Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 16:51:46 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 12:09:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. My understanding was the Bruce deleted Fernando's post and that KarinsDad concurred after the fact. Two of three was established post hoc. As you are aware, I have argued that we need a mechanism whereby the moderators can moderate themselves when such situations occur, getting 2 of 3 before the remaining moderator's post can be deleted. > >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 I guess one moderator moderating another is two orders of "exceptionalness," then. 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.