Moderation team quits.

[MikeB]

......at some point there have to be new moderators and what if nobody is interested?

Exactly. Other members can see how moderators are treated here, so why on earth would they want to be one?

You are overreacting Graham

CCC is a democratic forum, folks choose the leaders that rule over them. It doesn't mean they can't be criticized when they change a policy.

As a former mod yourself you know that the (real) moderater abuse is in the talks with folks (often the same) in PM when they are moderated.

It has been my experience that some members would rather impugn the character of the moderators in public rather than first discussing a moderation action via PM.

That's (the bold) wrong by definition. Discussing a policy change that affects the whole forum and its members has to be done in public.

+1 - I have not seen one item that impugned the character of the moderators, to the contrary , this group of moderators were will respected and thought of very highly and I saw many posted which reflected thats sentiment. I actually think it's not a big deal that they resigned, although as far I was concerned, they could have served as long as they liked. They were good. Having served in that position for multiple tenures, you do reach a point where you know it's time to move and you move on. Nothing lasts forever. I wish them all the best - little bit odd that they all resigned at tehsame time, but IMO, that was most likely a reflection of how tight they had become and shows how much they respect each other. i remembered as teenager , one of my best friends was fired from his job for not a good reason, I quit the very next day. That's how real friends support each other - one said "I'm going", the other two said "if you're going, I'm going too" . I respect that.

[Graham Banks]

.+1 - I have not seen one item that impugned the character of the moderators...

Recognise these? Such an evil bunch of people determined to destroy computer chess. Wonderful appreciation for the fantastic job they've done over three terms.

That moderators of TalkChess would feel compelled to severely hurt the computer-chess community is truly insane.

it is also possible to abuse power over the forum content to excessively hinder event organizers, and force them to do tons of unnecessary work, by sabotaging the easy and obvious method of achieving their goal.

Which of the two do you think is harder? Three moderators keeping their hands to themselves 5 times a year, or 50 programmers having to scan through 40 forum posts in a section they would normally never read daily?

Please remind me. When exactly was the charter changed to redefine the job of the moderaters to wreck the forum in order to sabotage major computer-chess events?

Given that the moderator team seems to have decided to take a stance that is highly damaging to computer Chess in general, it has become essential for the future of computer Chess that the moderator team resigns immediately, and new elections are held.

You sound like the bolshevistic party telling the soviets that the zk of the party decided this or that upon this or that golden law.
If you would not have been elected I would guess you are the admin Sam hull telling us that he is doing whatever HE wants to do.

In other words, the moderators are standing on my toes.

Indeed, if the moderators cannot refrain from abusing their powers to vandalize the forum, they should step down. The task of moderators is to guard people's rights to make computer-chess-related topics public without being harassed. Not to harass people themselves.

So the moderators should take openly hostile declarations as those of Lucas as an affirmation that they embarked on the path of destroying computer Chess.

Question for the motherators

[Rebel]

......at some point there have to be new moderators and what if nobody is interested?

Exactly. Other members can see how moderators are treated here, so why on earth would they want to be one?

You are overreacting Graham

CCC is a democratic forum, folks choose the leaders that rule over them. It doesn't mean they can't be criticized when they change a policy.

As a former mod yourself you know that the (real) moderater abuse is in the talks with folks (often the same) in PM when they are moderated.

It has been my experience that some members would rather impugn the character of the moderators in public rather than first discussing a moderation action via PM.

That's (the bold) wrong by definition. Discussing a policy change that affects the whole forum and its members has to be done in public.

Discussing an act should first take place privately between the mod(s) and the person affected. If the response is not satisfactory, then take it public.

I stand by my statement about calling into question the character of the moderators. It has happened in the past and it happened to some degree recently. If not, we would not be having moderator nominations taking place at this moment.

You seem to know more. As far as I know the mods didn't give this as a reason for their departure, in fact they gave no reason at all.

I believe the mods had the best intentions for the forum when they changed a 19 year old policy without consulting the community and didn't expect the volume of opposition. So far nothing was lost. They could have defended their policy but refused to participate in the debate, not answering direct questions also. They could have listened to reasonable proposals that have been made instead they quit leaving the forum in disarray.

How different was the situation Adam when you with Miguel were mods in one of the most turbulent periods of CCC, the ICCA/RF affair. That mod team defended their decisions with openness, reason, flair, determination in public till everybody was satisfied, some wholly, some with some murmur. And you gained massive support for your actions that eventually relaxed the forum. Was it pleasant, I doubt that, but you did your job. And the turmoil didn't affect the authority of the mods one bit.

As for the resigned team, I wish they would return and do the same, fix it. It's an excellent team and one miscalculation (taken with the best intentions) isn't the end of the world.

[bob]

.+1 - I have not seen one item that impugned the character of the moderators...

Recognise these? Such an evil bunch of people determined to destroy computer chess. Wonderful appreciation for the fantastic job they've done over three terms.

That moderators of TalkChess would feel compelled to severely hurt the computer-chess community is truly insane.

it is also possible to abuse power over the forum content to excessively hinder event organizers, and force them to do tons of unnecessary work, by sabotaging the easy and obvious method of achieving their goal.

Which of the two do you think is harder? Three moderators keeping their hands to themselves 5 times a year, or 50 programmers having to scan through 40 forum posts in a section they would normally never read daily?

Please remind me. When exactly was the charter changed to redefine the job of the moderaters to wreck the forum in order to sabotage major computer-chess events?

Given that the moderator team seems to have decided to take a stance that is highly damaging to computer Chess in general, it has become essential for the future of computer Chess that the moderator team resigns immediately, and new elections are held.

You sound like the bolshevistic party telling the soviets that the zk of the party decided this or that upon this or that golden law.
If you would not have been elected I would guess you are the admin Sam hull telling us that he is doing whatever HE wants to do.

