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? >>>> >>>>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. 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 >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? The delete button. 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. 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? >>Please. >> > >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. >>> >>>Roger >> >>Dave > > >Roger Dave
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.