Unfair Poll

[chrisw]

Applying the above established eligability criteria, 50 posts and six months registered, to the responses so far, the situation is:

Close CTF - 30 votes
Don't close CTF - 26 votes.

by all means, give us a list of 'voters' who you think have no right to affect this decision. Note that criteria on posting count are quite arbitrary in the first place, and at best a very rough tool to establish what we really want to know: whether the person behind the account is real, and has a genuine interest for being here. I would think it really strange indeed when a known author of a Chess engine would be excluded from the vote because he posted here only 49 times.

The number of 'dubious' voters is small enough to consider each case individually, for maximum guarantee that we won't violate anybody's rights.

This was a serious request, and I hope that you can still answer it. We are discussing now what action should be taken based on the result, and it doesn't seem a good thing to take action on a result when there is no agreement as to what that result is.

So please give us the names of the voters you think should be discounted, that we will investigate these in depth.

Who is “we”? After your disgraceful “moderation” behaviour, for which is was necessary, inter alia, for your obscene and completely unjustified serious insults on Ed Schroder to be actually deleted by your embarrassed boss-mod, YOU should not be part of any “WE” that decides anything at all.

Add the numbers up yourself. Each post by each poster states Sign up date and total posts made. Contrary to your creative accounting I did not erase, as you did, Matt Hull vote of not 2, you call it a non vote. Nor did I erase or boot off to another page Albert Silver’s text which was clearly a Keep CTF vote. I did erase the fascinating contributions of your little helpers who miraculously know all about CTF despite only registering in the past days, including one using your actual picture. Your creative accounting and almost complete and again creative corruption of any form of logic in self-justification are fit only for the trash can.
Go take a read of Milos (banned and deleted of course) exactly accurate view on democracy, voting, majorities, minorities, what can be done with sprung votes, propaganda campaigns and you unleashing yourself with absolute filth all over CTF in order to prove there’s filth in CTF. You’re a disgrace. Have a nice day.

[hgm]

Explain the "what action".

That is what we are discussing. Use your own crystal ball, it is as good as mine. But obviously any decision should be based on an accurate and reliable counting of the votes. Any form of fraud should be excluded.

In his counting Chris seems to discount quite a lot more votes than I can see any reason for. Although I definitely see some too. Voting by someone for which the vote is the first and only posting should not be counted. Voting by people that just registered days ago also seem to carry little weight. If anyone else sees anything suspicious, he can of course report it too, so we can investigate. But now is the time to do it.

[Rebel]

Explain the "what action".

That is what we are discussing. Use your own crystal ball, it is as good as mine. But obviously any decision should be based on an accurate and reliable counting of the votes. Any form of fraud should be excluded.

In his counting Chris seems to discount quite a lot more votes than I can see any reason for. Although I definitely see some too. Voting by someone for which the vote is the first and only posting should not be counted. Voting by people that just registered days ago also seem to carry little weight. If anyone else sees anything suspicious, he can of course report it too, so we can investigate. But now is the time to do it.

What action?

What decision?

The election already has started.

[hgm]

Who is “we”?

Those with the technical power to implement the 'will of the people'.

Add the numbers up yourself. Each post by each poster states Sign up date and total posts made. Contrary to your creative accounting I did not erase, as you did, Matt Hull vote of not 2, you call it a non vote.

You got that (intentionally?) wrong, as usual. I called Matt's 'not-2' a half-1 + half-3 vote. I don't know why that would upset you, as there also was a not-1 vote, which I counted as half-2 + half-3, so it doesn't matter much how we count such votes. But you don't seem to need any reason to get upset.

Nor did I erase or boot off to another page Albert Silver’s text which was clearly a Keep CTF vote.

As everyone can see, but you apparently did not bother to, Albert Silver has explained his vote, and it was 3, not 1. You don't seem to be very interested in truth...

I did erase the fascinating contributions of your little helpers who miraculously know all about CTF despite only registering in the past days, including one using your actual picture.

