Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 18:17:08 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. Some more detail in the charter might be a good thing. But I would be against adding the kind of detail you may be suggesting, for several reasons: 1) This is similar to the idea of mandatory sentences, which are designed to prevent judges from punishing offensese that society has deemed to require significant punishment. I don't support this idea here because this kind of thing removes discretion, and a moderator might be forced by a combination of an angry person and a violated offense, to do injustice to some member, because the *letter* of the rules force this injustice to be done. 2) This list would be very long, it would be hard to agree to what would be on the list, it would be hard to make sure that the wrong stuff isn't on the list, and it is possible that it would serve as the inverse of a list of rude things that a troublemaker *can* do and get away with. I would be concerned that the things that aren't on the list would be considered "legal", even if they should be covered by the charter. 3) This place shouldn't require this much seriousness. It should be possible to elect three people and trust them not to turn this place into a police state or r.g.c.c. for six months. >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 I would be very much opposed to this. >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. Hopefully we will get the bugs worked out eventually, and will choose a system through general practice. It's better to come up with rules through practical circumstances, I think. >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. This is like trying to mandate the proper place on the liberal - conservative spectrum. If you can do this, you should give it to the UN or the Nobel committee. bruce
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.