Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:44:23 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 13:29:28, Paul wrote: >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! :) I think the whole process needs to be rethought. On the other hand, I am very glad that so many were willing to do the work. It's really not that hard to do. But it really should be a shared responsibility. The current system seems to end up with the same folks most of the time. It's not a terribly difficult task. I think it would be good to have one experienced moderator on a crew. However, having the same people do it over and over is surely going to be counter-productive in the end.
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.