Graham Banks wrote:
sockmonkey wrote:Graham has been outvoted consistently this term. It hasn't changed his readiness to moderate unilaterally and aggressively against posts and members which whom he does not personally agree. When I tried to put on the brakes, I was told (by Graham) to stop playing games, that this was no longer a moderation issue, and that our previous agreements were no longer valid. Essentially, "tough luck, dipshit, I'm doing what I want." This has also been a theme this moderation term, and no amount of voting, discussion or debate has changed the fact that certain moderators (Graham being a paramount example) feel that (or act as if) their personal convictions are more important than the general will of the forum.
I think you're being overly harsh Jeremy and I would hope that I've not attacked your integrity publicly in the same manner. I've certainly not let any polls on your moderation ability hang around for more than 24 hours.
I have tried to treat members equally and have always communicated respectfully with them. Personal comments/insults have been removed consistently with no bias on my part. I'm sorry that you perceive it differently.
I have explained why I acted as I did after the message that Sam passed on to us. I believed that I was doing the right thing at the time, but have since apologised to everybody for misunderstanding exactly what was meant.
Anyway, best wishes with your new forum and with married life.
Graham, the biggest problem _I_ have with you is that you _always_ act first, then analyze consequences later. This dates all the way back to when CCC first moved to the new software. Remember the "great edit fiasco"??? Nobody in their right mind would believe that they have the authority to edit someone else's words. Even if they have the capability. And do you remember how the members reacted to that? You wanted a poll to determine what the majority wanted. And you appeared to be surprised at the results. Then we get to the Ippo* issue, which first "broke" when Steve, Dann and I were moderators. We received more complaints from you, by a factor of 10, than we received from other members combined. Any mention of Ippo* brought yet another moderation request. Then you became moderator and decided that you could do what you want, whenver you wanted, because you were elected. Elections are not always a good thing, because not everyone is voting for what is best for the board, they are voting for whatever will further their agenda best.
This has, without a doubt, been the _worst_ moderator term in history, and that is a _long_ history. I helped start CCC. I have been here ever since. What you think a moderator should do was _never_ what we envisioned.
Jeremy's idea is a good one, except that I hope he doesn't fall into the "elect the moderators" cesspool again. I want to see open discussions, not discussions about open discussions and moderator actions. I suspect I have been here longer than any other member, since I was one of the first 10 signups (the original founder's group) and the other founders have slowly faded away. I _know_ what we originally intended, I don't have to guess. I don't have an agenda to further, other than to see computer chess continue to reach new levels.
Seems that the new "owners" have a different vision for CCC. Time will tell whether that vision will work or not. Meanwhile, I suspect more and more will move to OpenChess if they want technical discussions.
Hopefully the next moderator elections can also qualify exactly what ICD chess expects and whether or not they will agree to remain totally hands-off or not. If not, then the end is near.