Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Roger D Davis

Date: 14:13:28 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 07:56:35, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>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. :-)

Thanks for your graciousness in this matter. :-)

>>>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.

That didn't work well...hence all these threads about it.

>>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.

That's what I was proposing, that the third moderator join A or B before one of
their posts could be deleted.

>>>>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?

I suggested it as a way of handling ambiguous cases, one particularly relevant
here since we are now a moderator down. I was not advocating that we upend the
moderator system.

>>>>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.