Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I resign the Post as Moderator.

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 22:21:36 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 19:43:23, Amir Ban wrote:

>On July 22, 1999 at 20:12:33, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>On July 22, 1999 at 19:28:18, Mark Young wrote:
>>>I never did understand the moderation representation on CCC. We vote for three
>>>moderators, but instead of having two of the three moderators agreeing to delete
>>>a post, we have three three kings that do as they will when they see a post they
>>>think should be deleted. This approach kills the representation of the mass of
>>>CCC. Not a very logical way to represent the voters.
>>>Under the circumstances of how the moderators represent the voters I understand
>>>and agree with your reasons for resigning. As it stands now if one moderator can
>>>delete posts at will without the consent of at least one other moderator, this
>>>leave you unable to represent your position and view as moderator that you ran
>>>and were elected on by the voters of CCC to represent.
>>It depends upon how you see the job of moderator.  I view post deletion as a
>>police function, mainly.  You wouldn't expect the cops to get together and vote
>>before they arrested someone, would you?
>>The voting process has no hierarchy or decision process built in.  We elect
>>three moderators but we don't give them any framework for dealing with each
>>other.  My first point of business was to try to establish a framework, but we
>>never got together and did it.
>>I think this is only the second time that something was deleted, it has been
>>mostly quiet so far.
>>I don't think that moderators are above the charter, and I will react the same
>>way to a moderator post as to any other post.  If I had seen any other member
>>post that I would have deleted it.
>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'm sorry, but I totally disagree with that concept.  Moderators were elected
to remove post _they_ consider to be inappropriate to this forum.  They were
not elected and given special privileges of posting something that requires
_two_ other moderators to remove, while the rest of us can be excised by a
single moderator.

As memebers we have email facilities to tell a moderator when _we_ think that
something is inappropriate.  But we elect moderators to use _their_ judgement
in the normal case.

The post was inappropriate.  It should have been deleted.  It was.

All that we need is a formal recall procedure so that if a majority here feel
that a moderator went too far, he can be removed by a majority vote.  But to
make this into a complex, slow, interactive voting process is simply too
complicated...  and is unnecessary.

In fact, you'd think a moderator would be the _last_ person to make such a
post, not the _first_...  That caused this problem to surface at the beginning
of this mess...

>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.
>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.

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.