Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:59:34 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 01:45:22, Pete Galati wrote: >On January 11, 2000 at 16:30:34, KarinsDad wrote: > >>Jari, >> >>I think this may be a topic of the next moderation elections (the issue of being >>more strict with off topic posters, not the specific issue of banning David or >>Robert). Bruce, Dann, and I have been fairly lenient compared with some of the >>moderators of the past. Maybe another opinion poll is in order on this issue, >>now that there are more members here. >> >>Although I think we have been more lenient, one thing that we have not been is >>silent when it comes to people stirring up trouble. All three of us have Emailed >>and posted multiple messages to people who seem to want to cause trouble to >>knock it off. And, in the process of doing this, we have ruffled some feathers. >>However, I have been hoping that this process of attempting to apply the brakes >>inside a moderation post or an Email as opposed to a lot of deletions may work a >>little better here. >> >>I think that with the elections coming up, this may be a good time to discuss >>these types of issues. >> >>KarinsDad :) > >You're welcome to do another poll if you want, but I don't see any problem with >how you moderators have conducted things. I may happen to dissagree with a >moderator about something sometime, but who cares(?) why would we allways agree? > >I don't really know if you need to run being a moderator by opinion polls, you >were voted in, (that's your poll there), enough people agreed that you were the >people for the job, so why should you change how you moderate every few months >just by how the polls turn out? > >Pete Just like in real life politics, there is a lot of different opinions. I just thought it important to attempt to figure out what most people think a good "system" might be. For example, Amir indicated early on in our term that there were some agreements made when he was a moderator that we were not following. I had not heard of these agreements and was surprised that they got dropped on the floor. We took the agreements of the previous moderators, dropped two of them, kept the rest, and added a few informal ones of our own. However, also like in real politics, people can change their minds over time. What is popular today will not be popular in the future. Hence, it may be important to re-evaluate what most people think when election time comes around. This can be done by seeing how people vote for moderators (based on the moderator's stances), but that is kind of like shutting the barn door after the horse is already out (as per the fiasco where Fernando had one idea of moderation which was extremely different than Bruce's and mine; it just made the job that much harder). Just some food for thought. KarinsDad :)
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.