Steve B wrote:AFAIK this is currently being discussed by the members and certainly not happening as any sort of directive from the sponsor
AFAIK its decided by Sam Hull
Sam Hull wrote:I have gotten approval from our sponsor to run the next election on a team basis.
Steve B wrote:they are actually discussing their own demise regards
Steve
They don't want an own forum because they like to have some power, they want a CCC like forum without censorship. If the CCC goes back to independence the new forum is not needed.
AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
and in the new forum Unregistered Lurkers can read all of the forums
once someone registers on your new forum both forums are the same
an entire new forum has been created for the reading pleasure of Unregistered Lurkers
that OK with me
Steve
I do not see the advantage of not allowing unregistered people to read all the forums.
registering is easy and practically everybody can register to read all the forums so
I see no reason not to make things more simple and allow everyone to read all the forums.
If 2 possibilities lead practically to the same result then it is better to choose the simpler option.
Steve B wrote:AFAIK this is currently being discussed by the members and certainly not happening as any sort of directive from the sponsor
AFAIK its decided by Sam Hull
Sam Hull wrote:I have gotten approval from our sponsor to run the next election on a team basis.
Steve B wrote:they are actually discussing their own demise regards
Steve
They don't want an own forum because they like to have some power, they want a CCC like forum without censorship. If the CCC goes back to independence the new forum is not needed.
AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
and in the new forum Unregistered Lurkers can read all of the forums
once someone registers on your new forum both forums are the same
an entire new forum has been created for the reading pleasure of Unregistered Lurkers
that OK with me
Steve
I do not see the advantage of not allowing unregistered people to read all the forums.
registering is easy and practically everybody can register to read all the forums so
I see no reason not to make things more simple and allow everyone to read all the forums.
If 2 possibilities lead practically to the same result then it is better to choose the simpler option.
Uri
That really depends on the perspective. I have always viewed this as a community, so while anyone is free to join, it is not the same as a public square.
The problem is links. People post links all the time. Occasionally on JamPlay someone will post a youtube link to some new tune they recorded. And when you click the link you are prompted to login before you can see the video. Others post links to non-login videos that anybody can see.
That's the point here. Someone should be able to cite a discussion in CCC/CEO and the link should work. But it won't. Yet posting a link to the programmer's forum will work just fine.
bob wrote: The only question would be, if the members decide, why the question to Quintin in the first place?
Quentin asked me to do this job and gave me the access with which to do it. When we get suggestions or ideas for changes I run them by him as a courtesy to the folks who pay the bills around here - and who, by the way, also get the hate mail when people around here get disgruntled.
With all the moderator team conflicts and resignations in the last several terms and a substantial expression of desire by the membership for some sort of improvement in the election process, we're giving the team thing a shot. I outlined the plan to Quentin and he simply said it seemed like a reasonable idea so long as it was clearly explained in advance, and that we as members should be the ones to figure out the parameters for implementing it. That's approval, not "permission." There is a difference.
bob wrote: The problem is links. People post links all the time. Occasionally on JamPlay someone will post a youtube link to some new tune they recorded. And when you click the link you are prompted to login before you can see the video. Others post links to non-login videos that anybody can see.
That's the point here. Someone should be able to cite a discussion in CCC/CEO and the link should work. But it won't. Yet posting a link to the programmer's forum will work just fine.
If you are logged in links work just fine. Nobody could publicly link anything on the old CCC, as I'm sure you remember.
On the other side of the argument is that in a non-publicly viewable forum there is opportunity to exchange ideas on controversial and/or emotionally charged topics (which regularly develop into heated arguments salted with intemperate words) without having every word you say, tagged with your "real name," permanently recorded and available for the entire world to Google. (One answer to the question you asked twice in another thread.)
Links work for members. Privacy protects members. The board exists for members. Anyone with a legitimate interest in what is discussed here can take 45 seconds of his time and become a member. Just like in the good old days.
Steve B wrote:AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
Well if someone tries to find information about computerchess the CCC is a good place. Other places are WBEC, LFN, CCRL, CEGT.
