Is ChrisW Right??

[Rolf]

Perhaps, but the only time that members usually start referring to others by their surname is when they talk about them in a derogatory fashion.

Totally false. Calling someone only by his surname isnt meant deragotary. It's more an ironical. A second meaning is showing a distance, being not deep friend with someone. But it isnt negative nor insulting. Thirdly it's a collegial neutral. The surname is much more honest than the prename-usage and then insulting someone. Know what I mean? But perhaps I take this from German. E.g. if I talk to someone and then use 'Banks' did this or that, then it cant be seen as negative towards you. I just dont want to tell the other too much. If I use Grah and say something positive about you, then I really mean it. If I said Banks is also a good mod, that would be less intense, but you couldnt make conclusions of negative content. In short, it's a bit more complicated than it looks at first sight. -- Banks, my mod, could you keep an eye on this D.W. who is now insulting me for the second time already. I dont know him and usually dont speek to him because he seeks trouble IMO. I see him in the wrong in respect to the charter. Please tone him down a bit. This is a complaint. Months ago he called me a dog while I refreign from telling him names. Thanks.

[bob]

I noticed this post by ChrisW at the open-chess.org forum. I think ChrisW has made some good points. I think that enough people in the POLL I started have stated they want CCC on another server. So let's start a thread to discuss potential independent servers we could use!

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=96

CCC now firmly controlled by the ICD-shop

New postby Chris Whittington » Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:35 am

If any more proof were needed that the shop (ICD) now controls the CCC forum, here it is. The voting structure and changes to the voting structure are absolutely vested in the ownership of the MEMBERS of the CCC. This was how we, as founders, created it and this is how it has always been. To chnage the voting structure requires MEMBERS decisions (not moderators, not tcadmins and certainly not shops)

But tcadmin and shop representative Sam Hull (tcadmin) now says:

Sam Hull

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 2462
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: July moderator elections - new format

I have gotten approval from our sponsor to run the next election on a team basis. Here's the plan: any three members can get together and run as a team. No member can run as part of more than one team, including a team on the other side of the board. Each team will designate one member as its spokesman or primary contact. That individual will post the team's combined moderation philosophy in the candidate thread, one post per team.

Approval from the sponsor?????!!!!!

Bye-bye members democracy and members ownership. You've been led by donkeys who gave it away to commercial interests.

Cordially,

Sean

ICD hasn't dictated anything at all. I went to Quentin and asked about running teams instead of individuals for the next election in response to dozens of member posts, e-mails, and PMs I received requesting it. How else are members here supposed to get anything changed?

I think the point was that this is a radical departure when the members have to ask the sponsor for permission to have moderator "teams". The idea of CCC, from the beginning, was that "we, the members" made all decisions regarding CCC and how it operates. So this quote, while not worth a total meltdown, is certainly a "strange concept..."

Posts in favor of trying the new format are running close to 100% in favor so far. Funny how the only strong negative reaction I have seen to the idea comes from a different board, posted by a controversial former member who signed up here with an illegal account and was ultimately thrown out for malfeasance as a moderator by the membership.

I have asked for and responded to input from members on as many of the parameters of the new format as I can, and I am actively incorporating these suggestions and ideas into the implementation of it.

One thing Chris is right about is that the members here should decide for themselves how things ought to run, which is exactly what is happening now. If he wants his opinion to count for something he can join the board and offer his thoughts. Currently he is not a member and his input counts the same as any other non-member - i.e., not much.

-Sam-

The only question would be, if the members decide, why the question to Quintin in the first place?

[bob]

These same "chess policemen", given moderator powers, spend their free time checking up on your IP address, calling your office to figure out whether you're really an african from Zambia, and similar. If you're cool with this sort of activity, no biggie. I'm not ok with it, nor with an administrative policy which tolerates it.

Jeremy

no body was "given" moderator powers here
all mods were voted in by the members
unlike your new forum where the current mods are appointed
the things you are now mentioning probably happened in the CTF and not in the CCC
members can vote mods in or out
i dont defend actions like that and i would not vote for mods who engage in that sort of activity
the only censorship you can point to is that unregistered lurkers cannot read all forums
thats what it comes down to at the end of the day
Steve

Ask Paul Wise why his account was disabled for a while earlier this term. If he doesn't know, ask Graham.

Jeremy

For the life of me i dont know why you didnt fight Banks tooth and nail each and every time he took mod action against a majority vote
as i have posted elsewhere i would have undone every unilateral action he took ..no matter how many times it took
i think you owed it to the members who voted for you to do that
instead with one month to go until new elections ..you go and create your own forum
you could have at least waited until the results of the new elections were in and perhaps Banks would not have been re-elected..
now there will probably be no one left here who disagrees with his positions and his re-election will be a shoe-in

sort of like a self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Steve

I think I can answer that. A friend that retired from the navy after 20 years used to frequently use the term "shovelling shit against the tide" when he was working on a task that was obviously futile. Such as deleting posts being created by a bot, where you can delete one every 10 seconds and the bot is creating them at a rate of 10 every one second.

Who would want to get into a loop moving posts back only to find them moved yet again, repeated ad nauseum.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Perhaps, but the only time that members usually start referring to others by their surname is when they talk about them in a derogatory fashion.

Totally false. Calling someone only by his surname isnt meant deragotary. It's more an ironical. A second meaning is showing a distance, being not deep friend with someone. But it isnt negative nor insulting. Thirdly it's a collegial neutral. The surname is much more honest than the prename-usage and then insulting someone. Know what I mean? But perhaps I take this from German. E.g. if I talk to someone and then use 'Banks' did this or that, then it cant be seen as negative towards you. I just dont want to tell the other too much. If I use Grah and say something positive about you, then I really mean it. If I said Banks is also a good mod, that would be less intense, but you couldnt make conclusions of negative content. In short, it's a bit more complicated than it looks at first sight. -- Banks, my mod, could you keep an eye on this D.W. who is now insulting me for the second time already. I dont know him and usually dont speek to him because he seeks trouble IMO. I see him in the wrong in respect to the charter. Please tone him down a bit. This is a complaint. Months ago he called me a dog while I refreign from telling him names. Thanks.

