Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
obviously 13-Sep-06, 08:14	1A Mod election debate #1 Ok most mod candidates have written their speeches but how much do we know? I suggest to have some mod debates inviting all candidates to give their opinion. To start with I copied Jeffs suggested rules for discussion below. Any member that comes up with another (probably less boring) subject for the candidates is invited to post it as "1A Mod election debate #2" etc. -------------------------------------------------------------- 1) founder (that's me) has no more power than any other mod, unless i am contacted by a higher power regarding the survival of the club, in which case i reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to ensure the club's survival. 2) all mods should be involved in any discussion involving banning or deleting, but if someone is temporarily uninvolved for personal reasons, they may be excused. 3) banning requires a unanimous mod decision or a GK mandate. 4) deleting a comment or thread can be done by majority vote. i think this means we should have one more mod. so as to not allow a tie vote. any ideas on who to invite? 5) except for in extreme cases of GK violations, a member should be given one (more?) warning about a particular infraction before being banned. members should generally be allowed to delete an offensive post on their own before a mod does so. 6) all of the above rules need to be agreed upon by all mods. -------------------------------------------------------------- All candidates please tell us what you think, what rules should be changed, added or removed?
leo_london 13-Sep-06, 09:06	Well, I have already agreed with the 5 points listed ( point 6 ) I do think a further point could be added expressing serious concerns about any member contacting GK directly with any complaints, that is a complete " no-go " area for me...best left as a last resort in extreme circumstances. Sorry, obviously...that's not meant as a sideways dig at you... in some ways you were justified, but I feel you acted rashly. If I can think of anything else before the voting deadline, I will post.
obviously 13-Sep-06, 09:35	It has been added to the club description to which I agree. In this case our founder responded that posting with "cool I agree. thanks." which gave me little hope directing the complainted to him would have any result. I hope ppl have no problem with these debates while voting is going on, I figured voting could be influenced by other threads anyway. Thanks for the input, hope to read more.
leo_london 13-Sep-06, 09:42	Thanks...you are correct of course. I knew it had been discussed but didnt realize ( or realise ) it had been added to the introduction.
zorroloco 13-Sep-06, 10:53	obv. <In this case our founder responded that posting with "cool I agree. thanks." which gave me little hope directing the complainted to him would have any result.> i do not understand your reasoning. why does my comment imply that directing a complain to me would not have any result?
bobbynox 13-Sep-06, 10:55	My opinion: ""1) founder (that's me) has no more power than any other mod, unless i am contacted by a higher power regarding the survival of the club, in which case i reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to ensure the club's survival."" I agree with this. However, I actually think Jeff ought to have LESS power than any mod. That is, he should not be able to instigate deletions or banishments. My opinion is that, since jeff is the founder, he has a vested interest that is oriented differently from a MOD. So, he motivations are not toward the goal of allowing as much freedom as possible within the threads. If a member is expressing an opinion that is way-out there, Jeff would have trump. But that may not be what is appropriate. Therefore, Jeff should recuse himself from any of the debate concerning deletions and banishments. ""2) all mods should be involved in any discussion involving banning or deleting, but if someone is temporarily uninvolved for personal reasons, they may be excused."" I aggree. ""3) banning requires a unanimous mod decision or a GK mandate."" I disagree. I think banishment should be brought to the membership. The MODS can develop the reasons why a banishment should occur, but the actual 'action' should be due to majority vote of the members. This is not shrugging off the responsibilities of the MODS, hardly, actually, it stimulates interest among the membership to carry-out the decision of the MODS. ""4) deleting a comment or thread can be done by majority vote. i think this means we should have one more mod. so as to not allow a tie vote. any ideas on who to invite?"" I agree ""5) except for in extreme cases of GK violations, a member should be given one (more?) warning about a particular infraction before being banned. members should generally be allowed to delete an offensive post on their own before a mod does so."" I agree. ""6) all of the above rules need to be agreed upon by all mods."" This is not possible. This is the first chance we have had to adequately debate these issues. Mostly, they make sense, but the ideas that I have raised deserve some discussion.
obviously 13-Sep-06, 11:14	Jeff That was my thought at that time however as I wrote I agree with the rule that was added afterwards.
kementari 13-Sep-06, 12:06	bobby <<Therefore, Jeff should recuse himself from any of the debate concerning deletions and banishments.>> I see your point, and respectfully disagree. We're all equals, but Jeff is ultimately responsible for what goes on here. Self-imposed limits on this sort of thing don't make sense to me. <<I think banishment should be brought to the membership.>> I strongly disagree with this. See above. If Jeff agrees with a unanimous vote by the people that he trusts, that's good enough. Besides, getting a vote to ban from me is going to be extremely, extremely difficult. We're a very small community, and I would need to see evidence that we were risking losing our accounts before I voted to ban anyone. The only thing that I can think of that would make me vote yes for a ban is if a person repeatedly goes over our heads and posts reports on member activity without discussing it with us first in the complaint thread or via pm. Even excessive vulgarity or obstreperous behavior is not enough to push me towards a yes vote, as I feel strongly that those are behaviors that can be modified with warnings. If those warnings are repeatedly ignored, then I might consider it... but generally, if it doesn't bother Mike, it doesn't bother me. <<Mostly, they make sense, but the ideas that I have raised deserve some discussion.>> They do, but I would caution against involving the masses in decisions that basically turn into the modern day equivalent of a witch trial. They just aren't healthy for a forum as small as this one.
