Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:39:43 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 16:33:14, Mark Young wrote: >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? Logical discussion among the moderators. If any moderator (for instance) gives me a logical reason why one of my decisions was wrong, I would reverse it. Suppose you were a moderator -- how would you react? It's definitely a team effort. I am sure that you would be reasonable, just as all the moderators try to be reasonable.
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.