Bruker navn: Passord:
Registrering av ny bruker
Moderator: Hrqls , coan.net , rod03801 
 BrainKing.com

Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.

If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).

World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube
Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com


Liste over diskusjonsforum
Modus: Alle kan skrive
Søk i meldingene:  

8. april 2005, 07:06:21
ughaibu 
I think in view of recent scandalous events it's time to review the success or otherwise of the global moderators. I assume the global moderator system was instituted as a stop-gap substitute service to provide for when none of the local moderators was online. This sounds reasonable enough but is it really necesary? Without globals a fight or a taboo word might remain unmoderated for a few hours on a public board, no great disaster as far as I can see but if such a situation can be avoided all well and good. However the problem associated with this system of prevention is that it encourages 'complete' and excessive policing. There is a tendency for humans to use/abuse the powers they are entrusted with to the limit with consequent psychological and moral deterioration. On the Gothic Chess board a few days ago there was what's usually termed a heated discussion, both the moderator, Walter Montego, and his supporting moderator, Andromedical, were online. Andromedical was active on the board at this point so there was no call for any interference from a global. (By their inherrent nature globals have less familiarity with the content and style of a board and it's frequent posters than do locals.) Nevertheless a global butted in with a trivial and patronising post as if they were a parent admonishing their kids or a teacher with a class of infants, not only is this uncalled for and irritating, it also undermines the position of the local moderators. Quite naturally Walter Montego resented this intrusion and warned the global, however, instead of apologising and backing off, this global became personally and emotionally involved. The situation quickly escalated and the globals removed Walter as moderator. For a moderator to be removed by a global because of personal reasons is completely unacceptable. After only a few months in this position the globals have developed a self-image as some kind of medievel royalty who trace their ancestors directly back to god and who cant be looked upon by mortal eyes without recompense for the insult. A day ago I asked in the Mod Squad "who removed Walter and why?", I have received no replies. This suggests that the globals think that they are above accounting for their actions and that they have an internal code of silence further isolating and "elevating" them. Recently a moderator was removed from the Poetry board. This moderator was new to the board and unfamiliar with it's content and the style of it's frequent posters, (just as globals are on boards of which they are not also the regular moderator), and this person was moderating intrusively, (just as the global did on the Gothic Chess board), if the globals stand by their decision to remove the moderator from Poetry then, to maintain consistency, the globals involved in the Gothic Chess board scandal should themselves be removed.

Dato og tid
Innloggede venner
Favorittforum
Laug
Dagens tips
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Tilbake til toppen