Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:53:11 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 16:39:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >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? The same as you would, and I like very much how the current group of moderators have handled their duties. But I don't know that all 3 new moderators will be "logical and reasonable". I guess we will have to wait for some kind of blow up before we can address this problem, and that is regrettable. >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.