Author: Mark Young
Date: 08:57:00 01/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1999 at 10:58:02, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >On January 18, 1999 at 10:09:15, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On January 18, 1999 at 09:49:20, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >> >>>>E-mails are s.th. special. They are private. And if you quote A moderator's >>>>e-mail there are only 3 persons who can have written them. >>> >>>True, but just recall the current discussion -- if I had not *anonymously* >>>quoted the moderational email in reply to my official protest, near to nobody >>>would have believed me and the discussion would never have started. >> >>Personally I think there was no need to discuss this one special case here in >>public with dozens of follow-ups. > >You still seem to not understand that this was no "one special case" as you >call it -- it dealt with the moderators' general denial of allowing the CCC >membership to discuss moderational issues in public within CCC. > >>>Therefore, I still think *anonymous* quotes of email messages from moderators >>>with *strictly* moderational content are appropriate and thus must be allowed. >> >>So here we disagree. Keep in mind that only ONE of the 3 moderators is quoted. >>Out of an ongoing discussion between the moderators maybe. This can be >>misleading and misinterpreted etc. >> >>We 3 have agreed to not tolerate quotations out of private e-mails. > >This means that you deem the official email messages that you send as a >moderator to be *private*? > >IMO, this is simply impossible without applying double standards. Either you >act officially as a moderator or you act privately as person XYZ. There is >no room to mix the two -- they are mutually exclusive. As a moderator you >cannot hide behind the curtain of privacy -- everything you do is official >and should be subjected to public visibility if necessary. This is a good point, I don't see any problem with the person that gets official email in making it public, if they wish. This would give the members a chance to see how the moderators made their decision, if someone thinks they were not treated fairly. There has to be some kind of oversight of the moderators by the members. We can not have the moderators working 100% behind the scenes. This should not cause a problem with to many non-chess postings, unless many members feel they have been unfairly treated. And if that’s the case, I am sure the members would want to know about it. > >>I think you should accept and understand this. > >I have no problems with agreeing to disagree. > >Yet, I do not see a real change of attitude as for the accountability of the >moderators in your posts or the initial moderators' statement. > >Therefore, I am still out of active participation in this club for the >time being. > >=Ernst=
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.