** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **

[TCAdmin]

The following members have been nominated to serve on the moderation team for the Computer Chess Club:

Name and Status (A=accepted, D=declined):

Miguel Ballicora
Graham Banks (D)
Clare Marie Benedicto (A)
Steve B (A)
Dann Corbit
Thorsten Czub
Robert Hyatt
John Merlino
H. G. Muller
Ulysses P (A)
Volker Pittlik (A)
Tord Romstad
Swaminathan (D)
Tony Thomas
Zach Wegner (A)
Chris Whittington (A)


Nominees should PM or e-mail their decision to accept or decline to the admin no later than Nov 22. Nominees who do not respond by the deadline will be assumed to have declined. Those who accept nomination may post a short self-description and moderation philosophy as a reply to this announcement (no other posts in this thread, please).

[chrisw]

Firstly a thank you to whoever nominated me. I wish all candidates good luck and best wishes for a reasoned and peaceful election campaign.

Moderation Philosophy

I wrote the CCC Charter in 1997 and by cut 'n paste the CTF Charter. My overall moderation philosophy is that moderators are not above members, no more important than members, nor any kind of political gods. The sole task of moderators is to enforce the Charter and police the forums. Reinterpretation or modification of the Charter is not a moderator role, the Charter has stood the test of time and works.

CCC could do with some more good members especially from the programming community so I would endeavour to keep everything as inclusive as possible.

If and when on rare occasions difficult issues arise, I try to be sensitive to the views of the forum, the charter, and use, if necessary, life experience to work out simple principles on which to moderate. You'll be familiar with the "discussion is fine, libel is not" principle for example.

I would not lay down any hard and fast operational rules. I don't think it sensible to telegraph the number of times someone can be abusive or off-topic before sanctions are applied. Miscreants know perfectly well the rules of posting and I don't propose to help them out with specific details of how far they can go before anything happens.

If anything even remotely like the sort of unacceptable and gratuitous behaviour that occurs on CTF were to appear on CCC then moderator reaction should be swift and brutal.

Bob Hyatt used absolutely correct and unassailable reasoning when he stated that moderator-editing of posts was completely unacceptable. Delete it or leave it only.

I find it very important that moderators should not side with any particular party.

If I do or post something dumb or against the Charter I won't hesitate to ban myself.

Personal History

I'm fifty-eight years old, married with five grown-up children. When teaching Chemistry and Sciences at Secondary level in schools in London I became interested in electronics and computing and enrolled with the Open University taking modules in technology, materials, computing, maths, electronics, telecommunications and so on.

In the early eighties I quit teaching and started the business later known as Oxford Softworks. Because I started in the very early days, many programmers offered their engines under licence, so we were able to build as both an engine and a publishing company. The business was always profitable although there were some lean years. As time went by OS built a range of publishing and sales contacts throughout the world, France, Germany, the USA and latterly Japan. I wrote the engine for Chess System Tal and was the ideas person behind new products. The company was sold in 2000 to a venture capitalist backed group.

We moved to a smallholding in Worcestershire and kept pigs, cows, sheep, chickens and even a few alpacas. Looking after animals is a great experience and I can say I am truly grateful to them, especially the pigs, for all they taught me. A great enrichment to my life.
Now that the children are grown-up, we are in the process of selling everything in England and moving to France where I will set up another small holding while my wife will create an artists space.

In UK politics I helped set up the Worcestershire branch of the Tax Payers Alliance and I was re-elected for the third year running as Chairman of the Parish Council (this is a bit sad, say my children, I think I agree).

In late sixties / early seventies I played a lot of chess reaching a grade of BCF 219 which, confusingly, allegedly maps to either 2350 ELO or 2400 ELO depending on calculation method, the phase of the moon and which country one is standing in at the time but right now I am a bit of a patzer, although I started playing again a couple of years ago, persuaded by youngest son James who is quite a strong player himself now, playing some correspondence games on the ChessNet server.

I was the main drive and energy behind the creation of the CCC forum in 1997. I like to think I am older and wiser now, since those days.

Good luck to all other candidates.

