Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 04:15:15 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 05:34:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On July 23, 1999 at 05:14:22, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On July 23, 1999 at 04:28:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>I'm not sure where you got these ideas. >>> >>>When I saw Fernando's post it was immediately obvious that if I left it, the >>>next morning there would be at least one email from a member complaining about >>>the post. The complaint would suggest that that kind of post didn't belong in >>>the group. It would ask that the post be deleted. It would express confusion >>>as to why anyone would think that such a post belonged here. And this person >>>might reply to the post, expressing similar sentiments in the group, etc. >>> >>>I don't think that it is too strict to say that CCC shouldn't become the dirty >>>joke forum, is it? >>> >>>bruce >> >>I think perhaps people can disagree intelligently about deleting Fernando's post >>without agreeing that CCC should become a dirty joke forum. >> >>As I noted in a reply to KarinsDad, the issue is how it was done, not the post >>itself. >> >>If it was obvious that there would have been complaints, then IMHO, you should >>have left it. Then you could have argued that the post needed to be brought to >>the attention of the CCC forum at large, since people are complaining, and >>because CCC has heretofore lacked a mechanism whereby moderators moderate each >>other. > >This is a ridiculous assertion. If it was obvious that complaints would occur, >the best thing to do is get rid of the damn thing before they occur. It's a >moderator's fiduciary duty to delete such a post ASAP. Actually, it's an opinion, not an assertion of fact, not a claim about reality. That's why I put IMHO. Moreover, the opinion doesn't exist in isolation, in which case it would indeed be absurd, but was put forward in the service of establishing a mechanism that might eliminate these conflagrations. The letter of the law needs to serve it's spirit, which is that CCC go forward harmoniously for all of us, and that means seeing the total situation in areas where there are as yet unresolved ambiguities. Again, IMHO. > >There's a perfectly good mechanism whereby moderators moderate each other, and >Bruce used it. That Fernando got all bent out of shape about it is tough luck. It has nothing to do with Fernando. I am not taking sides with Fernando. It has nothing to do with sides, and everything to do with moderation and the loss of a moderator. If there's a mechanism, then I must have missed it. What mechanism already exists that empowers a moderator to delete another moderator's posts? Moderators delete posts at different thresholds of relevance, we know that. Assume that Moderator A deletes Moderator B's posts. Moderator B then gets pisses and adopts a low threshold for deleting Moderator A's posts. He doesn't delete obviously on target posts, just those for which a defensible argument of irrelevance can be created. So then the two argue and argue about it, and have a little war. You don't need to be Bruce or Fernando to have such a war, or to create ill will. But you're saying that there is already a mechanism in place to stop this. Please tell me what it is, and I'll stand corrected. > >>If you had asked what the group wanted to do, the group would have come to some >>consensus, and that consensus might well have reigned in the rogue moderator, or >>not. Fernando might still have resighed. Either way, the result would not have >>been your action and not your responsibility, but that of the group. You would >>have been applauded for your democratic principles, and there would have been no >>appearance of presumptuousness. > >We voted for representatives so that we could be a direct democracy anyway? >Please. > I didn't say we did that. I said that Bruce's actions would be perceived as being congruent with democratic principles. >>My position is that the content of Fernando's post is irrelevant, since CCC >>lacked (and still lacks) an explicit mechanism whereby the moderators can >>moderate themselves in a principled way in which personal popularity can never >>play a role (with this last sentence, I'm trying to make an abstract point, >>here, not point a finger, by the way). > >I disagree with the first sentence, see above. > >>Now, however, it appears that we have two moderators instead of three, and you >>and KarinsDad have more work to do, and we still need an explicit mechanism >>whereby the moderators can moderate themselves without any appearance of an >>abuse of power. >> >>Roger > >Dave Roger
This page took 0.01 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.