Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:28:44 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 16:39:49, Mark Young wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 16:28:44, Robert Hyatt 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? >> >>I can speak for the current group. We agreed on two policies when we started >>about 6 months ago: >> >>1. To kick a user out, requires two of the three moderators to concur. We >>can't actually ban a user, we have to send a request to Steve/Tim to do this. >>When they see two agree, they act. There are exceptions. If someone goes >>nuts and they see it, and one of us says "kick him out" they will do so, >>with the proviso that if the other two moderators disagree then this will be >>un-done. This lets us handle the "friday night fights" easier and quicker. >>People know that Tim/Steve are harder to reach on weekends, and generally the >>troublemakers come out of the woodwork during that 48 hour window of opportunity >>when they can run amok without getting busted. >> >>2. We delete posts, message by message, when we feel it reasonable. If it is >>questionable, we have email discussions. If it is an obvious case, we delete >>them and _then_ email each other. As messages can also be undeleted by Steve/ >>Tim if the majority of the moderators agree. So far, this has never happened, >>while I was a moderator. We don't delete very much. > >Thank you Bob for your answer, the above is very reasonable, I hope the new >group of moderators follows your example. I just fear having one guy setting >policies over the wishes of the other 2 moderators. There are a few things to think about. 1. Who you vote for. Bruce Dann and I have been communicating for a _long_ time. We had zippo problems that I know of. The most annoying problem is trying to reach the other two quickly, because we are not all on at the same time. 2. I don't think one "loose cannon" can cause a lot of trouble, because the other two can override him and steve/tim can then adopt a "two must agree before anything happens" policy. IE the majority of the moderators can dictate the moderation "rules of engagement", if this becomes necessary. I think it is pretty unlikely, although I have seen a couple of questionable things over the past few years. But, in general, it seems to have gone pretty smoothly, whether I was doing it or not... The main thing (as in any election) is to try to pick people that seem to follow your views on how moderation should be done. And hope that the majority is really a majority and not a quack/freak-show operation via fake ids. :) > > > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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? >>> >> >>I don't see any evidence of this happening. We try to work as a _team_ >>and we try to avoid moderating threads we are involved in, to avoid any >>sort of conflict of interest. >> >> >> >>>Is there no check and balance, or is it every moderator for them selves? >> >> >>It is a _team_.
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.