Author: Don Dailey
Date: 18:07:31 01/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
> I have nothing against the current moderators, and I asked for a Forum and I
> have never had anything removed or even heard from a moderator, but how about
> creating a more refined set of rules and regulations, I mean you could put these
> things down on a txt file in a few hours, and if quite a few poeple put forward
> their ideas then we might get a set of rules to handle these problems.
>
> I mean to post something so as to bring across a point about a moderation issue
> is not a post that should be removed. I mean lets face it if a post should be
> removed then well it should be obvious, but those posts in dispute I think
> should not have been.
>
> Lets fix this now and move on and stop letting it fester.
>
> Why leave it up to different moderators to handle things there own way,
> differing from the previous ones, no wonder people see there posts removed and
> think what the hell was wrong with that. When for the previous moderators it was
> acceptable.
>
> You say that you did not come here for this crap about rules and
> regulations,then fix it now so it will never have to be worried about again.
>
> Easy fix. I would hate to see dictators emerge in this group, we might have to
> have a coup. :-)
A reasonable response, thanks for the reply.
You seem to think this hasn't come up before. But no matter what we
might do what will happen is the following basic scenario:
. Suppose the current guidelines of conduct on CCC get expanded according
to some ideal specification to be determined by a committee being
formed and the group consulted with lots of voting and such.
. Everyone feels warm and fuzzy for this effort and these new rules
and regulations with penalties and sentences get prominantely posted
for all to see and admire.
. Someone gets angry at someone else and makes a comment that might
or might not be interpreted as an attack.
. The moderators decide to remove his post.
. The disgruntled member calls for a new system to be put into place
to control the actions of the moderators, who "unfairly" removed
his wonderful post.
. The whole process is repeated.
There are a few fundamental problems here. The most important one is
that their will always be posts that some members think should go, and
other members think should stay. We could write a rulebook and make
it arbitrarily complicated. But this won't change the sentiments of
the ones who think post X should get removed and post Y should have
been allowed. The problem on this group HAS NOTHING to do with what
you think you are addressing. This will always come up whenever any
action is being taken against a member with too much pride. I don't
say this to attack anyone, I think each and every one of us has at one
time or another in our life been too prideful.
Another problem, is why do we have the right to decide the rules for
everyone that comes after us? You want to fix some set of rules so
that there is no possibility of rules changing from one moment to the
next. But in what way do new members who didn't happen to be around
when these rules were decided by you and me get any representation?
The simple truth of the matter is that we already have a GOOD system
in place and like it or not this system is controlled by ICD anyway.
The moderator won't become evil dictators for two reasons, they would
get voted out in 6 months if they did, and ICD would step in if things
got really ridiculous. You are imagining problems that don't exist,
but you haven't even covered the more basic problem of how to control
ICD and I doubt your rules will address this. But if anyone wanted to
become dictatorial, they could do it and you would be essentially
powerless. But no one is crying about this, we simply trust them
because we are happy with the fact that they have contributed this
group to us and they are such nice dictators they stay out of our way.
I am seriously against any movement to turn simple guidelines into
rules and regulations with punishments spelled out. I am a free man,
I come here for fun and relaxation and I won't be subjected to a set
of rules and regulations. At least not here. But I will agree to
follow simple guidlelines which we already have in case you didn't
know. Most of this movement seemed to be based on the idea that we
have some kind of anarchy and need to establish some kind of system.
But we have a great system, 3 moderators to temper each others
decisions, 6 month moderator term limits and voting to get serious
representation. We take this for granted but ICD could have set this
up any way they felt like, in true dictator fashion. I get the idea
that if someone handed us 100 dollars just out of the goodness of
their heart we would complain that it should have been 200 dollars.
Also, what problem do you think you are addressing? If I want to
insult you I can always do it in a way that avoids any specific rules.
I can do it with careful strokes, making implications without actually
directing it at you in an obvious way. Then I can use the rulebook to
defend myself against the moderators.
When I moderated we had a member use this tactic. His plan was to
gradually taunt other members until they blew up in his face and then
he could DEMAND the punishment of that individual. He was very good
at it, but when we confronted him with it he always pleaded innocent
and asked us to give him a concrete example which we couldn't if
everything was took absolutely literally. His mode of operation was
to always interpret everything literally unless of course it was an
attack on him. Several members sent us private email about this, they
knew exactly what was going on and we did too. We eventually removed
this individual. Now if that former members see's this post and
confronts me with it I can ask him to give me concrete proof that I
was talking about him.
We have a good system. The moderators NEED to have plenty of leeway
to interpret our written guidelines and our written guidelines need to
be kept very simple. Each instance of a problem is so unique that
anything less than this hurts the group and individual members too.
We we were able to remove this former member (who's name MIGHT have
started with an 's') precisely because there was not a rule that
constrained us.
If you add this frustration to the moderators and make them just
policemen with no discresionary power then the job would become so
unpalatable that we would have a new problem, how to keep moderators.
- Don
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.