Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:53:49 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 1999 at 22:00:48, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >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 ?????? :-) Why is what you say any different than standard operating procedure for Dann? 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.