July moderator elections - new format

[Harvey Williamson]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Don't really need one you are quite capable of making up your Fairy Tales on your own. My posts are there before your team declared saying we needed a vote on teams. The Steve I know would be anti this shoe in as he was in saying the nomination period should be extended and all forum members should be emailed.

[bob]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

[Harvey Williamson]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

Good idea. I did think about something like this but am not sure the forum poll software would allow it. How do you stop someone voting for a team and 2 individuals?

[michiguel]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

How about we stick to the teams?
Next time, there will be enough time and no problem.

Miguel

[bob]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

Good idea. I did think about something like this but am not sure the forum poll software would allow it. How do you stop someone voting for a team and 2 individuals?

I could only think of two choices when I thought about this.

(1) forum software would have to handle the case;

(2) the names would be listed separately, but a team could say "If we are not the top three vote-getters, none of us will serve and the next 3 in rank will get the job.

And a third that just came to mind...

(3) same as (2) except that the team can agree to be split, hoping the team members are the top 3, but those in the top 3 still agree to serve even if they lose one or two team mates...

I could deal with any of those...

[bob]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

How about we stick to the teams?
Next time, there will be enough time and no problem.

Miguel

I was talking about "next time" since the current election is almost finished.

[Harvey Williamson]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

Good idea. I did think about something like this but am not sure the forum poll software would allow it. How do you stop someone voting for a team and 2 individuals?

I could only think of two choices when I thought about this.

(1) forum software would have to handle the case;

(2) the names would be listed separately, but a team could say "If we are not the top three vote-getters, none of us will serve and the next 3 in rank will get the job.

And a third that just came to mind...

(3) same as (2) except that the team can agree to be split, hoping the team members are the top 3, but those in the top 3 still agree to serve even if they lose one or two team mates...

I could deal with any of those...

2 and 3 are workable with the current software and would work with the election rules we have used before this election. Although it could be a bit confusing if there were multiple teams.

1 may be possible with some tweaks to the forum software.

[Christopher Conkie]

What we have here is the thing being rammed through.

You can vote against the process in the election poll. So it's not being rammed through. Otherwise you would have no option to vote against the process. I don't understand why you keep repeating something you know is not true.

correct
actually as we were the ONLY team to even offer themselves to the members we could have claimed a win right then and there
but an option was put on the ballot to offer to scrap the team concept altogether
hardly ramming anything through

ok wow you could have claimed - where was that in the rules? If you think none of the above = scrap team concept then you really should be part of a Soviet election.

your starting to sound like Hetman to me
did you give him your pass word or something to log on here?

point is IF that would have happened ..then THAT would have been ramming something through

here's how i think things would have transpired had the situation been reversed

you post a team with a philosophy of disallowing links
no one else contests your team
the TCADMIN posts the ballot offering the option to scrape teams and have a standard election

right now and all day long you would be whining about how unfair that was and no where was it mentioned that this would happen and how we are all communists and liars

you can have the last word
as usual
Steve

Here's a modified idea that could work, if the current one does not.

Go back to individual nominations. Then allow a group of 3 people to run together as a team, with individuals that are not in teams. You either vote for the team with one vote, or you vote for any other 3 candidates as we have always done. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds...

Good idea. I did think about something like this but am not sure the forum poll software would allow it. How do you stop someone voting for a team and 2 individuals?

I could only think of two choices when I thought about this.

(1) forum software would have to handle the case;

(2) the names would be listed separately, but a team could say "If we are not the top three vote-getters, none of us will serve and the next 3 in rank will get the job.

And a third that just came to mind...

(3) same as (2) except that the team can agree to be split, hoping the team members are the top 3, but those in the top 3 still agree to serve even if they lose one or two team mates...

I could deal with any of those...

2 and 3 are workable with the current software and would work with the election rules we have used before this election. Although it could be a bit confusing if there were multiple teams.

1 may be possible with some tweaks to the forum software.

Get Paul to decide......

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35397

[Sam Hull]

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

Harvey,

I love you man, but this incessant pissing and moaning is making me wonder if something else is impinging on your usual sense of well-being. I encourage you to take more time to read before writing.

The election poll runs for four full days, yet you "rushed" to vote in the first few minutes without reading the poll and without waiting for any philosophy to be posted. Then you accuse ME of rushing a poll that has been in the works for over a month and a half. Sorry, but if this thing caught you with your hands in the air and your pants around your ankles, that's your fault. Read more carefully and thoughtfully, and you won't be surprised when things that have been announced in advance actually happen.

To answer your other monotonous refrains, I read this board every day, and all suggestions and comments (including many past discussions) were carefully weighed and evaluated. Apparently you judge my presence here by whether or not I post; that would be a mistake on your part. Faulting me for things that pertain only to the world of your imagination erodes your own credibility more than mine.

This time around we're trying out a variation based on a great many member suggestions, looking for the best way to democratically choose mods for the board. It doesn't mean the terrifying specter of Soviet communism has engulfed Talkchess just because everything wasn't done to your personal liking.


-Sam-

[mariaclara]

Come on Sam,

whenever someone says something about your moves, you always cite him/her for complaining/etc. ( in this latest - Harvey Williamson. )

why don't you answer the issue

instead of

sidestepping by accusing the poster of blabity-bla.
( maybe it's time you changed this technique. it's getting worn-out )