If someone of the mass looks for informations about the strongest Chess Engines he will not register here. He will find no informations that Hou***, Fi**, Ivan*** even exist.
Steve B wrote:AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
Well if someone tries to find information about computerchess the CCC is a good place. Other places are WBEC, LFN, CCRL, CEGT.
If someone of the mass looks for informations about the strongest Chess Engines he will not register here. He will find no informations that Hou***, Fi**, Ivan*** even exist.
For me thats censorship.
if someone registers he will find all of the information
registration takes almost no effort and is free
you can say any site on the net requiring registration is a censored site
while i do not necessarily agree that any forum should be hidden (including the CTF) i do not see this as a heavy handed form of censorship
i have said this before and i will say it again..
i do not cry for unregistered lurkers
it is very compassionate of Jeremy to have gone to all of the time and truoble to create a whole new forum all for the reading pleasure of unregistered lurkers because that is the only difference between the forums
sockmonkey wrote: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.
i most certainly do remember it
i can remember on more then one occasion where you,Dann and myself did not agree 100% but we went with the common sense approach of majority rule
this was true of my prior term with Volker and Zach as well
the previous term to ours started out contentious for reasons other then the derivatives issue.. and Zach and Volker and myself were not exaclty on the same page on some of those issues ..but we worked it out for the good of the forum
i can imagine that with all of the terms you have served here over the years that there were many contentious issues during those times and i would bet dollars to donuts you went with the majority rule
mods do not need to be bowling partners but they do need to work together for the good of the forum
it just plain common sense
Regards
Steve
Steve B wrote:AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
Well if someone tries to find information about computerchess the CCC is a good place. Other places are WBEC, LFN, CCRL, CEGT.
If someone of the mass looks for informations about the strongest Chess Engines he will not register here. He will find no informations that Hou***, Fi**, Ivan*** even exist.
For me thats censorship.
if someone registers he will find all of the information
registration takes almost no effort and is free
you can say any site on the net requiring registration is a censored site
while i do not necessarily agree that any forum should be hidden (including the CTF) i do not see this as a heavy handed form of censorship
i have said this before and i will say it again..
i do not cry for unregistered lurkers
it is very compassionate of Jeremy to have gone to all of the time and truoble to create a whole new forum all for the reading pleasure of unregistered lurkers because that is the only difference between the forums
Best Regards
Steve
I understand that you're annoyed. I'll tell you one other major difference between TalkChess and OpenChess (since you're apparently dead-set against accepting my previous explanations): if I ever find out that a moderator of OC (elected or otherwise) is using the members' private data (IP info, for instance) for any purpose other than site moderation (identity tracking, for instance), that person will a) immediately lose his/her moderation status and b) never be a moderator on the site again.
Steve B wrote:AFAIK the entire censorship i keep hearing about is that Unregistered Lurkers cannot read all of the forums here
Well if someone tries to find information about computerchess the CCC is a good place. Other places are WBEC, LFN, CCRL, CEGT.
If someone of the mass looks for informations about the strongest Chess Engines he will not register here. He will find no informations that Hou***, Fi**, Ivan*** even exist.
For me thats censorship.
if someone registers he will find all of the information
registration takes almost no effort and is free
you can say any site on the net requiring registration is a censored site
while i do not necessarily agree that any forum should be hidden (including the CTF) i do not see this as a heavy handed form of censorship
i have said this before and i will say it again..
i do not cry for unregistered lurkers
it is very compassionate of Jeremy to have gone to all of the time and truoble to create a whole new forum all for the reading pleasure of unregistered lurkers because that is the only difference between the forums
Best Regards
Steve
I understand that you're annoyed. I'll tell you one other major difference between TalkChess and OpenChess (since you're apparently dead-set against accepting my previous explanations): if I ever find out that a moderator of OC (elected or otherwise) is using the members' private data (IP info, for instance) for any purpose other than site moderation (identity tracking, for instance), that person will a) immediately lose his/her moderation status and b) never be a moderator on the site again.
Steve B wrote: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.
