Author: Les Walker
Date: 23:59:23 09/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 1998 at 00:07:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 22, 1998 at 04:54:52, Les Walker wrote: > >>On September 21, 1998 at 11:38:30, Jim Phillips wrote: >> >>>Les, >>>I will certainly support an effort to create a constitution for the CCC. I >>>will even offer to help in drawing it up. >>>BUT: We already have a 100% majority opinion on how to conduct ourselves >>>properly in the CCC. We each agree to 5 conditions when we sign up to join >>>this group. People who can't abide by those conditions won't abide by a >>>constitution either.... So make sure your constitution has teeth, because >>>it will need them. A sad fact, but true. >>>-Jim Phillips >> >>I agree! :-) >> >>Now, for the sake of stimulating discussion, I ask some questions. >> >>I have absolutely no gripe about the 5 conditions, only that they are currently >>unenforceable because they are undeveloped--that is to say, they are merely >>building blocks for the eventual development of equality and fairness. They are >>a rough draft only. I certainly agree that people who blatenly break the rules >>layed out by CCC, should be punished, but not perminently banished. In my >>opinion, this is very extreme action, therefore needs to be defined by a set >>forth quarum of the entire membership. For example, let's say I cross the line >>and break the "rules," and requre a form of punishment. Why can I not be >>punished for 1 week on the 1st offence, 2 weeks on my 2nd offence, 1 month on a >>3rd offence, etc. Punishehments administered in such a way have proven to be >>effective in the scheme of learning. If a person is a repeat offender, then his >>chances of staying grounded in the club would be minimum at best. Some criteria >>MUST be defined in regards to punishment and any other action taken by CCC. >> >>But, banishment!? What can a person possibly learn by being banished without >>hope of ever returning? I have heard the arguments and the conditions of >>reinstatement. I have a serious problem accepting these conditions because they >>are merely ideas, building blocks to some eventual structure. Structure builds >>unity. With unity comes strength. I cannot believe I am the only one who thinks >>this way, but maybe. When a community is ruled by "on the fly" decisions, >>changing with any given moment, and moods, chaos will result. >> >>I believe the current moderators are doing an excellent job in CCC. Considering >>their lack of tools available, they have done as well as any men would be able, >>under the circumstances. How can they effectively moderate this entire community >>on 5 very undeveloped rules? Rules are open to interpretation unless they are >>predefined, and voted, by the majority. You very well may be right about people >>disobeying the rules, regardless of structure. But, at least under such >>structure, people would be forced to be more accountable for their actions. >>Breaking the majorty's rules is much more serious than 5 "loose" rules that can >>have many definitions in their current form. >> >>My intent is not to criticise the moderators or any of CCC members. There is >>already enough of that to last a life-time. I have belonged to many clubs in the >>past, and have seen many go by the wayside due to constant fighting because of >>lack of structure. My goal is to unite. If this sounds nieve to anybody, then I >>am sorry. I honestly believe there is some middle-ground that everybody could >>feel comfortable on. But 1st, people will need to stop the blaming, flaming, >>counter attacks, fighting and complaining, long enough to take an objective step >>back, ponder what I am saying, and start looking for solutions rather than >>blame. >> >>I fear this is all for not. Why? I am starting to get the impression that a lot >>of people feel the fighting, and semantic wars, are more enjoyable than computer >>chess?? Count the posts. What is the ratio for chess posts to flame posts? I am >>sitting here watching an excellent club go to hell and all people want to do is >>fight about it. CCC was created to avoid the stress in RGCC. The founders of >>this club need to seriously evaluate their original objectives and ask the >>questions: Has it been a success? Why? What can we do? How will we do it? Who >>will help? How can we make it better? When an organization, company, club, etc., >>fails, the 1st thing they need to be looking at is their structure. >> >>All club members need to ask themselves these questions: Do I like it here? What >>can I do to make this club better. How can I help the moderators job an easier >>one. Can I change anything by changing my actions? Do I want this club to >>survive into 1998?, etc., etc. It's simply amazing what can be accomplished with >>cooperation and teamwork. The evolution of chess/computeres/software will be >>greatly heldback as long as this war continues. >> >>Best Regards & Wishes to all, >> >>Les Walker > > > >I don't personally see the need to be so specific. IE, someone mentioned the >constitution of the US, which has now survived well over 200 years. It is >strong, because it is not detailed. It provides a framework only. > >I believe we can operate in that same mode... a simple broad guideline that >says "no personal attacks." We don't need to attempt to spell out what they >are, otherwise we enter the Clinton-world of "well, it depends on your >definition of personal-attack" and there we go. > >All we really need is a way of "proofing" posts before they make it here, >similar to the Crafty mailing list (that is moderated)... You do not see a need. I am baffled by this. I explained the need in my post, but you did not offer any response regarding it. What am I to think? Is this one of those situations where it is "Too bad Les, we will do it this way no matter what?" You are correct about the constitution. That is the beauty in it, that "It provides a framework only," much like the 5 rules of CCC. They are a framework only. Over the years, the Constitution has been defined according to our ever-changing times. The constitution, in its written form, is too undefined for the 20th century. There are always questions as to definitions, limitations, allowances, etc. Without those definitions of the constitution, chaos would result. This is my point. Chaos, in a sense, *has* existed in CCC during the past few weeks (Perhaps Longer). There have been questions and suggestions in regards to definitions and limitations. Some feel they are kept undefined on purpose, leading to "instant definitions," depending on who is deciding and who is being decided against. Without some type of structure, regarding these issues, there will always exist these questions, doubts, and disagreements. I suggested a set of policies written by the founders, or majority. Obviously, majority does not *have* to rule if the founders are against it, but then why not policies? Why not create some structure? Why are people afraid of this? Policies exist for the protection of the organization, as well as the members. Do they fear they will, perhaps, lose some control? There are people who believe this. To run any type of organization, without defined rules, is asking for chaos, rebellion and outbreak. I am sressing my brain in wonderment, totaly baffled about this whole situation. Why does an organization not want to protect its integrity, and existence, when all it would take is the defining of 5 rules? Kind Regards, Les Walker
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.