Author: Terry Presgrove
Date: 23:13:31 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 01:21:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.