Author: Hristo
Date: 16:54:02 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 18:46:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I'd like to suggest that this thread becomes 'inactive'. IE simply let me >'die' in peace. :) what are you talking about? You can't 'die'! :))) > >No need to ramble on about what has happened, because it is (a) water under >the bridge and (b) can't be corrected. This doesn't seem right. We should be able to correct things of this nature. We as a group should be able to hold the moderators accountable for their actions if there is a pattern of *abuse of power* on the moderators side. > And I'd rather be remembered for >other things than as the person that started a stampede of folks leaving CCC. I'm glad you realize that you can cause the "stampede"! Perhaps not completely single-handedly, but there is a great deal of respect and power behind the name "Bob Hyatt". Imagine that Linus Torvalds turns arround and says that linux is turned sour and useless after all these great big companies started distributing their own versions... This will influence people just like you do! > >My problem doesn't have to be everybody else's problem... your problem is that you are a sort of celebrity, guru ... so the above is difficult to avoid. :))) > >IMHO... > >I simply object to moderators (a) making statements that sound offensive, >even if they didn't intend that; (b) deleting posts or threads on a whim, >with no email or anything (I hate to have to come back to check and see if >something was deleted, as it is counter-productive); (c) refusing to allow >any discussion about moderation policy. Because moderation policy is >_definitely_ "on topic". I was one of the original three moderators, and >welcomed any input on how it ought to be done. This is perhaps an example >of how 'democracy' doesn't always work. Because we don't 'elect' police >chiefs since 99.999% of the people are unqualified to assess the capabilities >of the 'chief'. Perhaps 'electing' moderators is a bad idea, particularly >here where there is no clue about who is really who, except for a few of us, >and 'voting' is pretty much anonymous. Too easy to stuff the ballot box to >get someone elected for purposes other than to support the CCC charter. Not >that that has happened here, as I don't know. But it definitely _can_ >happen. And that's a potential large 'pain'... Since you and other people have expressed objections towards the moderators, is it possible to do something about it? Instead of just waiting until everybody leaves! hristo
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.