Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I resign the Post as Moderator.

Author: James Robertson

Date: 22:39:18 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 24, 1999 at 00:30:09, KarinsDad wrote:

>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.
>These were your rules. This is the first I have heard of them. Personally, I
>think that they are a fine set of rules with the exception of when a post is
>just plain bad and should be deleted immediately, regardless of circumstances.
>>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.
>As I said, this is the first I have heard of these rules. What we had done is
>ask if the previous moderators had some guidelines and we got some. We forwarded
>them around, only two of them got discussed as potential drops, and that was it.
>Nobody wrote up a formal set of guidelines. The two that got discussed were not
>allowing moderation Emails to be posted and having a procedure to remove a rogue
>moderator. Neither of these seemed to be appealing to everyone. The guideline on
>having one moderator delete on his own authority was never discussed by anyone
>(Fernando included). I took it to mean that we all basically agreed that it and
>the other guidelines were more or less fine.
>>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 disagree. Bruce showed good judgement. He weighed the worthlessness of the
>post and the chance of it creating controversy versus Fernando's desire to have
>it posted. Nobody is clairvoyant enough to figure out that Fernando would take
>it so hard. Quite frankly, I was shocked that he did. If one of my worthless
>posts would have been deleted, I would have said, "Oh well.".

Remember that for Fernando it is not just one worthless post. It represents the
_kind_ of post he would like to post here, and he planned to post a lot more
than just one.


>Let's just examine for a moment what we are talking about. We are not talking
>about an opinion of which engine is stronger. We are not talking about even a
>borderline post such as the FIDE ratings. We are talking about a joke and a
>potentially offensive one at that.
>I think you give the moderators too much power when you say they are not subject
>to the same set of rules as everyone else.
>>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.
>KarinsDad :)

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.