Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 19:00:48 05/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 1999 at 14:34:41, Dann Corbit wrote: >It seems that most who are nominated have declined. This is not surprising >because: >0. Being a moderator will be a lot of work with no compensation >1. Moderators are roundly booed every time they make a decision by the half who >disagree with it. (They are judgement calls, after all). >2. We have all seen how the previous moderators were unfairly treated. > >Now, despite all of that, I don't think that those who are nominated should >dismiss the notion right away. The story of the little red hen who made bread >comes to mind. No one wanted to help plant, harvest, grind flour or bake. But >all were ready to eat. In other words, we all enjoy the benefits, but it seems >we don't want to help ourselves. > >If more people do not accept, it will be a bad thing (IMO). Shall we all just >return to r.g.c.c. with Dr. Graue, Don Fong, and their band of merry cutthroats >and wade through manure for the rest of our days? > >I have been nominated (makes me recall a Pink Floyd line from Dark Side of the >Moon: "I don't know -- I was very drunk at the time."). I have accepted under >the circumstance that if less than 8 persons accept, I will agree to run. The >reason I made that provision is that I think I would be a very, very bad choice >for moderator. I am outspoken, and have even had some of *my* posts dropped by >the moderation crew. I have a funny way of getting on people's nerves >unintentionally. Really, not the sort of person you would want for a moderator. > But I will function in that role if forced to by necessity. > >In short, nobody in their right mind would want to do the job. But *somebody* >needs to do it. I implore those who have been nominated to think about what >kind of moderator they would be. If they really could serve in the best >interests of all, why not reconsider serving in that capacity? If you think you >could do a good job and no one has nominated you, why not nominate yourself? > >The greatest success of this group will largely be a function of the quality of >moderation. Please, please, please -- serve if you are able. Dann go for moderator. Rule with an iron fist, stuff anyone that gets in your way mate. The only thing you have to lose is your standing within CCC if you should make a mistake. All it takes is for a small minority to not like what you are doing and you will have enemies, out to destroy you. From that point on they will have just a little bit more anger in any post that they reply to yours. You may become a wanted man, hated by many, loved by few. You will have to play politics, have to lie, in order to maintain the stutus of this fine forum. You will have to lie cheat and steal, to maybe one day rise to become what they all want. To be know as the king moderator. The only person to ever become a moderator and not piss anyone off :-) Just thought I would give you something to think about Dann, just a bit of fun, OR is IT ?????? :-)
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.