Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:48:55 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 19:43:23, Amir Ban wrote: >As a former moderator I take credit for inventing the "on-duty" procedure. When >I was lobbying for it, I described it to my fellow moderators (Don Dailey & >Bruce Moreland) in these terms: > >Having one moderator on duty doesn't mean that he has all the power. The >principle of majority decision still holds. The moderator on duty acts as a sort >of chairman, decides the agenda, and asks the two others to vote on stuff. He >can act alone only in cases that are too simple to bother the others, or have >already been discussed by the moderators and the action is what was agreed >should be taken in such a case. IN ANY CASE, if the moderator on duty already >knows of a dissenting opinion by another moderator, he's not allowed to act >alone and must get the opinion of the third moderator. > >This was my understanding of the rules, and they were followed with no >exceptions that I can remember. > >It doesn't seem the present moderators have worked out any such procedures, or >at least that's my impression from the posts in this thread. If they were >following the procedures set above, I would consider Bruce's action to be >illegal, since he should have assumed that Fernando, by posting what he did, >disagrees with him, and he had to resort to majority vote. > >I think Bruce showed very poor judgement here. His action would not deserve much >comment against an ordinary member, and would probably be perfectly justified, >but for the moderators to start censoring each other does not make sense, for >reasons that have nothing to do with the charter. What we have now can be called >a constitutional crisis. I can understand your opinion that Fernando implicitly endorsed his post. Assuming he wasn't inebriated when he posted, this much can be taken for granted. I still think that Bruce showed very good judgement here. If his action would not have deserved much (I will read in the word "public" here) comment against an ordinary member, it should deserve no more public comment for the post being Fernando's. Had Fernando decided to repost the message, followed by Bruce making his comments, we would have ended up with roughly the same thread anyway. >Experience shows that the post of moderator needs quite a bit of talent for >politics and diplomacy. I hope the voters will remember this next time. That a talent for politics and diplomacy should be required to deal successfully with a post that so blatantly contravenes CCC's charter is no advertisement for the job. >Amir Dave
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.