Author: Charles L. Williams
Date: 14:01:28 05/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 12:01:56, Robert Hyatt 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. > > >For the record, I was one of several nominated for moderator. My response >to Steve was as follows: > >1. I was one of the original 3 moderators, and I am not sure that repeating is >a good idea since there are plenty of others that can do this. > >2. I would be willing to be a moderator, but _only_ if there were insufficient >moderators nominated. IE I don't mind doing it, but I think it would be best >done by others. In light of my recent dissatisfaction with a couple of >decisions on moderating, I thought it best that I remain on the sideline. > >It isn't an easy job. It doesn't have to take a lot of time, but it can if you >let it, particularly if a thread gets out of control before action is taken. It >will get people mad at you. > >But it is necessary... I wouldn't vote for you, Bob. I think you'd be a good moderator, but Crafty needs your attention more. :) Chuck
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.