[Steve B]

I have been a member of the CCC since the forum was created
My specific area of interest in our hobby lies chiefly in the area of dedicated chess computers ..i am a fairly well known collector and i have friends and acquaintances amongst collectors from all over the world
i am a frequent contibutor to several chess computer sites dealing with dedicated computers
i was a former moderator on the Hiarcs forum having moderated there during its initial year of inception

my moderation philosophy consists of:
1)Adherence to the Charter
the Charter has served the CCC well for ten years and i would follow its tenets closely
2)Forms Of Moderation
while the forum software now allows moderators the ability to Edit members posts i believe this is not advisable and i could not envision a situation where this would ever be the proper form of moderation
deletion of posts that are clearly in charter violation ( overt commercial exhortations , personal attacks ..etc.) should be deleted with immediacy
however less egregious posts( which receive complaints from the members )should be decided upon by majority agreement of the standing moderators or moved to the moderators forum until a decision can be completed
3)Member Notification
i believe all moderation action should be accompanied by a PM to the member ..i consider notification to be part and parcel of the same singular act of moderation
4)Moderation team
i believe that the best team is a team which shares duties equally and does not have one moderator as spokesperson for the other two
in recent times we have seen one moderator with a significant posting presence while other team members have remained active behind the scenes.
i believe moderators should rotate "active posting" duties while of course all three would be involved in all decisions
i see no "leader" amongst the mod team but rather three equal moderators each sharing mod duties equally and each voted in by the members
this method allows for a better working mod team and a better general acceptance of moderation action by the members at large
several highly successful mod teams in the past have utilized this approach

thanks again to all who nominated me

Best Regards
Steve

[Zach Wegner]

Hello CCC members,

I have accepted to run for moderator again. I've been working as moderator for the last couple months, and it's not too bad. The hardest part was remaining neutral in every moderation decision, but I think I've done a pretty good job at that. Here's my moderation policy:

1. In general, moderators should interfere as little as possible. I typically only take action when there is a complaint, and even then I try to interpret it against the charter. Generally I try to adhere to the charter as strictly as possible.
2. I don't mind profanity, or insults directed at non-members. I'm not completely against moderating it though, in case some members are offended by it (as judged by complaints). OTOH, gratuitous profanity or racism I am in favor of moderating, as it will inevitably offend someone.
3. Moderators are not above any other member. They are here to serve the members and act in their best interest, and must follow all the same rules.
4. I generally don't think it's worth it to inform everyone of all moderation decisions, as if I delete something, the poster will know why. Moderation should be open to questions from the members though.
5. Major moderation decisions (such as banning) should require a complete consensus between moderators. There are only three moderators, and it would be too easy for two of them to simply outvote the other on every decision and effectively cancel out their power. Moderators work as a team. I have worked well with Chris and Swami, and with Sam as well in issues pertaining to all moderators. I believe I can work well in a team with anyone.
6. I am generally in favor of editing over deletion, of course with the poster's consent.
7. As the topic just came up, I will say I am against cloning. Links to downloads of clones, or information on how to get them will be deleted, but I disagree that simply providing information about clones is against the charter. Perhaps it could be argued that it "legitimizes" them, but I would not delete a member's post if it e.g. contained analysis output from a clone. See number 1.

[mariaclara]

Hello everybody,

Maybe it's time we go for "change".

my philosophy is

"Change for the better........"

[Volker Pittlik]

My moderation philosophy is quite simple: the moderators should should enforce
the charter and keep the forum on-topic. The moderators neither have to act as
entertainers nor as judges. The members are "responsible" for the input. The
moderators have only to check if the posting are in accordance with the charter.

I'm a member of this forum since many years and have founded the Winboard Forum
about 10 years ago. Although I still have administrative privileges over there I
only act as some sort of consultant over there and only act on request.

I think two principles important of moderation important for me:

- Moderators should distinguish between the people who post and the content of
their postings. Even a good friend of a moderator may post absolutely nonsense
or even break the charter. OTOH someone who might be an idiot in the private
assesment of a moderator may write something valuable. The actions of the
moderator should be orientatwed at the content.

- Moderators may be involved in controversial discussions or even in flame wars.
In taht case they shouldn't act as moderators. That is becoming an abuse of
power easily. The should leave the moderation to the other moderators in that
case.

In general post should respect others. In doubt check if you would write in the
same style to your colleagues at your job.

From my point of view there is some room for improvement especially in the last
two points.

In general I think decisions with long-term consequences (such as bannings)
should be made concordantly. Moderation needs some common sense and feeling
for the situation. What is right under certain circumstances may be wrong if
circumstances are different. Therefore I think moderators should be free to
use all options they have as long as their actions serves the best to the purpose
of this forum.


Some personal details: I'm 49 yers old, married, no kids , studied psychology
but I'm working in software developement for around 20 years.