Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I'm not convinced, Bruce.

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 04:56:35 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 07:15:15, Roger D Davis wrote:

>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?
>>>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
>>>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
>>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.

Sorry, I missed the IMHO the first time.  I'll downgrade that to an IMHO absurd
opinion. :-)

>>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
>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?

The delete button.

>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.

Moderator C, I'd hope.

>>>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?
>I didn't say we did that. I said that Bruce's actions would be perceived as
>being congruent with democratic principles.

Did you not suggest that Bruce solicit the opinion of the membership?  That
would seem like a return to direct democracy.  Or did I misunderstand you again?

>>>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.


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.