Author: Paul
Date: 11:18:32 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 13:44:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 29, 2001 at 13:29:28, Paul wrote: > >>On March 29, 2001 at 12:41:14, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On March 29, 2001 at 03:59:28, David Blackman wrote: >>> >>>>On March 28, 2001 at 16:56:45, Steven Schwartz wrote: >>>> >>>>I'd like to say thanks very much to the old moderators for doing very well, and >>>>thanks to the new moderators for taking on this difficult task ... >>>> >>>>>Bob Hyatt, Bruce Moreland, and Dann Corbit are the >>>>>new moderators. >>>> >>>>I think this is at least the third time for all three moderators. They have all >>>>done well in the past, and i think they will do well again, but aren't we >>>>risking burn-out here? Some mix of experience and new blood may have been >>>>better. Still, they all "volunteered" :-) >>> >>>I didn't want to do it. I was trying to get new people to volunteer to do it. >>>I nominated several of the people on the list, none of whom had ever done the >>>job before. Meanwhile, I had been nominated, too. Since I have done the job >>>twice before, I thought about declining, but I had a year off between this time >>>and the last time, which is enough that I found it hard to plead burn-out. >>> >>>I figured that it would look dubious if I tried to get others to do a job that I >>>had rejected. >>> >>>I don't think that I'm going to do this again. Three times is enough for >>>anyone. I really think that new people should get these jobs. There are people >>>on the list who have run several times without "winning", and they should get >>>the jobs next time. That would be best for everyone. >>> >>>No offense to Bob and Dann, but I didn't vote for anyone who had done this >>>before. >>> >>>bruce >> >>I also think this is not a good development, and I'm strictly speaking about the >>workload. It should be shared among members of good standing that are capable (= >>are levelheaded enough) of doing this job. >> >>You didn't volunteer for the job, someone else nominated you, you just accepted >>the responsability. Several of you indicated that people should vote for the >>"newer" candidates, and why anyone still voted for you guys is a mystery to me, >>it's not as if there was no choice. I certainly didn't. >> >>Maybe it's an idea to next time order the list of nominees according to "number >>of times served", least times on top. Voting would proceed just like it did now, >>but nominees with a lower "servecount" would always be preferred over ones with >>a higher servecount. Even if (s)he had a lower "votecount". >> >>That way no one would have to decline for the "honor" of serving, but still new >>people would stream in. The "only" problem I see is determining who is capable >>of the job! :) > >I think the whole process needs to be rethought. On the other hand, I am very >glad that so many were willing to do the work. It's really not that hard to do. > But it really should be a shared responsibility. The current system seems to >end up with the same folks most of the time. > >It's not a terribly difficult task. I think it would be good to have one >experienced moderator on a crew. However, having the same people do it over and >over is surely going to be counter-productive in the end. I think it *is* a difficult task (sometimes), and you need to have a reasonably thick skin, be stable, not too extreme etc. Instead of n pools of different servecounts, you could make 2 pools: one with nominees with servecount = 0, and another with the rest. Members get 3 votes: 2 for the zero-pool, 1 for the other, that way you'd get the distribution you want. Paul
This page took 0.01 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.