In other words, the moderators are standing on my toes.

Indeed, if the moderators cannot refrain from abusing their powers to vandalize the forum, they should step down. The task of moderators is to guard people's rights to make computer-chess-related topics public without being harassed. Not to harass people themselves.

So the moderators should take openly hostile declarations as those of Lucas as an affirmation that they embarked on the path of destroying computer Chess.

Question for the motherators

Where are the personal insults, impugning character, etc?

Not a one in the list above.

[Graham Banks]

.+1 - I have not seen one item that impugned the character of the moderators...

Recognise these? Such an evil bunch of people determined to destroy computer chess. Wonderful appreciation for the fantastic job they've done over three terms.

That moderators of TalkChess would feel compelled to severely hurt the computer-chess community is truly insane.

it is also possible to abuse power over the forum content to excessively hinder event organizers, and force them to do tons of unnecessary work, by sabotaging the easy and obvious method of achieving their goal.

Which of the two do you think is harder? Three moderators keeping their hands to themselves 5 times a year, or 50 programmers having to scan through 40 forum posts in a section they would normally never read daily?

Please remind me. When exactly was the charter changed to redefine the job of the moderaters to wreck the forum in order to sabotage major computer-chess events?

Given that the moderator team seems to have decided to take a stance that is highly damaging to computer Chess in general, it has become essential for the future of computer Chess that the moderator team resigns immediately, and new elections are held.

You sound like the bolshevistic party telling the soviets that the zk of the party decided this or that upon this or that golden law.
If you would not have been elected I would guess you are the admin Sam hull telling us that he is doing whatever HE wants to do.

In other words, the moderators are standing on my toes.

Indeed, if the moderators cannot refrain from abusing their powers to vandalize the forum, they should step down. The task of moderators is to guard people's rights to make computer-chess-related topics public without being harassed. Not to harass people themselves.

So the moderators should take openly hostile declarations as those of Lucas as an affirmation that they embarked on the path of destroying computer Chess.

Question for the motherators

Where are the personal insults, impugning character, etc?

Not a one in the list above.

Many of those comments impugn their character and are especially insulting when you consider that two of the moderators were engine authors themselves.

[bob]

As a former mod yourself you know that the (real) moderater abuse is in the talks with folks (often the same) in PM when they are moderated.

No - it just as often happens in the forum itself.

And what was the abuse in this case?

I believe that some consider "disagreeing with an action or decision" as some sort of abuse. I've not seen any personal attacks or anything even mildly close to that in the discussion about moving posts. I'd bet I have been a moderator here more than any one person, and I don't recall any significant abuse. There are always a couple of specific people that are abusive to one and all, and when they are on the wrong end of a moderator decision, they abuse the moderators as well.

But disagreeing with a specific action is NOT "abuse".

There is "disagreeing with an action or decision", which is definitely not abuse. Then there is being disagreeable because of an action or decision. Which is still not necessarily abuse, but is definitely not pleasant conduct to deal with.

Internet fora are never going to be perfect. There will always be a jerk here and there that has to be dealt with. And with the ease of hiding behind a pseudonym on the internet, such behavior is encouraged to a greater extent than what one would expect in a normal face-to-face discussion (such as in a classroom).

As a CS faculty member, I've seen multiple disagreements over various topics from recruiting to class schedules to course offerings to you-name-it. But none of it has a thing to do with character or insults or abuse. And that is all I saw here, a disagreement about moving posts when it really was not the best thing to do.

[Rebel]

Recognise these? Such an evil bunch of people determined to destroy computer chess. Wonderful appreciation for the fantastic job they've done over three terms.

Question for the motherators

So now I am evil as well

I have already explained that elsewhere. It was a derived Bruce Mooreland joke in support of the mods. Remember Bruce when he once said, "I am a moderator, not a mother!". Unforgettable. But that was my reality and not of everybody else. And (in retrospect) I should have been more clear on that, my bad.

But to lump me in the category of people who allegedly want to destroy the forum? Really?

[Graham Banks]

Recognise these? Such an evil bunch of people determined to destroy computer chess. Wonderful appreciation for the fantastic job they've done over three terms.

Question for the motherators

So now I am evil as well

I have already explained that elsewhere. It was a derived Bruce Mooreland joke in support of the mods. Remember Bruce when he once said, "I am a moderator, not a mother!". Unforgettable. But that was my reality and not of everybody else. And (in retrospect) I should have been more clear on that, my bad.

But to lump me in the category of people who allegedly want to destroy the forum? Really?

It was the moderators who were being made out to be wanting to destroy computer chess by those who made the quoted statements.
Yours was not as bad as some of those others, when you explain where the term you used came from.

[hgm]

It was the moderators who were being made out to be wanting to destroy computer chess by those who made the quoted statements.
Yours was not as bad as some of those others, when you explain where the term you used came from.

That is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. Nothing was 'made out'.

Fact is that the moderators moved posts they were explicitly requested by the poster not to move.
Fact is that virtially everyone affected by this and participating in this forum politely pointed out that this would be very detrimental to their activities of organizing computer-Chess participation events or participating in them.
Fact is that the moderators then openly declared they would persist doing this, despite now having been told how much damage this would cause.

So no one implied anything about what the moderators wanted or did not want. The moderators very explicitly declared this themselves.

As concluded before, you seem to have a very unique attitude to stepping on other peoples toes:

"Sir, you are standing on my toes and it hurts"
Typical person: "Oh sorry, I won't do it again"<steps off>
Graham: "How dare you impugn my character, by suggesting I am standing on any toes! A polite person would never say such a thing!" <stays firmly in place>

[Henk]

I don't expect a next moderator will like sick bad jokes. So makes no difference to me.