Author: KarinsDad
Date: 13:11:51 05/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 1999 at 15:30:13, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 28, 1999 at 15:18:48, Dave Gomboc wrote: >[snip] >>I have been nominated again. I was not elected last term, when I did accept. >>Nothing major has changed in six months, so what would be the difference? >We're 6 months wiser now. >;-) >You've got my vote. I think that the system is for the most part self moderating (i.e. each individual polices themself as a normal rule). For the few cases where an individual(s) is being a real pain, then the moderators are needed. I think that most of the nominees think that they have to read EVERY post. Why should this be? The moderators should filter the posts by author, read those authors who are occasionally troublemakers, read those posts that interest them, and read those posts that people Email to the moderators as trouble. So, there may be nominees who are declining just due to what they perceive as a an awful lot of work. Do not get me wrong, there is work involved. However, I do not think that it includes reading each and every post (and obviously it does not mean reading posts as soon as they are posted). 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.