Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 17:01:56 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
One poll question to deal with the threshold factor, and another to deal with how the moderators moderate themselves. The latter might be phrased: Should a moderator (1) be allowed to delete any other moderator's post judged to be off-topic on the strength of their own judgement alone, or (2) seek consensus with a second moderator first. Roger On July 24, 1999 at 14:04:53, Terry Presgrove wrote: >On July 24, 1999 at 13:05:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On July 24, 1999 at 09:30:25, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I tried to make a whole spectrum of them. Someone can't just say that they'll >>delete all off-topic posts, without contending with some of those, which happen >>in practice. >> >>The Pamela Anderson example was much worse than Fernando's joke, IMHO. >> >>bruce > > Sounds like a good idea, at least as you said it would give the moderators > something concrete ( members atitudes on various posts) to go on and still > give the moderators some latitude to deal with everyday issues that might > arise. But it still does not address the larger issue on moderators governing > their own actions. I do feel there should be something in the constitution > or firm policy in place specifically dealing with moderators interaction. > Governing is not an easy task for a single ruler, but when three rulers > govern the same kingdom and see their roles differently this leads to chaos. > Lets get some firm policies in place that lay out what responsibilities > and limits of those powers are for the moderators before they take office. > > TP
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.