Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I resign the Post as Moderator.

Author: Amir Ban

Date: 06:33:25 07/24/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 24, 1999 at 01:34:58, Will Singleton 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.
>>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 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.
>Your comments show a lack of insight and/or thought, and perhaps some
>vindictiveness.  That is self-evident to the casual reader, so no argument is

I don't even know from which angle you are attacking my opinion, so it can't be

Why vindictiveness ? I think that part at least needs justification.

>I am furthermore disappointed that, after so long an absence, you choose to post
>on such an insubstantial matter.

I don't consider this matter insubstantial.

>  Really disappointing.

I'm not thrilled to read your post either.


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.