Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:43:48 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 19:02:50, Will Singleton wrote: > >On May 06, 1999 at 18:11:46, Dave Gomboc wrote: > ><snip> >>What should change for the system to work better? >> >>I will start with some possibilities: >> 1. Before a post removal can take place, there must be agreement by two >>moderators, or one moderator plus someone from ICD. This may be a good balance >>between "timely post removal" and "unnecessary post removal". >> 2. Possibly some mechanism to view deleted posts? But this kind of defeats >>the purpose of deleting them, so I don't know how good that would be. >> 3. Remove posts, not people (except at their own request). It would be >>necessary to have some sort of "moderator-must-approve-this-post" mechanism to >>avoid abuse of the kind seen in the past, though. >> >>Dave > >Dave, > >Good suggestions. We had these discussions at the beginning of our term, and >arranged things the best we could. Point-by-point: > >1. We considered this, but felt it would take too much time to be effective, >since we are all on different schedules. Remember, we are all not here 24/7. >It was further decided that if any one moderator got "out of hand," the others >would take him to task. There is also a provision for a moderator to be >"canned," by vote of the other two. So, essentially, the way we set it up means >that decisions are tacticly approved by all. Better ways to do it? Sure, but >that's what we came up with. What was come up with doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. I am just trying to tweak. >2. Defeats the purpose, as you said. > >3. We do remove posts, not people (unless requested). There have only be one or >two crazies who got the ax. So I'm not sure I understand this one. It wasn't in reference to a specific recent event. >These and other decisions were given a lot of thought, and it seems to have >worked out rather well. There will always be people, for whatever reason, who >will continue to complain, threaten, whatever, and for those there is little one >can do. > >You might want to save these discussions, in the event you run and are elected >next time. They tend to repeat. > >Will I don't think I will be running this time. I wasn't elected last time, and have no reason for me to believe it would be any different this time around. Being a moderator appears to be an even more thankless task than I envisioned it last time, when I accepted your nomination. So, I don't think I'll be taking advantage of any opportunity to run this time around -- at least, my arm would have to be twisted pretty hard before I did it. And seeing as there were nine candidates last time, that probably won't be necessary. Dave
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.