Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I resign the Post as Moderator.

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 23:54:32 07/22/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 22, 1999 at 21:19:57, Mark Young wrote:

>On July 22, 1999 at 20:59:17, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>On July 22, 1999 at 20:47:26, Mark Young wrote:
>>>On July 22, 1999 at 20:18:26, KarinsDad wrote:
>>>>On July 22, 1999 at 19:45:22, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>On July 22, 1999 at 19:23:41, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>>>>>On July 22, 1999 at 18:18:22, Terry Presgrove wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems to me that if moderators have the authority to delete other
>>>>>>> moderator's posts that this is a formula for disaster! What would have
>>>>>>> prevented Fernando from deleting yours?
>>>>>>Nothing except sanity.
>>>>>>You would think that if moderators delete posts for no reason, that someone will
>>>>>>figure it out and stop them.  I had a reason for deleting that post, there were
>>>>>>no posts of mine that needed deleting.
>>>>>The problem is this is only your view right or wrong..., you are one moderator.
>>>>>We voted for three moderators. If one moderator can take opon himself to delete
>>>>>posts without the consent of at least one other moderator. Then what is the
>>>>>point in voting for 3 moderators. If your view is the only one that matters then
>>>>>I guess the other moderator sould resign now, because he also has no say in what
>>>>>and what is not deleted.
>>>>Actually, this is my view as well. Moderators HAVE to have the flexibility to
>>>>delete bad posts when they occur and they also HAVE to have the authority to do
>>>>that with no one's permission.
>>>>Bruce did the right thing. This post should have been deleted.
>>>I am not disagreeing that the post sould or sould not have been deleted, the
>>>question is how do you know when the post was deleted that it should have been,
>>>when you did not see it. In this case you are the third moderator, One moderator
>>>thought the post was ok, he posted it. One moderator thought it should be
>>>deleted, he deleted it. That seems like a clear case for you to be consulted to
>>>break the disagreement. Instead Bruce just took it opon himself to delete the
>>>post. Unless you have given Bruce your vote by proxy, and if that is the case
>>>why are you still here as a moderator. Just resign and let Bruce run the show.
>>> I have been
>>>>somewhat lenient trying to not create waves and probably Bruce has as well. But,
>>>>when a post obviously begs for removal, it should be removed.
>>>>Fernando is a great guy, but nominating him for moderator was probably a mistake
>>>>of this body. He personality is just not cut out for it. This can be seen by the
>>>>fact that the ONLY post Bruce deleted was Fernando's and the ONLY thread I
>>>>deleted originally became controversial because of Fernando, hence, I deleted
>>>>his posts as well.
>>>>I am fairly lenient, but Fernando's moderation stance is almost non-existent.
>>>So what, that is what he ran on and was elected to represent. For you now to
>>>show such disrespect to Fernando in what you have said, is a slap in the face to
>>>the people who voted for Fernando. What you are saying is I reject the views of
>>>the people that voted for Fernando's way of moderation. As only my way of think
>>>is the correct approach.
>>>>I'm sorry if that opinion bothers people, but that is how I see it. Bruce and I
>>>>are not ganging up on Fernando, he made the decision himself to post what he
>>>>did. Even the subject of his post had "Off Topic, but" in it.
>>>>I hope we can put this behind us and move forward.
>>>>KarinsDad :(
>>Fernando made his post in his role as member, not in his role as moderator.
>If your statement is true, and a moderator is only a moderator when he is “on
>duty” that means we have three standards that the members must comply by,
>depending on which moderator is on “duty”?
>Here is the problem, if one moderator feels a post is ok to leave up and does
>so, does the next moderator on “duty” have a right to delete the post. Under the
>current system yes, and logically I guess the next moderator should have a right
>to restore the post when he is back on “duty” This can be a very silly place to
>post sometimes.


I think if one moderator feels a post needs biffing, it's okay for them to biff
it.  Another one shouldn't just go and revive it.  If a contentious decision was
made, the third moderator can break the tie in favour of reviving or biffing, as
they see fit.


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.