Author: Will Singleton
Date: 22:44:48 06/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1999 at 21:43:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 09, 1999 at 12:41:19, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On June 09, 1999 at 12:26:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 09, 1999 at 00:35:00, Will Singleton wrote: >>> >>>>On June 08, 1999 at 23:26:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 08, 1999 at 17:37:01, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>>>When we were elected, we spent a week or so working out a method of moderation. >>>>>>After some negotiation, this was eventually written out and agreed to. Some of >>>>>>us may have supported certain items more than others, but the document was >>>>>>accepted by all. And it included the provision to disallow discussions of >>>>>>deleted messages. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>and _that_ is a problem. You were _not_ elected to set rules. You _were_ >>>>>elected to _enforce_ the existing rules. And nowhere do the existing rules >>>>>say "if you disagree with a moderator's deletion policy, this can not be >>>>>discussed herein." >>>>> >>>>>If we want such a rule, I'd think the group could decide that as a whole. >>>>> >>>>>That is why the US Government has a legislative branch separate from the >>>>>judicial and executive branches. Because you can't both write the laws, >>>>>interpret them, and then enforce them. We know what that is called. And >>>>>it is not spelled 'democracy'... >>>>> >>>> >>>>Hello Bob, >>>> >>>>I wrote my election platform after reading the CCC Charter. The existing rules. >>>> I didn't make them up, didn't even interpret. I suppose you have forgotten the >>>>part of the Charter where it says: >>>> >>>>"You are further agreeing to abide by the decision of the moderators should a >>>>post of yours be deleted and/or if you should lose your membership privileges >>>>after due consideration of the moderators. You also will be agreeing that the >>>>decision of the moderators is final." >>>> >>>>Hello? Did you read that part? Accuse me of making up rules, and being a >>>>dictator, do you? ;-) >>>> >>> >>>Yep... because the designated function of a moderator is to remove posts that >>>the membership here would consider objectionable. _not_ to (a) remove posts >>>that the moderator considers objectionable; (b) define a rule that says that >>>moderator decisions can _not_ be discussed. >>> >>>I have no problem reading at all. Nor in understanding. The moderators (you) >>>work for _us_. Not the other way around. Get the distinction? we elected you >>>to enforce _our_ intentions to not allow personal attacks. We did _not_ elect >>>you to start defining _other_ topics that are not permissable. >>> >>>Simple, really. You were out of control. I and others were not happy about >>>it. We voiced our opinion. You deleted those as well. That is _not_ >>>acceptable nor is it what I voted for you to do. In any form. And I _did_ >>>vote for the three that were elected plus others last election... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Cmon, Bob, it's pretty clear. How can anyone come up with a different >>>>interpretation after reading that? If you want to change the Charter, fine, but >>>>don't accuse me of making it up out of thin air. >>>> >>>>Will >>> >>> >>> >>>Where do you see in the charter that a moderator can define topics that are >>>not allowed? The charter attempts to stop personal attacks _only_. Not >>>discussions about message board policy... that is what you tried to stifle, >>>and you were wrong. >>> >>>And again, we 'hired' you to enforce the 'law', not to make it, not to interpret >>>it. But with your interpretation, you could delete every post here, and we >>>don't get to question that? I don't think so... >> >> >>Not only do I disagree, but I fail to understand you at all. Nothing new about >>that. >> >>Will > > >This would have been a good post to delete. No content of any kind. I don't >see what you don't understand. Your stance on "no discussion of moderation >decisions" is not supported by the CCC charter, nor by the communications >between the 'founders', nor by popular support within the group. So where did >this decision come from, and how is it 'justified'? > >Do you think we gave you a license to do whatever you feel like? Doesn't that >sound like what the "SS" guys did in 1940's Germany? We only want the current >rules enforced. Not 'new' rules made... > >at least, speaking for myself... Troll away, Bob.
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.