kementari 13-Sep-06, 12:41	My opinion 1) founder (that's me) has no more power than any other mod, unless i am contacted by a higher power regarding the survival of the club, in which case i reserve the right to do whatever is necessary to ensure the club's survival. Sure. 2) all mods should be involved in any discussion involving banning or deleting, but if someone is temporarily uninvolved for personal reasons, they may be excused. Agreed. 3) banning requires a unanimous mod decision or a GK mandate. 110% agreed. 4) deleting a comment or thread can be done by majority vote. i think this means we should have one more mod. so as to not allow a tie vote. any ideas on who to invite? We're bringing in two more, and it looks like Jeff will be the deciding vote in case of a tie. 5) except for in extreme cases of GK violations, a member should be given one (more?) warning about a particular infraction before being banned. members should generally be allowed to delete an offensive post on their own before a mod does so. Agreed. I acted a bit too hastily on my first judgment call here because we were playing things by ear and I was genuinely concerned about the potential for unwelcome attention. Communication before making an issue out of something is a good idea, and we've taken steps to streamline that process and avoid the need for extreme diplomacy and tact as we discuss things. (That way, if we feel the need to swear about something, we can. With power comes priviledge, darnit.) Big deals will be discussed in the moderator thread after we've agreed that they are, in fact, big deals. Non-issues will be exactly that... non-issues. Whether or not an issue is an issue is currently being determined by communication off the boards in an effort to save time and prevent needless distractions from all of the other cool things there are to talk about. (As an example, one of us expressed concerns over whether or not the word "piss" was something we should be concerned about. We voted "in secret", and decided that it wasn't. That wasn't a conversation that needed to be public, it was just boring administrative busy work. We decided not to make an issue of it, because there was no need to make an issue of it. Ignorance is bliss, sometimes-- it leaves you with more time to enjoy pie.) 6) all of the above rules need to be agreed upon by all mods. I can go with that, too.
obviously 14-Sep-06, 11:54	about 3) all mods should be involved in any discussion involving banning or deleting, but if someone is temporarily uninvolved for personal reasons, they may be excused. I noted one mod had just deleted a thread by our founder about freedom of speech. I had read the thread and could not find any GK violation, why is it gone? Were all mods involved in discussion involving deletion of this thread?
tugger 14-Sep-06, 13:05	obviously... i can tell you the potential gk violation... if one person is on another person's ignore list, it is against gk rules to make contact with them directly... even though the thread was a welcoming one, it was a violation, strictly speaking... you should know this, i sent you that pm recently, remember? but you are right, there was no communication, but maybe jdh felt it best to remove it quickly to ensure it didn't become an issue...? being honest, i think i'd have done the same, after sending a pm to jeff... i'd give it a few hours, then if no reply, i'd remove it to play safe...
obviously 14-Sep-06, 13:16	??? If a member that ignores you decides to join your club I see no harm in contacting them. What the point of joining a club if you donot want to speak with it's members?
tugger 14-Sep-06, 13:23	well, that's the problem with ignoring fellow club members... i happen to think that if jeff is on dok's ignore list, then dok should remove him if he wants to join the club... but that's not the point i'm making... the point is, it is against gk rules to attempt to contact someone who is ignoring you... anything else is just a side issue... i assume that is why that thread was deleted...
zorroloco 14-Sep-06, 13:54	tug that is correct. it was removed to play it safe. and we did talk about it. and we did query mike regarding this policy. we await a reply. frankly, if mike says that i am not allowed to communicate with dok because i am on his ignore list, then we will most likely add a policy that does not allow members to ignore mods (in reality, i do not believe that members should have other members on ignore) because it makes club management difficult. it also makes open dialogue impossible. if i am commenting on a thread in which dok is participating, would i not be allowed to comment on his words, or ask him a question??? seems ridiculous... obviously is correct...what is the point of joining a club if you do not want to talk to its members.
zorroloco 14-Sep-06, 13:56	deletion i do find it hilariously ironic that the founders thread on freedom of speech was deleted! rtfl!! i wonder if there is a short story there?
pawntificator 14-Sep-06, 15:50	Chuckle That is indeed funny. I remember DOK himself supported a policy in the LSF that members could not ignore other members.
zorroloco 14-Sep-06, 16:05	i wonder i wonder if dok would support such a policy here? note - this is NOT addressed to dok, but is merely an idle bit of curiosity on my part which is leading to this rhetorical question which i place out there in the ether to be pondered by any interested party.
obviously 14-Sep-06, 16:22	>i wonder if dok would support such a policy here? IMHO that question was clearly addressed to dok ...
obviously 14-Sep-06, 16:35	however however I can understand ppl censor you at some point, I remember you sending me 4 messages after I asked you not to pm me. I think there is a misunderstanding about GK policy. I understand if someone censors a person it is not allowed to adress them on GK forum. However if a member decides to join a club they decide to communicate with the clubmembers. That's a completely different situation. I'll censor all mods now, see how long it takes till they violate GK rules
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 16:54	obviously.. " I think there is a misunderstanding about GK policy. I understand if someone censors a person it is not allowed to adress them on GK forum. However if a member decides to join a club they decide to communicate with the clubmembers. That's a completely different situation ". Sorry, I have read that three times and dont understand it. It may be me, its late and I've had a few beers.
obviously 14-Sep-06, 17:03	I'll try to explain If dok had censored you it wouldn't be allowed for you to use GK forum to "shout" at him. However if he joins your club he chooses to talk with all clubmembers, that is a different situation IMO. Read again tomorrow if it still isn't clear.
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 17:29	Deleted by leo_london on 14-Sep-06, 17:30.
leo_london 14-Sep-06, 17:31	You are saying the GK rules ( about contacting people in a thread who have you on their ignore list ) are different for the clubs, than those for the general forums ? Sorry, probably is me. Making silly errors..time for bed.

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.