Author: Will Singleton
Date: 21:28:50 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1999 at 21:03:53, Roger D Davis wrote: >I haven't paid that much attention, so I don't know exactly how it works now, >but as I understand it, 3 new moderators are elected all at once. A potential >problem with this is that you could easily get 3 fresh guys, which their own >interpretations of the rules and different thresholds for moderation. > >How about staggering the election process: Three moderators, with each moderator >serving 3 months. However, the elections would be staggered, so that a single >new moderator could be elected each month. That allows for continuity over time, >and allows the old moderators to "break in" the new moderator, like a new shoe, >so to speak. Yes, the continuity problem is real. Your idea might work. But how about if a new guy had different opinions from the existing guys, how could he implement his style? That problem is less severe if all three are elected at once, since they can sit down and hammer out a philosophy. But, it's still there. A uniform philosophy would be nice to have, so all the moderators are on the same page. In our case, we were pretty much together on philosophy, and just had to make some minor adjustments to arrive at an agreed method. And it's worked out pretty well for us, no internal fights, no large disagreements, etc. But I like the rotating 3 month idea. Maybe it would be better. An election each month might keep folks on their toes. Again, six months is too long. Will > >Also, the rules could be changed so that you are allowed to vote for one >moderator (+1 vote), and against one moderator (-1 vote). This would have the >effect of preventing some guy who has quite a bit of support from one side, but >is hated by another side, but getting in, thus increasing the likelihood that >someone acceptable to all parties will be elected. There would be no obligation >to cast both votes, of couse, just as there is now no obligation to vote at all. >So you could vote just for someone, or just against someone, or not at all. > >Roger
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.