Page 4 of 8

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:47 pm
by Rebel
Guenther wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:25 am
Rebel wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:10 am

2. The "gaard" guy has been accepted as CTF nominee. He has been away for 1.5 year, shows up 2 weeks ago. Correct me if I misunderstand the rule:

Sam - Nominee and voter criteria remain the same as in past elections; i.e., those who have been members for less than six months or have less than 40 recent posts on the board as of September 1 are not eligible.

He isn't allowed to run, is he?
I understand it very different from you. It means you have to a member for at least 6 months and must have made at least 40 posts totally
in talkchess until 2020-09-01.

It would be nonsense anyway to punish long time members for being driven away for a certain time, either because they were disgusted
by something they had no responsibility for, or for any other reasons.
Sure you would have opposed to have lost your voting rights in one of the several periods you went out of here too?
The stipulation is meant as a protection against sleepers (double or fake accounts) who show up at voting time to manipulate the election and disappear afterwards.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:58 pm
by hgm
Exactly. So if we are sure an account belongs to a real person, there is no reason to apply any course approximative criteria to exclude him from voting, right? Not even if he happens to vote different than we would like.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:40 pm
by Rebel
hgm wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:58 pm
Exactly. So if we are sure an account belongs to a real person, there is no reason to apply any course approximative criteria to exclude him from voting, right? Not even if he happens to vote different than we would like.
No objection, adding the intention of the stipulation would solve the ambiguous interpretation. And yet,
2019, 2 postings
2016, 8 postsings
2015, 2 postings
2013, next post.

12 postings in 7 years, hardly 40.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:54 pm
by gaard
Rebel wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:40 pm
hgm wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:58 pm
Exactly. So if we are sure an account belongs to a real person, there is no reason to apply any course approximative criteria to exclude him from voting, right? Not even if he happens to vote different than we would like.
No objection, adding the intention of the stipulation would solve the ambiguous interpretation. And yet,
2019, 2 postings
2016, 8 postsings
2015, 2 postings
2013, next post.

12 postings in 7 years, hardly 40.
I do not see an ambiguity. I have been a member for approximately 10 years. I have moderated CTF in the past. I have contributed to both CCC and CTF. I have a valid phone number, Skype account, and email should anyone call my 'realness' into question and wish to validate my identity by contacting me directly. If the issue is 40 posts then I can appreciate your criticism, although that number is certainly arbitrary, but anything else is a red herring.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:56 pm
by hgm
Well, he has 223 postings in total.

If anything, arbitrary thresholds must be adapted to provide an accurate indication of reality. Not the other way around. That would be bureaucracy.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:00 pm
by Sam Hull
Rebel wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:40 pm
hgm wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:58 pm
Exactly. So if we are sure an account belongs to a real person, there is no reason to apply any course approximative criteria to exclude him from voting, right? Not even if he happens to vote different than we would like.
No objection, adding the intention of the stipulation would solve the ambiguous interpretation. And yet,
2019, 2 postings
2016, 8 postsings
2015, 2 postings
2013, next post.

12 postings in 7 years, hardly 40.
How recently someone made their minimum of 40 posts was a new standard suggested by Chris; we have never used that before, and we have chosen to ignore it in Martin's case, and in anyone else's case who is a longtime member; we are not required or inclined to implement that innovation and it has been dropped. Candidate and voter eligibility will be determined on the same basis as in all recent elections, it will just have to be done manually since the software controls used in the past aren't available.

-Sam-

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:37 am
by Alayan
hgm wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:39 pm
So the question is: does CTF fulfil a useful purpose for the people that visit this site for computer Chess? The survey has shown with a very large majority that this is not the case. Many 1 votes from CCC members were motivated by reasons like "it doesn't bother me, because I know to avoid it". That cannot be considered a reason to keep it on this site. On the other side, many of the 1 votes from regular CTF visitors are from voters that first have been claiming CCC members should have no voting rights in CTF affairs. So these also do not really want to be 'part of' TalkChess, they just vote 1 because it best suits their immediate purpose of keeping CTF open. Several 1 voters have virtually no postings on CCC (other than their vote here).
I voted 1 while I don't read CTF and have no desire to read it. The post I quoted above try and delegitimize my vote, while claiming that people who voted 2 and don't read CTF are much more interested in having their way followed. This is a wrong thing to do.

