Author: Dan Homan
Date: 06:14:44 06/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1999 at 08:23:56, Micheal Cummings wrote: >I am sure with all the brains that frequent this place, that a group or anyone >could come up with a detailed set of regulations, Detailing > >1. What is acceptable and what is not in posting in finer detail > >2. How to handle member problems with moderation issues, maybe someone who could >give a final result on on a dispute between moderators and members arguments. > >3. Details on penalties given for certain actions. > >There would be many other things that I am sure people could find. > >* We still have up in the air, accusing non members or people of cheating with >only their opinion as proof. > >* What should be tolerated in non computer posts. > >I am sure people could write down their ideas, and someone like Fernando could >put it together for steve to have final approval. and that way it could be fine >tuned over the next 2 months or so. and we can have a very details document >saying what will happen when members are bad, and what is acceptable or not. And >covering all issues > >Instead of every time new moderators coming in, and what the previous moderators >found acceptable, could lead to being banned for the same with the new >moderators. This is unacceptable and members should be made clear as to what is >required in posting and topics. > >Moderators need to moderate on a set of know rules, not make them up as they go >along. As we can see now, some nominees are more tolerant than others, to >confusing. On the surface this seems like a good idea, but I am not sure it will work the way you want. Even if we have a detailed set of rules and consequences, moderators will still have to make decisions about which rules and which consequences apply to a given situation because most real situations will not be fully covered by the rules. The difference will be that now there can be much more argument after a decision is made. People can point at all the rules and regulations and bicker about which should have been applied. This kind of rules lawyering is something that I think would be very unhealthy for the group. There is also the possibility that the rules will tie the moderator's hands in an unfortunate way. We see this all the time in our real world legal system where mandatory minimum penalties get applied in cases where they are clearly unjust. The reason for mandatory minimums in this country is that people got fed up with some judges giving penalties that were too lenient to serious offenders, but the drawback is that judges can no longer use their judgement in some cases where leniency is called for. By making mandatory rules and consequences that moderators must abide by, it is possible that we could generate a similar or opposite effect here. Personally I prefer to keep the guidelines loose and let the moderators use their judgement. If people feel a few more guidelines are called for, I can understand that, but I think we should keep the list short and general. - Dan
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.