Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:00:01 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 17:13:28, Roger D Davis wrote: >On July 23, 1999 at 07:56:35, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On July 23, 1999 at 07:15:15, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On July 23, 1999 at 05:34:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On July 23, 1999 at 05:14:22, Roger D Davis wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 23, 1999 at 04:28:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not sure where you got these ideas. >>>>>> >>>>>>When I saw Fernando's post it was immediately obvious that if I left it, the >>>>>>next morning there would be at least one email from a member complaining about >>>>>>the post. The complaint would suggest that that kind of post didn't belong in >>>>>>the group. It would ask that the post be deleted. It would express confusion >>>>>>as to why anyone would think that such a post belonged here. And this person >>>>>>might reply to the post, expressing similar sentiments in the group, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't think that it is too strict to say that CCC shouldn't become the dirty >>>>>>joke forum, is it? >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>>I think perhaps people can disagree intelligently about deleting Fernando's post >>>>>without agreeing that CCC should become a dirty joke forum. >>>>> >>>>>As I noted in a reply to KarinsDad, the issue is how it was done, not the post >>>>>itself. >>>>> >>>>>If it was obvious that there would have been complaints, then IMHO, you should >>>>>have left it. Then you could have argued that the post needed to be brought to >>>>>the attention of the CCC forum at large, since people are complaining, and >>>>>because CCC has heretofore lacked a mechanism whereby moderators moderate each >>>>>other. >>>> >>>>This is a ridiculous assertion. If it was obvious that complaints would occur, >>>>the best thing to do is get rid of the damn thing before they occur. It's a >>>>moderator's fiduciary duty to delete such a post ASAP. >>> >>>Actually, it's an opinion, not an assertion of fact, not a claim about reality. >>>That's why I put IMHO. Moreover, the opinion doesn't exist in isolation, in >>>which case it would indeed be absurd, but was put forward in the service of >>>establishing a mechanism that might eliminate these conflagrations. The letter >>>of the law needs to serve it's spirit, which is that CCC go forward harmoniously >>>for all of us, and that means seeing the total situation in areas where there >>>are as yet unresolved ambiguities. Again, IMHO. >> >>Sorry, I missed the IMHO the first time. I'll downgrade that to an IMHO absurd >>opinion. :-) >> > >Thanks for your graciousness in this matter. :-) <grin> >>>> >>>>There's a perfectly good mechanism whereby moderators moderate each other, and >>>>Bruce used it. That Fernando got all bent out of shape about it is tough luck. >>> >>>It has nothing to do with Fernando. I am not taking sides with Fernando. It has >>>nothing to do with sides, and everything to do with moderation and the loss of a >>>moderator. >>> >>>If there's a mechanism, then I must have missed it. What mechanism already >>>exists that empowers a moderator to delete another moderator's posts? >> >>The delete button. > >That didn't work well...hence all these threads about it. It may be true that there is a way that would have worked better. Given the extremely different platforms Bruce and Fernando ran on, well, I'm skeptical. I'll keep reading suggestions, though. >> >>Moderators >>>delete posts at different thresholds of relevance, we know that. Assume that >>>Moderator A deletes Moderator B's posts. Moderator B then gets pisses and adopts >>>a low threshold for deleting Moderator A's posts. He doesn't delete obviously on >>>target posts, just those for which a defensible argument of irrelevance can be >>>created. So then the two argue and argue about it, and have a little war. You >>>don't need to be Bruce or Fernando to have such a war, or to create ill will. >>> >>>But you're saying that there is already a mechanism in place to stop this. >>>Please tell me what it is, and I'll stand corrected. >> >>Moderator C, I'd hope. >> > >That's what I was proposing, that the third moderator join A or B before one of >their posts could be deleted. I think it's fair enough to temporarily remove the message, and get the third moderator's opinion. There's no permanent damage being done: analogies such as "shoot first and ask questions later" are inaccurate. >>>> >>>>>If you had asked what the group wanted to do, the group would have come to some >>>>>consensus, and that consensus might well have reigned in the rogue moderator, or >>>>>not. Fernando might still have resighed. Either way, the result would not have >>>>>been your action and not your responsibility, but that of the group. You would >>>>>have been applauded for your democratic principles, and there would have been no >>>>>appearance of presumptuousness. >>>> >>>>We voted for representatives so that we could be a direct democracy anyway? >>>>Please. >>>> >>> >>>I didn't say we did that. I said that Bruce's actions would be perceived as >>>being congruent with democratic principles. >> >>Did you not suggest that Bruce solicit the opinion of the membership? That >>would seem like a return to direct democracy. Or did I misunderstand you again? > >I suggested it as a way of handling ambiguous cases, one particularly relevant >here since we are now a moderator down. I was not advocating that we upend the >moderator system. I didn't find the case ambiguous at all. Of course, I saw the spanish version that Fernando posted, ran it through freetranslation.com, and complained about it being here. Perhaps this puts me further over on the slide rule than even Bruce. >>>>>My position is that the content of Fernando's post is irrelevant, since CCC >>>>>lacked (and still lacks) an explicit mechanism whereby the moderators can >>>>>moderate themselves in a principled way in which personal popularity can never >>>>>play a role (with this last sentence, I'm trying to make an abstract point, >>>>>here, not point a finger, by the way). >>>> >>>>I disagree with the first sentence, see above. >>>> >>>>>Now, however, it appears that we have two moderators instead of three, and you >>>>>and KarinsDad have more work to do, and we still need an explicit mechanism >>>>>whereby the moderators can moderate themselves without any appearance of an >>>>>abuse of power. >>>>> >>>>>Roger >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>Roger >> >>Dave 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.