Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:29:40 10/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 19:13:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I am not your student Bob and neither is CCC. That was the meaning of my one-liner and I am sure you got the point. Acting dominate only forces a reaction which I softly did with my one-liner. Calling for an explanation while you know the answer only keeps this subject going on. My opinion: a moderator should not interfere in peanuts issues especially not when things are already solved between CCC members. About me being a moderator: I don't think criticism is so bad and if well meant (and I do) criticism has the potential to benefit and improve so I like to stick in this role when there is a need for, which I found justified in this case. Remember my role in founding this forum, CCC has a special in my heart and if things IMO go the wrong way I like to say it. Calling this "uproar" is beyond the truth and you know it. I said your way of moderating worries me and in this spirit I have argued in the hope my criticism will lead till something positive. Ed >>>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 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.