Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 14:57:00 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 23, 1999 at 16:59:55, Roger D Davis wrote:

>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.
>
>Roger


I wasn't only applying the 2-vote idea to deleting moderator posts, but to
deleting _any_ post, which was suggested by others (and which I don't like).
Ed, Enrique and I were the first 3 moderators.  They were (apparently) fairly
close to each other time-zone wise, but 7-8 hours off from me.  Which means
that there are big windows where I can't reach another moderator, and the
same where they can't reach me...

that makes voting very difficult.. as it does other decisions like kicking
someone out, or whatever...

world-scale time is a pain at times...





>
>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).
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Roger
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>moderators.
>>>>
>>>>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 0.01 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.