Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: The issue is not Fernando versus's the means.

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:35:56 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 04:55:33, Roger D Davis wrote:

>You read a bit into my message, Karinsdad. I didn't suggest that we leave
>irrelevant posts on for 8 hours, or any period of time. I also did not suggest
>that the moderators were immune to moderation. I also consider it irrelevant
>whether Fernando abided by the CCC charter, or not, and IMHO, it is irrelevant
>whether his post was deleted, or not. And whether my view is typical of society
>is off the point.
>What is relevant is the way that it was deleted. I'm not arguing with the ends,
>just the means. We need to keep our moderators, cause it's hell getting people
>to do the job. That means we need a mechanism whereby if actions are taken to
>delete a moderator's post, another moderator doesn't get blamed, thus creating
>these threads, which is what just happened.
>I have proposed such a mechanism. I am not taking sides, and I have not been
>taken in. It is completely possible that Fernando should not have posted what he
>did and that Bruce should not have deleted it. If you focus on the ends, the
>actual post, then it's an either-or issue, Fernando versus Bruce.
>But if you focus on the means, the issue is DUE PROCESS, and how a mechanism
>which simulates due process can be created with three moderators, so that we can
>work another kink out of our little forum. Otherwise, there is always a
>potential for one moderator to abuse another, or to make power plays that rely
>on his or her personal popularity (and I am not saying that that is what Bruce
>did, only that such a thing is an abstract possibility).

your approach is very restricted in scope.  We have three moderators.  One is
going to post something that should not be posted.  A second notices this and
now needs to contact the third.  There is a fair chance that this will take at
_least_ 8 hours due to world geography.  How do you handle that?  To make this
work, we would need _nine_ moderators, three each in different 8 hour time
zones.  So that at any point, there is a good probability that 3 of the
moderators can get in contact as it is 'prime time' there.

Bruce lives in Pacific time (NYC - 3 hrs).  I don't have any idea where
Karinsdad lives.  Fernando lives at (roughly) NYC + 6(or 7) hours.  They are
too spread out and when the original post showed up around NY time 2200 hours,
if the third moderator happens to be in Europe, then Bruce would be out of luck
until the next day... because by the time Europe is waking up, he has long since
gone to bed...

voting doesn't work unless you have enough 'voters' spread around the world to
avoid time-zone problems...

>On July 23, 1999 at 01:21:52, KarinsDad wrote:
>>On July 23, 1999 at 00:05:23, Roger D Davis wrote:
>>>The tactful thing for Bruce to have done would have been to write to Fernando,
>>>express his opinion about Fernando's post, and ask Fernando to delete his own
>>>post. Failing that, he should have appealed to the other moderator for
>>>consensus, and both should have approached Fernando to delete his own post.  If
>>>the other moderator disagreed, the post would have stood. Thus, the moderators
>>>can moderate themselves, but one moderator cannot moderate another, since the
>>>moderators are, after all, on the same level (who has the most votes is
>>>irrelevant, since CCC is a fluid membership).
>>>All of this would (and should) have taken place in private.
>>Gee, I don't remember making up such a rule when we started. Let's leave
>>inappropriate posts on the forum for 8 hours until the offending poster gives
>>permission to delete it.
>>I also do not remember a rule that moderators were immune to moderation. I
>>believe we all agreed to the the CCC guidelines when we joined, even the
>>Quite frankly, if any mistakes were made, it was by Fernando, not Bruce:
>>1) Fernando didn't object when I forwarded back in June the previous moderators
>>guidelines which recommended that we allow a single moderator the freedom to
>>delete as necessary and said I thought they were good guidelines.
>>2) Fernando posted an inappropriate post (and then posted it again in Spanish,
>>hmmmmm, didn't he agree to abide by moderators decisions like the rest of us
>>when he signed up? I guess he thinks he's above all of the CCC guidelines).
>>3) Fernando made a stink about it when Bruce deleted it and did not talk to
>>Bruce and I via Email in private when it happened (and yes, resigning and
>>pointing fingers while doing it is just another way of making a stink). Bruce
>>did not bring it into the open, Fernando did.
>>The post was quite frankly not worth anyone's time, it was not worth defending,
>>it was not worth resigning over (I'm sure Fernando has an ulterior motive such
>>as not wanting the job) and it sure as heck wasn't worth the crapstorm that
>>resulted here (as Fernando knew it would).
>>Your view Roger is so typical of our society. The "criminal" is the victim
>>(giving Fernando or any moderator the delayed option of deleting his own post
>>over and over is like giving Karin the key to the cookie jar).
>>Horse hockey. Fernando started this whole thing and made himself out to be the
>>victim. Very smart of him. He took you and a bunch of other people in. Bruce
>>didn't step on Fernando's toes, he did his job. Fernando made it out to be an
>>aggressive action against himself. Uh huh.
>>And of all of the people in the world, I cannot believe I am defending Bruce's
>>actions (he and I almost always disagree), but he is in the right and Fernando
>>is in the wrong. IMHO.
>>KarinsDad :|
>>PS. I let tact fly out the window (as seen above) when I read for the umpteenth
>>time yet another way that the moderators should have been tactful and how they
>>should have done their job. As if the people posting this type of tripe are
>>always tactful (not talking about you specifically Roger, your post was very
>>tactful, just annoying to me personally due to it's point of view).
>>The tactful thing for Fernando to do was to resign for personal reasons if he
>>really felt that strongly and leave all of this other junk in the closet where
>>it belonged.

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.