Author: Todd Durham
Date: 16:41:38 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 18:37:39, Will Singleton wrote: > >On May 06, 1999 at 17:35:35, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On May 06, 1999 at 17:23:26, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>As I read some of the current threads going up (and being taken down just as >>>quickly), I can't help but think that the moderators are not doing their job >>>properly. I personally have nothing against the moderators (I have not >>>interacted with them in any way), yet if so many people are leaving because of >>>the moderation, something must be done. CCC is somewhat like a government - >>>There are elections, and the moderators become like the presidents (This may be >>>a bad analogy.). If the president doesn't do his job properly, he can be >>>impeached and removed from office for this. Is it possible that this can be >>>done with moderators? >>> >>>Any thoughts? >>> >>>Jeremiah >> >>They are the government and the press at the same time. They have the power to >>make decisions about what is posted here, which is fine, but they also have the >>power to control public response to these decisions, to the point where they can >>completely eradicate any trace of dissent. >> >>This is a small pond, so it is hard to use the word "power" with a straight >>face, but in this limited context they are extremely powerful and need to be >>extremely careful to be responsible. >> >>It is hard to do anything about the current situation when there is the very >>real possibility that any critical comment you make will be declared "off-topic" >>and erased with no further mention. >> >>I think Peter is a great guy. I think the problem here is Harald and Will. >>Personally I think that Harald and Will should go away and let Peter run the >>place until July 1st. >> >>bruce > >Bruce, > >Wow, thanks. I like you too. > >But we were elected to do a job, and we're going to do it. Others might quit, >Bruce, not me. > >Do you recall that we decided (all the moderators) that discussions about >moderation were fine, but not discussions about a decision to delete a message? >Do you remember the reasoning behind that? It was to avoid constant dispute and >anarchy. That is the policy that was agreed to and made known to everyone. If >you want the policy to change, then lobby for your own slate when the voting >comes up next month. This comment seems a bit too aggressive and arguementative, in my opinion. > >The Hyatt thread was deleted for the reasons I gave. Your message was deleted >because it argued a specific decision, something not allowed. Can't argue balls >& strikes with the ump. That would seem to kill any kind discussion about the strike zone. How can one critique moderation without citing specific examples? This idea seems self serving, whether it is intended to be or not. A change of policy should be in order. > >btw, the moderators made a concerted attempt to get Hyatt back. We admitted we >made mistakes, we researched the record and addressed some of his concerns. We >spent some time on this, since we too would like to see him back, and we know >everyone else does too. But he wouldn't be budged. > >All of our actions are taken in good faith, with the best interests of the club >in mind. For some people, we don't moderate enough. For others, too much. >What can you do? Have a running poll question about whether there is too much or too little moderation. Clear it every so often so the back log doesn't effect more recent feelings of the membership. But given the big stink that is going on now, I think that perhaps the moderators (ie you) would be rethinking the policy. Todd Durham
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.