Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:58:21 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 01:26:29, Terry Presgrove wrote: [snip] > > I agree that all the talk so far does not seem to be leading us in a positive > direction, but I do think there is a much larger question here than the dirty > joke post. I would refer you to the Constitutional post above and the one by > Amir Ban. No one is perfect, it is quite possible that the post needed to be > deleted, but the larger question has to do with you guys ( the modertors) not > having resolved moderator issues before it got to this point. I thought we had basically agreed. I thought via our Emails in June that our policy was one of allowing any of the moderators to delete a post, but that the author of the post would be informed with the reason and the other moderators would also be shown the post and the reason. Fernando did not object to this then. Now, he is suddenly outraged. I cannot do anything about that. Even taking you > and Bruces word for the post being at least inappropriate and if 90% of the > membership would have been outraged by it ( which I'm sure wouldn't have) I'm sure 90% of the membership would not have been outraged. I never once said that it was an outrageous post. I said that it was inappropriate. And in my very first post on the subject, I said that I probably would not have deleted it myself, but that Bruce was perfectly within his right as moderator to do so. there >should have been established by you three moderators proceedures for such >self moderations as Amir pointed out. Of couse all of this is hind sight now but >I would hope that this unfortunate event would lead to clear cut guidelines by >whoever is left so that this never happens again. Like I said above, I thought that we had guidelines. Unfortunately, Fernando did not see it that way. Perhaps we might have a >constitutional convention whereby moderator guidelines are established. We could >elect a dozen or so members to work out the details and incorporate them into >the constituion. Moderators will not always agree with each other and if we >hope to avoid this turmoil in the future it is imperative that we get this issue >resolved once and for all. >TP That would be fine with me. I have no problem following a set of guidelines written down by a representative group. However, a word of note. These types of controversies raise their ugly head every 2 months or so. A set of guidelines is fine, but I doubt it will stop the anti-moderator rhetoric that occurs once in a while. Some people like to stand up for the little guy and see this as an opportunity to do so. And some people dislike the concept of moderation in most any form, regardless of what they agreed to when they joined the group. So, I doubt it will prevent these problems from occuring again and again. The best it might do is prevent a moderator from leaving due to this particular type of problem that happened this time, but I wouldn't even bet money on that. But, one can only hope. KarinsDad :)
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.