Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:16:57 05/10/99
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. > >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 I like both of your suggestions. It is better to prevent people from getting burned out and it would be nice to have a way to minimize the chances of an extremist (in either direction) of getting elected. KarinsDad :)
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.