Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A serious issue

Author: Paul

Date: 10:29:28 03/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On March 29, 2001 at 12:41:14, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On March 29, 2001 at 03:59:28, David Blackman wrote:
>
>>On March 28, 2001 at 16:56:45, Steven Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>I'd like to say thanks very much to the old moderators for doing very well, and
>>thanks to the new moderators for taking on this difficult task ...
>>
>>>Bob Hyatt, Bruce Moreland, and Dann Corbit are the
>>>new moderators.
>>
>>I think this is at least the third time for all three moderators. They have all
>>done well in the past, and i think they will do well again, but aren't we
>>risking burn-out here? Some mix of experience and new blood may have been
>>better. Still, they all "volunteered" :-)
>
>I didn't want to do it.  I was trying to get new people to volunteer to do it.
>I nominated several of the people on the list, none of whom had ever done the
>job before.  Meanwhile, I had been nominated, too.  Since I have done the job
>twice before, I thought about declining, but I had a year off between this time
>and the last time, which is enough that I found it hard to plead burn-out.
>
>I figured that it would look dubious if I tried to get others to do a job that I
>had rejected.
>
>I don't think that I'm going to do this again.  Three times is enough for
>anyone.  I really think that new people should get these jobs.  There are people
>on the list who have run several times without "winning", and they should get
>the jobs next time.  That would be best for everyone.
>
>No offense to Bob and Dann, but I didn't vote for anyone who had done this
>before.
>
>bruce

I also think this is not a good development, and I'm strictly speaking about the
workload. It should be shared among members of good standing that are capable (=
are levelheaded enough) of doing this job.

You didn't volunteer for the job, someone else nominated you, you just accepted
the responsability. Several of you indicated that people should vote for the
"newer" candidates, and why anyone still voted for you guys is a mystery to me,
it's not as if there was no choice. I certainly didn't.

Maybe it's an idea to next time order the list of nominees according to "number
of times served", least times on top. Voting would proceed just like it did now,
but nominees with a lower "servecount" would always be preferred over ones with
a higher servecount. Even if (s)he had a lower "votecount".

That way no one would have to decline for the "honor" of serving, but still new
people would stream in. The "only" problem I see is determining who is capable
of the job! :)

Groetjes,
Paul



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.