Author: pavel
Date: 13:33:55 04/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2003 at 08:37:10, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On April 08, 2003 at 07:32:47, pavel wrote: > >[snip] > >>You can't be a moderator, because the rules for being a moderator is that the >>person has to be in good standing to be a moderator. >> >>ZRolf, you are definately not in good standing. >> >>pavs > >While chances of Rolf becoming a moderator of CCC are zero, maybe the term >"being in good standing" should better be defined? Does it mean that > >-the majority of people 'like' you? (couldn't be measured) >-no posts during the 6 months were moderated? >-<insert anything here> > >Ok, that's more a rhetoric question I guess. :) > >Sargon (who prefers to know the definition of the terms being discussed before >getting involved in the discussion) I guess the second reason seems reasonable. Also you wouldn't nominate someone who goes telling everyone that I will sue you (there has been several such cases in CTF). I think Steve or the founding fathers of this forum can better define the term "in good standing". Well Rolf's case is unique, one of the main reason this forum was created was to escape from Rolf's wrath, even allowing him to be nominated would seem hilarious to me. Just my 2 cents. pavs
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.