Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:33:14 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 16:22:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 16:17:19, Mark Young wrote: > >>On September 18, 2001 at 15:06:44, Steven Schwartz wrote: >> >>>The autobiographies and philosophies of moderation from >>>nominees who have sent them are now available at: >>>http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/resource/moderators/index.html >>>Miguel A. Ballicora >>>Peter Berger >>>Uri Blass >>>Roy Eassa >>>John Merlino >>>Gian-Carlo Pascutto >>>Ed Schröder >>>Slater Wold >>>Fernando Villegas >>> >>>Elections shall begin this Friday, September 21 and end >>>next Friday, September 28. >>> >>>We will announce the rules for voting prior to elections. >>> >>>You may wish to use the next couple of days to ask moderators >>>questions here on the board. Once the elections begin, the >>>board can return to "normal". >>>Steve (ICD/Your Move Chess & Games) >>> >>> >>>Miguel A. Ballicora >>> Peter Berger >>> Uri Blass >>> Roy Eassa >>> John Merlino >>> Gian-Carlo Pascutto >>> Ed Schröder >>> Slater Wold >>> Fernando Villegas >> >>Mr. Schwartz could you explain what procedures the moderators must follow when >>deciding on what post(s) are to be deleted? >> >>Does a majority of moderators have to agree on what post(s) should be deleted? >> >>If not, why do we elect 3 moderators, since the moderator with the strictest >>posting policy sets and overrides the posting policy for the other 2 moderators >>and the whole of ICC regardless of the other 2 moderators more moderate posting >>policies written before the election? >> >>Is there no check and balance, or is it every moderator for them selves? > >The moderators work out a policy among themselves (I've done it three times so >far). > >You need 3 moderators because: >1. One guy (e.g. Dann Corbit) will fly off the handle [with wild deletions and >banishments in mind] and another guy (e.g. Bruce Moreland) will tell the other >guy to take a deep breath and calm down. >2. You have 3 times higher probability that someone will be logged on or have >access to email when a problem arises. >3. The workload is reduced for each of the three to 1/3 what it would be with >only one moderator. >4. Moderators go on vacation >5. Moderators get sick >6. Moderators get annoyed and quit > >I'm sure that there are lots more reasons. Quite frankly, I am sure that a >moderator force of 1 would be a very big mistake. Dann a moderator force of 1 is what we get. Since one moderator can if he wishes too, decide to follow his or her own moderation policy regardless what the other elected moderators think. What stops this from happening?
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.