I do see 2-voters (I suppose that is what you mean by 'helpers') with 1 posting (registered Oct 5), 4 postings (registered Sept 17), 10 postings (registered Sept 4), 22 postings (but registered in 2007!), 34 postings (2019), 73 postings (Sept 29), 74 postings (2018), and a 1-voter with 8 postings (2017).

I would be inclined to worry more about registration date than about number of postings; some people come here mainly to read, and that they show up on short notice show they are involved. Very short registration might not have given them an accurate-enough impression of the issue, though. Still, 10 or viewer postings seems too little to qualify as an 'active member'. So I would exclude those, and all those registering Sept/Oct this year. If nobody has any further objections.

[hgm]

What action?

What decision?

The election already has started.

Indeed. But it is more important whether it will be allowed to finish. Or whether those chosen will have anything to moderate.

[Rebel]

What action?

What decision?

The election already has started.

Indeed. But it is more important whether it will be allowed to finish. Or whether those chosen will have anything to moderate.

Meaning what?

You guys are going to decide the nominees chosen by the collective forum members are not allowed to run?

[hgm]

What would there be to run for if there is no more CTF? But if candidates insist, I would not try to prevent them running for moderator-of-nothing. I would probably withdraw from such an election myself, though.

IMO it was a bit premature to call for elections before the survey even closed (which was today) and a final count could be made. But we will see what is decided.

[Rebel]

What would there be to run for if there is no more CTF? But if candidates insist, I would not try to prevent them running for moderator-of-nothing. I would probably withdraw from such an election myself, though.

IMO it was a bit premature to call for elections before the survey even closed (which was today) and a final count could be made. But we will see what is decided.

Odd to put this in public, you as the spokeman for Sam (as you often claimed) while the election is already running, but in the end Sam (as only elected moderator) is end responsible for putting you in a position of power and he should have removed you a long time ago.

[hgm]

It seems not to have dawned on you yet that this is not a CTF moderation matter. And even if it was, it should be glaringly obvious that when I say IMO it means "In my opinion", and not "in Sam's opinion". Even a spokesperson for Sam is entitled to have his own opinion, which weighs just as much as that of any other member. Add to that that I am an elected moderator on this side of the board...

And about putting it in public: I would think that people have the right to know how matters stand, and the announcement of elections might have created a misleading impression for that.

[chrisw]

What would there be to run for if there is no more CTF? But if candidates insist, I would not try to prevent them running for moderator-of-nothing. I would probably withdraw from such an election myself, though.

IMO it was a bit premature to call for elections before the survey even closed (which was today) and a final count could be made. But we will see what is decided.

Odd to put this in public, you as the spokeman for Sam (as you often claimed) while the election is already running, but in the end Sam (as only elected moderator) is end responsible for putting you in a position of power and he should have removed you a long time ago.

Why would those “in power” announce elections, call for democratically selected moderator candidates, whilst simultaneously keep open the option to terminate the elections? Well, that’s pretty obvious, if those “in power” don’t like the democratically selected mod candidates, or think that ones they don’t like will get elected, then they’ll cancel the elections. What else game are they playing?

What candidates do those “in power” not like? Well that’s pretty obvious too. Any who have spoken on the topic of whether the computer chess forums should be ultimately under control of the shop, or those who have questioned the long reign and non-elect status of the TCAdmin, or even asked the question, who actually is it that is the owner of the 200 share certificates that own the shop.
This whole topic is not really about CTF at all, it’s about removing all possible danger to the shop-forums status for benefit of shop by moving gradually to no elections at all and closing the one part of the site where any “opposition” could take place.
So, it’s actually about democracy and the shop/admin power of controlling the software switches via a vis the original concept of the forums as a community asset where the community organised and ruled itself. These forums are only “special” because they are community based forums. But they are also on the shop site and the shop controls the all important switches. That’s the contradiction.