Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:09:38 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 09:34:14, Roger D Davis wrote: >On July 24, 1999 at 06:54:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On July 24, 1999 at 06:05:06, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 1999 at 00:50:54, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Two out of the three moderators thought it was inappropriate. Isn't that >>>>adequate? >>>> >>>>Before the objection arises: no, it's not every time that two out of three >>>>moderators agree with my viewpoint. Sometimes it's only 0 or 1. :) >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>That's exactly the point, it wasn't adequate. The divisiveness of the issue has >>>already shown that, as evidenced by the huge debate that took place about it. >>>KarinsDad even pointed to more strict and more lenient camps here in CCC. >> >>I think it was adequate. >> > >I would disagree. My point originally was that the agreement of 2 of 3 moderators is adequate for me, whether or not the decision they make is one that I like. I just have to live with it. I can imagine situations where I would get bent out of shape even if 2 of 3 moderators decided against what I'd like to see happen, but usually I just console myself with the thought that the world does not revolve around me, and that if people want to do things differently, it's up to them. >>>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. >> >>I did -- and replied. >> >>>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. >>> >>>Roger >> >>Moderators ran on a platform. Bruce is just being consistent with how he's >>always moderated, and he had the most votes by a fair margin. I'd say he had >>the mandate he needs already. >> >>Dave > >With regard to moderating the group in general, the current crew has done a good >job, I think. I think the current way of doing things has failed with regard to >the moderators moderating themselves. Having the most votes is irrelevant to >this point, IMHO, since this is an exceptional situation. > >Roger Moderators are in place to handle exceptional situations, by definition. Pun intended. :) 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.