Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:04:23 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 09:30:25, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 FWIW, past experience says that "Merry Christmas" threads seem to be inoffensive enough and relatively short-lived, consequently, they manage to stay put. Fischer threads are created by a newbie once in a while, but are almost always closed forcibly. Dave
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.