a single moderator. As memebers we have email facilities to tell a moderator when _we_ think that something is inappropriate. But we elect moderators to use _their_ judgement in the normal case. The post was inappropriate. It should have been deleted. It was. All that we need is a formal recall procedure so that if a majority here feel that a moderator went too far, he can be removed by a majority vote. But to make this into a complex, slow, interactive voting process is simply too complicated... and is unnecessary. In fact, you'd think a moderator would be the _last_ person to make such a post, not the _first_... That caused this problem to surface at the beginning of this mess... > >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 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.