Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I resign the Post as Moderator.

Author: Terry Presgrove

Date: 23:13:31 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 24, 1999 at 01:21:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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.