Hit the complain button and report me....this is the right way to proceed....
Dr.D

[Steve B]

These same "chess policemen", given moderator powers, spend their free time checking up on your IP address, calling your office to figure out whether you're really an african from Zambia, and similar. If you're cool with this sort of activity, no biggie. I'm not ok with it, nor with an administrative policy which tolerates it.

Jeremy

no body was "given" moderator powers here
all mods were voted in by the members
unlike your new forum where the current mods are appointed
the things you are now mentioning probably happened in the CTF and not in the CCC
members can vote mods in or out
i dont defend actions like that and i would not vote for mods who engage in that sort of activity
the only censorship you can point to is that unregistered lurkers cannot read all forums
thats what it comes down to at the end of the day
Steve

Ask Paul Wise why his account was disabled for a while earlier this term. If he doesn't know, ask Graham.

Jeremy

For the life of me i dont know why you didnt fight Banks tooth and nail each and every time he took mod action against a majority vote
as i have posted elsewhere i would have undone every unilateral action he took ..no matter how many times it took
i think you owed it to the members who voted for you to do that
instead with one month to go until new elections ..you go and create your own forum
you could have at least waited until the results of the new elections were in and perhaps Banks would not have been re-elected..
now there will probably be no one left here who disagrees with his positions and his re-election will be a shoe-in

sort of like a self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Steve

I think I can answer that. A friend that retired from the navy after 20 years used to frequently use the term "shovelling shit against the tide" when he was working on a task that was obviously futile. Such as deleting posts being created by a bot, where you can delete one every 10 seconds and the bot is creating them at a rate of 10 every one second.

Who would want to get into a loop moving posts back only to find them moved yet again, repeated ad nauseum.

yup its messy and its time consuming
but if a mod acts on his own against the majority i would not let his mod actions stand
i feel the members deserve better
the last thing i would do is allow him to perform unilateral action,and then up and quit the forum
of course while all of this was going on i would try to reason with the wayward mod and failing that perhaps call for new elections or something similar..

Steve

[Steve B]

Perhaps, but the only time that members usually start referring to others by their surname is when they talk about them in a derogatory fashion.

i meant nothing derogatory Graham
i was simply typing away and punched in your last name rather then you first name
no offence was intended
Steve

[Christopher Conkie]

Perhaps, but the only time that members usually start referring to others by their surname is when they talk about them in a derogatory fashion.

i meant nothing derogatory Graham
i was simply typing away and punched in your last name rather then you first name
no offence was intended
Steve

I'm used to it Blincoe.

Whoops

Conkie

[Graham Banks]

Perhaps, but the only time that members usually start referring to others by their surname is when they talk about them in a derogatory fashion.

i meant nothing derogatory Graham
i was simply typing away and punched in your last name rather then you first name
no offence was intended
Steve

Thanks Steve. Just siege mentality on my part.

[Peter Berger]

It is a true statement, obviously.

But I have a much more interesting question: are you *really* *the* Sean Evans that is responsible for the very creation of this board?

If you are: that is what I'd call stamina .

And although I don't think you ever were up to any good, that you succeeded like 10 years later on an internet spam project: that is probably something never done before.

And yes: if you are, you earned my honest respect.

LG
Peter

[bob]

These same "chess policemen", given moderator powers, spend their free time checking up on your IP address, calling your office to figure out whether you're really an african from Zambia, and similar. If you're cool with this sort of activity, no biggie. I'm not ok with it, nor with an administrative policy which tolerates it.

Jeremy

no body was "given" moderator powers here
all mods were voted in by the members
unlike your new forum where the current mods are appointed
the things you are now mentioning probably happened in the CTF and not in the CCC
members can vote mods in or out
i dont defend actions like that and i would not vote for mods who engage in that sort of activity
the only censorship you can point to is that unregistered lurkers cannot read all forums
thats what it comes down to at the end of the day
Steve

Ask Paul Wise why his account was disabled for a while earlier this term. If he doesn't know, ask Graham.

Jeremy

For the life of me i dont know why you didnt fight Banks tooth and nail each and every time he took mod action against a majority vote
as i have posted elsewhere i would have undone every unilateral action he took ..no matter how many times it took
i think you owed it to the members who voted for you to do that
instead with one month to go until new elections ..you go and create your own forum
you could have at least waited until the results of the new elections were in and perhaps Banks would not have been re-elected..
now there will probably be no one left here who disagrees with his positions and his re-election will be a shoe-in

sort of like a self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Steve

I think I can answer that. A friend that retired from the navy after 20 years used to frequently use the term "shovelling shit against the tide" when he was working on a task that was obviously futile. Such as deleting posts being created by a bot, where you can delete one every 10 seconds and the bot is creating them at a rate of 10 every one second.

Who would want to get into a loop moving posts back only to find them moved yet again, repeated ad nauseum.

yup its messy and its time consuming
but if a mod acts on his own against the majority i would not let his mod actions stand
i feel the members deserve better
the last thing i would do is allow him to perform unilateral action,and then up and quit the forum
of course while all of this was going on i would try to reason with the wayward mod and failing that perhaps call for new elections or something similar..

Steve

Or even better, simply have discussions and reach an agreement as the last group (us) did. If you recall, it was hardly a popular decision when I suggested that enough time had lapsed to prove IP* a clone. But we discussed the issue and came to a consensus. Without someone going rogue on us.