Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:46:32 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 15:27:38, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 12:20:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>The three of us had several discussions after the election. We all _want_ to >>be 'silent'. It isn't always possible, and at times, action will be required >>of us. Just as it will be for the next group elected. I'm all for giving >>Chris some slack. In the hopes that he will choose to become an interesting >>member to have. And sometimes it seems possible. At other times, not. > >Not to quibble about words, but why does he have to be an interesting member?I That was simply an alternative (a good one) to the other side we also see, that of the "obnoxious member". >That's another subjective evaluation equivalent with the 'constructive' remark >written by Djordje. Moderators shouldn't make judgements according to subjective >criteria not mentioned in the charter. I suppose that any critical analysis of a member is 'subjective' in ways, although other parts are very objective. I don't personally make personality assessments. I do make qualitative judgements based on posts written by a member. The charter _does_ cover that, in fact. >I'll restate the opinion that you should >have either thrown him out directly because of the CW ban or waited for valid >member protests. I didn't discover anything posted by PD that would make the >latter possibility probable. There _have_ been multiple protests about his posts. You can confirm this with the other moderators if you like. That is what brought him to the 'action level' with us. We generally ignore things unless someone complains. Just like prior moderators. If everyone is happy, then we aren't needed at the time. To get our attention really requires complaints. And in this case, we got them. Also for the chessbits issue... > >>The only 'obligation' I see is that if a moderator is involved in a discussion >>with someone, then for that 'discussion' he isn't a moderator. That is why >>we elect more than one. Same thing happens in politics, in the legal systems >>around the world, etc. Conflict of interest == recusal. Which is my personal >>policy. You won't _ever_ see me moderating a thread that I am involved in, >>unless there is a public outcry demanding action (as in the chessbits thread). > >I agree with all of the above and I'm certain that you wouldn't moderate a >thread in which you participate, but it's not that simple. Don't you think that >by participaing in a heated thread, as a moderator, would discourage members >from mailing complaints to the moderators as a group? I'm convinced that is >true, especially for members that aren't high profile. And high profile members >don't waste too much time on mailing the moderators, or am I mistaken? You may be right on both counts. _I_ have never asked moderators to take any action on threads I was involved in. And it is possible that someone might be afraid to complain. However, if they did, the other two would certainly listen, I believe. > >The same goes for setting an example. Members see a respected individual; >programmer, expert _and_ moderator, behaving in a certain way. It would be >surprising if someone didn't pay attention to that and would try to emulate this >behaviour to a certain extent. That's why insults won't do as a general way of >communication. So wearing the moderator badge is independent of whether you're >participating as a member or as a moderator with the different consequences that >apply to both, ie. subjectable to moderation yourself or not. > >>That sounds good. In theory. But would _you_ like to be called a liar, and >>then leave it at "show me the data"? I have asked for data. I have gotten >>none. I don't like to leave the implication that I lied on the table. Above >>anything else, I value honesty. > >No, I probably wouldn't leave it at that always, but I would be careful about >judging statements that aren't necessarily direct insults or provocations. >Personal interpretation leaves too much leeway for uncertainty and subsequent >wrongful retaliation. Maybe. Although I don't believe so in _this_ case. > >Generally, I don't automatically find someone having doubts about something I >say to be a veiled insult, indirectly calling me a liar. In such cases it could >easily be a question of a misunderstanding concerning fact or lack of it. AFAIK >you don't respond that way everytime someone doubt what you say is true. And you >did persist in insulting Sarah throughout the remainder of the thread. That fact >remains and I still think that you should regret doing so. There's no punishment >for admitting that :o). The only victim is pride. > >>How could I _possibly_ have any animosity toward someone I have never met, >>never communicated privately with, never talked to on the phone, etc??? > >That's very common AFAIK. It's not like you two haven't argued in a similar >fashion before. > >Mogens. Nothing stands out in my mind, but it is possible. I don't try to carry a grudge forever.
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.