Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 21:00:01 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread


On July 23, 1999 at 17:13:28, Roger D Davis wrote:

>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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>other.
>>>>
>>>>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. :-)

<grin>

>>>>
>>>>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
>>>moderator.
>>>
>>>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.

It may be true that there is a way that would have worked better.  Given the
extremely different platforms Bruce and Fernando ran on, well, I'm skeptical.
I'll keep reading suggestions, though.

>>
>>Moderators
>>>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.

I think it's fair enough to temporarily remove the message, and get the third
moderator's opinion.  There's no permanent damage being done: analogies such as
"shoot first and ask questions later" are inaccurate.

>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>Please.
>>>>
>>>
>>>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.

I didn't find the case ambiguous at all.  Of course, I saw the spanish version
that Fernando posted, ran it through freetranslation.com, and complained about
it being here.  Perhaps this puts me further over on the slide rule than even
Bruce.

>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Roger
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>Dave

Dave



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.