Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:13:13 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 18:23:33, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On October 10, 2000 at 18:00:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 10, 2000 at 15:57:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>> >>>But moderators are not here to teach lessons. This was Ed's point, and he had >>>one. >>> >>>On the other hand, Bruce had a point too when he said that Ed should run for >>>moderator. Moderating well is easier to advice than to do. >>> >>>Enrique >>> >> >>OK. Lets start with the definition of "moderator" according to Webster's: >> >> 1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR >> 2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or >> discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian >> governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a >> town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group >> >>1. Is a good description of moderator at times. >> >>2. Is a far better one. And that would be the one that fits best, here at >>CCC. It would seem perfectly normal to tell someone that they have stepped >>over the bound in choosing poor subject lines. That is what the chairman of >>a discussion group ought to do, IMHO. Because proper subject lines clearly >>makes the discussions more productive. > >We made a charter and elected a troika to enforce it. Then we called moderators >the members of this troika, no matter what the Webster has to say about it. > >So: moderators take care of avoiding personal attacks and off-topics, that's >all. > >You may find headers confusing and say so, but it is by no means a moderation >issue. I just happen to disagree. Making things run smoothly _is_ a moderator issue as that is what moderators are here for. And suggesting that subjects be chosen with reasonable accuracy is neither an attempt to usurp member priviliges nor curtail their freedom of posting. This is _not_ an issue about whether the poster's posts were inappropriate or should be deleted. It was an issue about _everybody_ else's right to be able to selectively choose which posts they want to read. If everybody follows the "world cup" approach, we could simply delete the subject line, number each thread sequentially, and go from there. It would be inconvenient to the max, of course. And the inconvenience isn't on the "poster's shoulders" it is on _everbody's_ shoulders. That was why Bruce and a couple of others raised the issue here, and it was why a couple more raised the issue via moderator email. And it was why I posted the simple request to choose more accurate subject lines. I have moderated several "things" before. From debates, to message boards, to email lists, and this is not an uncommon thing to have to do... to guide the participants to make things better for everybody. He probably didn't even realize how confusing those subject lines were until someone pointed it out. And a few of us did without being insulting, threatening or overbearing. I don't quite see what the 'uproar' is all about, considering the very little that was done... > >>And yes it is easier to tell someone _else_ how to moderate than it is to >>do it yourself. > >I remember. And I am not a moderator anymore. :) > >Enrique And I am going to think a lot longer when/if I am nominated again before choosing to do this. I sometimes think that a jury-duty sort of deal would be best, on a monthly basis. Just pick three active members at random and say "you are it for 30 days". :)
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.