Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 06:30:25 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 06:49:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On July 24, 1999 at 06:05:06, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>As for as the "two of three" agrument goes, that was established after the fact >>(I had suggested earlier, in a post that you replied to, that two of three be >>established before the fact...the fact of deletion, that is). You might read >>Amir Ban's post, as well. > >The following is meant to state a point of view, rather than to sound shrill and >argumentatitive. > >I think that each crew of moderators can define their decision making process >however they want. > >It is possible that 2/3 would not be enough if they agree to operate on a >consensus basis. > >It is possible that 1/3 is enough if they agree that any moderator can delete >any post. > >It is possible that 1/1 is enough if they agree that one moderator will have >total control over post deletion for some period of time. > >It doesn't do much good to say that the moderators must behave in accordance >with some particular system that a random member might invent. There is no >externally imposed system at this point. > >>Moreover, it costs only a little bit of HTML code and text to do it, and the >>information return on the investment is tremendous, and the time could not more >>opportune. >> >>I say use Fernando's post as the acid test of what should be allowed and let the >>CCC members speak for what they want... I don't know how it's going to turn out, >>but either way, it gives the moderators a mandate for moderating. > >If someone wants to do a vote about whether we should have dirty jokes here, and >use that one as a specific example (it'd have to be put somewhere that people >can see it), that'd be fine with me. I'd be interested in seeing what came of >that. > >I'd also post a few other examples: > >1) "Here are the results of some particular human tournament, and some games". > >2) "Can someone recommend a book on beginning tactics?" > >3) "Does drinking coffee before a chess game improve your play?" > >4) "Merry Christmas" (assuming that it's approximately December 25th). > >5) "Is the warp drive in Star Trek feasible? How might such a warp drive work?" > >6) "Is Pamela Anderson Lee more appealing with or without the implants?" > >7) "Does anyone know what Bobby Fischer is up to?" > >If this is going to be done, I would like to see that members can choose whether >they want to see any amount of posts similar to any of the above, a little from >time to time, or none whatsoever. > All of the above are good ideas, and could greatly help the moderators and group define exactly where the threshold is, and what the charter should contain. The Merry Xmas is a great one, because it's unambiguously off topic, yet it is hard to disagree with someone who is wishing others good cheer. The Bobby Fischer idea is also especially good, since it tends to be repeated over and over ad nauseum on the newsgroups. The Pamela Anderson one, I assume, is intended to be of the same caliber as Fernando's post. We might also want to put in some concrete examples that would be accepted by lenient moderation, but ruled out by strict moderation. And we might also want to put in some examples that would be ruled out even by lenient moderation. Of course, it can also be argued that this makes the whole process to complex to be realistically voted on, and that we ought to just leave it as Fernando's post, since that is the core of the current controversy. Including two or three other examples, however, would be useful. As for each crew of moderators defining their decision-making process however they want...I don't see that it worked this time around. However, I am only concerned with how the moderators moderate themselves...what Amir called the "constitutional crisis," not with how the moderators have moderated the group in general, which I think has worked quite well time around. Roger
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.