[OT] CTF elections

[lucasart]

If you ever felt like going to CTF but found the place repulsive, your best chances are with:

Thorsten Czub, Daniel Shawul, Henk Van Den Belt (alt - Aleks Peshkov)

This I say because the current moderation (our opponents) have been there so you get what you used to get. If you want change, vote for us and we will do our best to clean up the place according to the charter. I am posting this here because I know there are programmers, chess enthusiasts, who would like to use CTF as a sort of 'lounge' (as it should be) to discuss things other than chess such as science, politics, religion etc...

Daniel

Thank you Daniel. You certainly have my support.

CTF is nothing but spamming and trolling (and always by the same people). Any attempt to change the status quo is welcome. Especially if it pisses of some "right thinking" people along the way.

On the other hand, spammers and trolls need to go somewhere. If we prevent them from spamming and trolling CTF they'll do it on the other forums. The forums that I read. Which is annoying... We will see. Change is good.

[Daniel Shawul]

Fully agreed
The number of pissed off people in this thread is hilarious.
Don't know why they won't open their own campaigning thread instead of polluting mine ...

[Sam Hull]

CTF is nothing but spamming and trolling (and always by the same people).

Funny how so many spiteful comments about CTF come from people who normally never read it, certainly never contribute to it, and rarely bother to notice it - until they have a crony or an enemy running for election.

-Sam-

[Sam Hull]

Fully agreed
The number of pissed off people in this thread is hilarious.
Don't know why they won't open their own campaigning thread instead of polluting mine ...

It might have something to do with the CCC moderators taking sides and making your off-topic, hostile campaign thread a sticky here in the main forum, which is an unprecedented discourtesy.

You failed to post your list of topics that should have been moderated and weren't. Can you back up your claims, or are they just fertilizer?

-Sam-

[michiguel]

Fully agreed
The number of pissed off people in this thread is hilarious.
Don't know why they won't open their own campaigning thread instead of polluting mine ...

It might have something to do with the CCC moderators taking sides and making your off-topic, hostile campaign thread a sticky here in the main forum, which is an unprecedented discourtesy.

WHAT?
Where is this coming from?

First, I cannot delete a post like that in election week, whether I like it or not. That is Freedom of Speech from a candidate team. On the other hand, I thought it was not wise to have many replies to it and flood CCC with it. But it would have meant it'd sunk to the the second page. So, the best way to "allow freedom of speech" from a candidate team and contain a possible mess was to make it a sticky and watch very closely the thread (and make sure it did not propagate to others). The whole idea was also that your team reply to it and made it visible. I invited it in the moderator forum and explained that I made it a sticky. Now, in public, you accused me of taking sides?

In addition, moderation policies are generally made stickies. Yes, this is CCC and the election is in CTF, but CTF is a closed forum, so if one team wants to have advertise their "reasons for running" in the MAIN forum, that would not be off-topic. The main forum is the one that most people see and the most populated. The fact that it is unprecedented does not mean we should not allow it.

Miguel
PS: Yes, I am taking sides with Dan... who I banned twice very recently. I am sure he loves me.
PS2: Oh, Lucas also loves us, who publicly denounced emphatically that he want us OUT.

You failed to post your list of topics that should have been moderated and weren't. Can you back up your claims, or are they just fertilizer?

-Sam-

[Sam Hull]

WHAT?
Where is this coming from?

First, I cannot delete a post like that in election week, whether I like it or not. That is Freedom of Speech from a candidate team. On the other hand, I thought it was not wise to have many replies to it and flood CCC with it. But it would have meant it'd sunk to the the second page. So, the best way to "allow freedom of speech" from a candidate team and contain a possible mess was to make it a sticky and watch very closely the thread (and make sure it did not propagate to others). The whole idea was also that your team reply to it and made it visible. I invited it in the moderator forum and explained that I made it a sticky. Now, in public, you accused me of taking sides?

In addition, moderation policies are generally made stickies. Yes, this is CCC and the election is in CTF, but CTF is a closed forum, so if one team wants to have advertise their "reasons for running" in the MAIN forum, that would not be off-topic. The main forum is the one that most people see and the most populated. The fact that it is unprecedented does not mean we should not allow it.

Miguel
PS: Yes, I am taking sides with Dan... who I banned twice very recently. I am sure he loves me.
PS2: Oh, Lucas also loves us, who publicly denounced emphatically that he want us OUT.

You failed to post your list of topics that should have been moderated and weren't. Can you back up your claims, or are they just fertilizer?

-Sam-

Here is where it comes from:

(a) Material related to CTF elections belongs in CTF, not here, as you acknowledged by branding this thread [OT]. Daniel's team has had unrestricted and unmoderated free speech in CTF, including blatant abuse and personal attacks. The CTF election is no reason for you to stop moderating this forum.

(b) A thread that is going to "flood" CCC is not going to drop to the second page, so your excuse for highlighting it and sticking it to the top of the forum makes no sense. If nothing else you should have simply followed the charter and left this thread alone to take its natural course. Instead you have actively interfered in the other forum's election process.

(c) CTF moderation philosophy is by no definition computer chess related and shouldn't be in CCC, much less a sticky. We have a dedicated nomination thread in CTF where Daniel's philosophy has already been posted. Highlighting a blatant attack ad here and then putting us on the defensive by "inviting" us to respond is simply an abuse of your moderator position. It would be just as inappropriate to advertise and promote our team's views here.

(d) CTF is not a "closed forum" to members and only members are involved in the election process, so your rationale again makes no sense.

While interfering in the CTF election you fail to remove personal and abusive attacks here, some even posted or seconded by a member of your own team. Since you are on the way out there is little that can be done except to wait.

-Sam-

[michiguel]

WHAT?
Where is this coming from?

First, I cannot delete a post like that in election week, whether I like it or not. That is Freedom of Speech from a candidate team. On the other hand, I thought it was not wise to have many replies to it and flood CCC with it. But it would have meant it'd sunk to the the second page. So, the best way to "allow freedom of speech" from a candidate team and contain a possible mess was to make it a sticky and watch very closely the thread (and make sure it did not propagate to others). The whole idea was also that your team reply to it and made it visible. I invited it in the moderator forum and explained that I made it a sticky. Now, in public, you accused me of taking sides?

In addition, moderation policies are generally made stickies. Yes, this is CCC and the election is in CTF, but CTF is a closed forum, so if one team wants to have advertise their "reasons for running" in the MAIN forum, that would not be off-topic. The main forum is the one that most people see and the most populated. The fact that it is unprecedented does not mean we should not allow it.

Miguel
PS: Yes, I am taking sides with Dan... who I banned twice very recently. I am sure he loves me.
PS2: Oh, Lucas also loves us, who publicly denounced emphatically that he want us OUT.

You failed to post your list of topics that should have been moderated and weren't. Can you back up your claims, or are they just fertilizer?

-Sam-

Here is where it comes from:

(a) Material related to CTF moderation belongs in CTF, not here, as you acknowledged by branding this thread [OT].

No, I do not acknowledge that. I judge it perfectly on topic of the forum. The one who labeled it OT was the OP, which shows you lack some information of what is going on. You could have asked (even in the mod forum), but you decided to assume.

(b) A thread that is going to "flood" CCC is not going to drop to the second page, so your excuse for highlighting it and sticking it to the top of the forum makes no sense.

It is going to drop to the second page if we restricted the posts to the teams. Later, other people than the team responded, and since most were against DS, I did not want to remove them to keep some balance. Read my original intention.

If nothing else you should have simply followed the charter and left this thread alone to take its natural course. Instead you have actively interfered in the other forum's election process.

No, I did not interfere. News on the election process belong here. That was my call, and supported later by the team. You have to respect team decisions, which is also in the charter.

(c) CTF moderation philosophy is by no definition computer chess related and shouldn't be in CCC, much less a sticky. We have a dedicated nomination thread in CTF where Daniel's philosophy has already been posted. Highlighting a blatant attack ad here and then putting us on the defensive by "inviting" us to respond is simply an abuse of your moderator position. It would be just as inappropriate to advertise and promote our team's views here.

I do not see any blatant attack has been highlighted by me. And it is not up to me to judge the policies of candidate teams.

(e) CTF is not a "closed forum" to members and only members are involved in the election process, so your rationale again makes no sense.

Not easily visible, and you understood what I meant.

While interfering in the CTF election you fail to remove personal and abusive attacks here, some even posted or seconded by a member of your own team. Since you are on the way out there is little that can be done except to wait.

I am no trying to debate this decision, which is not our policy. It was an explanation. If it does not suffice, then yes, we can wait. I can not say I am disappointed by your unfounded misrepresentation of my decision, but I truly did not expected it. Less in public, when I open a thread about it in the moderator forum.

Miguel

-Sam-

[Sam Hull]

I judge it perfectly on topic of the forum.
It is going to drop to the second page if we restricted the posts to the teams. Later, other people than the team responded, and since most were against DS, I did not want to remove them to keep some balance. Read my original intention.

If you judge it "perfectly on-topic" why would you restrict who can post in it? Your judgment ignores the presence of the moderation philosophy thread in CTF which was stickied there for a week and a half. It is hardly your job to decide how important any given topic is and predetermine its positioning on the page. You arbitrarily skylined this at the top of CCC and it doesn't even belong here.

News on the election process belong here. That was my call, and supported later by the team. You have to respect team decisions, which is also in the charter.

I respected your call and did not complain or ask for removal of this thread. I stated that its unprecedented and discourteous presence here accounts for my responses in it. You chose to argue the validity of that opinion.

I do not see any blatant attack has been highlighted by me. And it is not up to me to judge the policies of candidate teams.

Making a sticky out of a campaign attack ad highlights it, which is all the more ironic after your team made the removal of off-topic material one of the planks of your policy. When Fern suggested that there be more flexibility for off-topic posts he was vilified for it here.

I open a thread about it in the moderator forum.

You presented it as a fait accompli in the mod forum and I responded there first (does "Et tu, Brute" need amplification?). You invited us to respond in this thread and I have done so. You're the one who decided to feature this whole issue in CCC as a public debate, not me. This sort of thing is what CTF was created for in the first place.

-Sam-

[Graham Banks]

CTF electioneering belongs in CTF.
CCC electioneering belongs in CCC.

Just my opinion of course.

[michiguel]

I judge it perfectly on topic of the forum.
It is going to drop to the second page if we restricted the posts to the teams. Later, other people than the team responded, and since most were against DS, I did not want to remove them to keep some balance. Read my original intention.

If you judge it "perfectly on-topic" why would you restrict who can post in it? Your judgment ignores the presence of the moderation philosophy thread in CTF which was stickied there for a week and a half. It is hardly your job to decide how important any given topic is and predetermine its positioning on the page. You arbitrarily skylined this at the top of CCC and it doesn't even belong here.

News on the election process belong here. That was my call, and supported later by the team. You have to respect team decisions, which is also in the charter.

I respected your call and did not complain or ask for removal of this thread. I stated that its unprecedented and discourteous presence here accounts for my responses in it. You chose to argue the validity of that opinion.

I do not see any blatant attack has been highlighted by me. And it is not up to me to judge the policies of candidate teams.

Making a sticky out of a campaign attack ad highlights it, which is all the more ironic after your team made the removal of off-topic material one of the planks of your policy. When Fern suggested that there be more flexibility for off-topic posts he was vilified for it here.

I open a thread about it in the moderator forum.

You presented it as a fait accompli in the mod forum and I responded there first (does "Et tu, Brute" need amplification?). You invited us to respond in this thread and I have done so. You're the one who decided to feature this whole issue in CCC as a public debate, not me. This sort of thing is what CTF was created for in the first place.

-Sam-

I clearly implied no discourtesy was meant. But you keep going. Anything else?

Miguel
PS: You did not post "Et tu Brutus" in the mod forum. You posted something cryptic that could be interpreted in many ways. That is not really a good way to establish a communication when the other part is spelling things out.