Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: A serious issue

Author: Paul

Date: 11:18:32 03/29/01

Go up one level in this thread

On March 29, 2001 at 13:44:23, Dann Corbit wrote:

>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
>>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.

I think it *is* a difficult task (sometimes), and you need to have a reasonably
thick skin, be stable, not too extreme etc.

Instead of n pools of different servecounts, you could make 2 pools: one with
nominees with servecount = 0, and another with the rest. Members get 3 votes: 2
for the zero-pool, 1 for the other, that way you'd get the distribution you


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.