I want CTF kept open because it's a space where people can freely share thoughts on different world subjects, even if they're wrong or other disagree with them. I want it to remain linked to talkchess because this link breathes life into it. Spinning it off would kill its activity and people suggesting it know it. At the same time, people who want to discuss these things are less likely to do off-topics in the main forums.

Others who want it closed down believe that allowing the expression of (some) ideas they disapprove in CTF taints talkchess. There are plenty of posts in CTF I find utterly wrong, sampling thread titles and what has been said in the vote threads is enough to know it, but I would never condemn the whole CCC community on their basis. That would be narrow-minded censorship.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:31 am
by hgm
[Moderation] As this discussion degenerated in the usual mud-slinging accusations typical of CTF without any relation to the question posed by the OP, I moved that part to CTF. Please stay on topic.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:35 am
by hgm
Alayan wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 2:37 am
hgm wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:39 pm
So the question is: does CTF fulfil a useful purpose for the people that visit this site for computer Chess? The survey has shown with a very large majority that this is not the case. Many 1 votes from CCC members were motivated by reasons like "it doesn't bother me, because I know to avoid it". That cannot be considered a reason to keep it on this site. On the other side, many of the 1 votes from regular CTF visitors are from voters that first have been claiming CCC members should have no voting rights in CTF affairs. So these also do not really want to be 'part of' TalkChess, they just vote 1 because it best suits their immediate purpose of keeping CTF open. Several 1 voters have virtually no postings on CCC (other than their vote here).
I voted 1 while I don't read CTF and have no desire to read it. The post I quoted above try and delegitimize my vote, while claiming that people who voted 2 and don't read CTF are much more interested in having their way followed. This is a wrong thing to do.

I want CTF kept open because it's a space where people can freely share thoughts on different world subjects, even if they're wrong or other disagree with them. I want it to remain linked to talkchess because this link breathes life into it. Spinning it off would kill its activity and people suggesting it know it. At the same time, people who want to discuss these things are less likely to do off-topics in the main forums.

Others who want it closed down believe that allowing the expression of (some) ideas they disapprove in CTF taints talkchess. There are plenty of posts in CTF I find utterly wrong, sampling thread titles and what has been said in the vote threads is enough to know it, but I would never condemn the whole CCC community on their basis. That would be narrow-minded censorship.
Note that this poll was called a survey: a way to make an inventory of the wishes of the members for how TalkChess should be organized.

So I don't understand this 'deligitimized' argument. As a plain vote, irrespective of considering the accompanying motivations, is happens to be a vote for the losing option. So to 'legitimize' it is just to discard it without further thought. It seems to me you should be happy that someone is willing to further examine the accompanying motivation to see if your opinion perhaps deserves more weight that that of a vote for the losing side.

That you are concerned about CTF dying if it could not 'recruit' fresh blood from CCC is very noble, but I would not consider that a benefit for CCC. TalkChess is not a charity operation for keeping alive unrelated activities that would die without us.

I would be interested to hear from other 1 voters whether the presence of the CTF section is beneficial to them personally, or to computer-chess afficionados in general.

Re: Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:01 am
by towforce
hgm wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:31 am
[Moderation] As this discussion degenerated in the usual mud-slinging accusations typical of CTF without any relation to the question posed by the OP, I moved that part to CTF. Please stay on topic.

CCC members will be able to vote in the CTF moderator election, so they should look at the moved material - link.

Sam asked me for examples of recent examples of unacceptable moderation behaviour. Well this censorship by a candidate in the election is an example.

"discussion degenerated in the usual mud-slinging accusations typical of CTF without any relation to the question posed by the OP" my backside! :roll: