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. >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>>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. >> >>Dave > >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. Dave
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.