Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Roger D Davis

Date: 13:59:55 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

The moderators are unlikely to post especially noxious messages, so eight hours
probably isn't much of a problem. That won't catch an especially destructive
moderator, but hopefully that individual would not have been elected in the
first place. So maybe scope isn't much of a problem.


On July 23, 1999 at 11:35:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.