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. >> >>Amir > >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 >required. > I don't even know from which angle you are attacking my opinion, so it can't be self-evident. 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. > >Will I'm not thrilled to read your post either. Amir
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.