Sam Hull wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:33 am
chrisw wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:45 am
I guess the hastiness comes from those who operate behind closed doors, coupled with statements of what will happen from one of those operators and the negating opposite from another. In practice now, nobody can know if an election go-ahead is happening or not. I personally have no idea even if my account would exist for the next time I log in, it's been threatened so many times now, in public, that's not a feeling I've had before. I also have no idea whether CTF will just be vapourised one morning, that's also been threatened many times.
The reality is the contradiction referred in prior posting. Those "in power" want to get rid of pesky elections which from time to time threaten to upset things and challenge the base of what HGM calls "power", whilst at same time, it's the elections and community control, or potential community control, or original community control which makes this particular set of computer chess forums "special". The interest of the shop is to maintain the "special" narrative whilst also eliminating the actual threat of community control which, for example, could take the forums elsewhere. The contradiction has been left unresolved, quietly in the background, by the expedient of having no elections for four years, but like all contradictions, one day it emerges in reality, in this case, because half the four year sell-by date moderators more or less just removed themselves and, same time, Daniel Shawul, black chess engine programmer, became troubled by racism he encountered on CTF and offered himself as a route to deal with this. And yes, I know you are on record as stating this ten years too late. Maybe. Then again maybe not. I tend to a natural optimism.
You spin this narrative out of some pretty thin yarn. All the steps for evaluating the options for CTF and carrying out an election have been done with the full participation of the remaining elected moderators, with discussions, suggestions, and surveys in full view of the membership. Your contributions were accepted and included in the election polling plan to the fullest extent possible, as were those of several others.
There is zero "interest of the shop" in doing away with community control, or whatever the hell you're imagining. The whole reason they asked me to do the admin job here was to put as much distance between Talkchess and themselves as they could. They don't know and don't want to know what goes on here. In the last 13-odd years there has been exactly ONE login here by the owner to request donations for the cost of the software upgrade. These weird perverse scenarios of yours come from a dark place unrelated to reality.
As I have explained numerous times, previous attempts to hold moderator elections failed for lack of interest on both sides of the board (two years running), followed by a loss of the ability to run them at all after the upgrade to this version (another two years). During the latter two years there was no call from mods or members for elections at all until a few months ago; at that point I clearly stated the problems that needed to be solved. Your unkind insinuation about "expedient" motives behind the four year hiatus reflects a lack of attention to previously communicated, easily verifiable facts. Go back and read the expired nomination threads, not enough candidates,virtually no individuals or teams interested.
Last time I checked, there is nothing democratic about one member pushing himself forward to be an unelected moderator, programmer or not. Nobody at that time who applauded this self-appointment bothered to tackle the genuine problems involved in holding a fair and legitimate election under current conditions. There was somebody who enlisted the support of the CCC moderators and requested help from the membership to work around those multiple significant obstacles, ultimately getting new elections underway, and you're reading a post from him now.
The only potential impediment to elections at this point is your seeming intention to renege on creating the eligible voter list which was to be published and used to ensure the integrity of the vote. It was your suggestion, and it was incorporated as a key piece of the plan. Have you changed your mind?
We got as far in proposal, counter proposals as to be in agreement points 2 to 7, with point 1 on counter-proposal. You didn’t respond, then announced a format which was a “no” to counter proposal point 1.
I assumed that’s just the way you terminate negotiations and assumed you’ld found a way to make election process yourself. Fine, no problem. Not really my style of way to negotiate but each to his own.
You’ll note also my earlier condition that this was all dependent on an assurance I was not wasting my time, and that involved an assurance of a CTF election process and a goodwill operation of it. But, running parallel to Sam Hull with one face, was a second face, that of appointed proxy HGM, who was busy “exerting power”, threatening me (also Ed, Laskos and Milos) with banning immediate, deletions, arbitrary forum closure without election, insulting (serious insulting), granted power by YOU to do whatever unlawful by charter act he wanted with 100% immunity, granted by YOU. Threats to close the forum by unlawful by charter throwing if software switches remain open. Sam Hull in second face had not asserted this unlawful by charter act is not going to happen. YOU have the power to assert that the only power a moderator has to flick switches on postings or posters is if those postings/posters break the charter. YOU are not acting in defence of what is charter lawful or not, you just stand aside while proxy face two continues with his threats.
I’m not at all sure who I’m dealing with here. Sam Hull face one, or Sam Hull face two, and I can only assume face two is the real face. So, no, Sam Hull face one broke the positive proposal counter proposal negotiation process, and Sam Hull face two continues with threats and threats to act unlawfully, and I’m not supporting what, on the evidence, is an attempted coup d’Etat here. Negotiations and proposals are not promises, they only become promises if they go to conclusion. These ones didn’t, they could have but they didn’t. The break was yours, you own it.