Let us , programers, express ourselves

[Ryan Benitez]

You let some guy launch personal insults at Daniel but think it just to delete the stackOVERFLOW thread that is as far as I can tell harmless?

It's funny how some guys pop up just to pour some oil into a "discussion" just to fuel a flamewar
There's a term for these

If by "some guy" he means me, then he appears not to have noticed that it was Daniel launching the insults, calling other people liars, asking them questions and then claiming he said not to answer them, and generally causing a ruckus.

At least initially, his beef seemed to be something about the strcpy discussion, but now it seems more like Daniel wants to pick a fight with the moderators for reasons I can't understand. The stackOVERFLOW message is just the excuse he has chosen, as soon as they asked him not to create a new thread he just started trying to create that one over and over because he knew the mods would eventually have no choice but to ban him.

I don't understand the full nature of the argument between you and Daniel and honestly I don't care. It did appear that you escalated the issue with personal insults and that the moderators did nothing about it. My concern is the inconsistency of moderation. Until someone gives a reasonable explanation of why it was deleted I consider Daniels stackOVERFLOW thread to be harmless.

[wgarvin]

I don't understand the full nature of the argument between you and Daniel and honestly I don't care. It did appear that you escalated the issue with personal insults and that the moderators did nothing about it. My concern is the inconsistency of moderation. Until someone gives a reasonable explanation of why it was deleted I consider Daniels stackOVERFLOW thread to be harmless.

I don't recall issuing personal insults to Daniel or anyone else. This very thread contains multiple posts from the moderators explaining what they did and why. You even replied to one of them. You asked "did you really just threaten to ban Daniel?" after Miguel had just explained that he was repeatedly and deliberately violating the charter.

[Adam Hair]

You let some guy launch personal insults at Daniel but think it just to delete the stackOVERFLOW thread that is as far as I can tell harmless?

It's funny how some guys pop up just to pour some oil into a "discussion" just to fuel a flamewar
There's a term for these

If by "some guy" he means me, then he appears not to have noticed that it was Daniel launching the insults, calling other people liars, asking them questions and then claiming he said not to answer them, and generally causing a ruckus.

At least initially, his beef seemed to be something about the strcpy discussion, but now it seems more like Daniel wants to pick a fight with the moderators for reasons I can't understand. The stackOVERFLOW message is just the excuse he has chosen, as soon as they asked him not to create a new thread he just started trying to create that one over and over because he knew the mods would eventually have no choice but to ban him.

I don't understand the full nature of the argument between you and Daniel and honestly I don't care. It did appear that you escalated the issue with personal insults and that the moderators did nothing about it. My concern is the inconsistency of moderation. Until someone gives a reasonable explanation of why it was deleted I consider Daniels stackOVERFLOW thread to be harmless.

The content of the stackOVERFLOW threads have been harmless. It has been Daniel's intent in creating the threads that has been the problem. He stated that the intent was merely to be informative. But his actions belie that assertion. The intent obviously also involved the desire to further protest the strcpy() discussion, for links to stackoverflow could have been given in the "About off-topic threads" thread. Furthermore, Miguel asked more than once that the dissenting opinions be contained in the "About off-topic threads" thread instead of multiple threads. That is the reason the stackoOVERFLOW thread was moved to the moderation archive 11 times.

If you think that he is acting in this manner because he is being bullied by the moderators, then I can only say that you have not taken the time look over all of the exchanges in detail, nor have you seen previous exchanges between Daniel and the moderators during the past year. If he were to publicize his disagreement with a mod decision and then let it lie, then there would be no problem. His opinion would be noted and carry some weight in future situations. Instead, Daniel chooses the path of using innuendo, insults, and exaggeration to lash out at others, including the mods. And if you do not respond to his remarks, then in his book it is a tacit admission that all of his charges are correct. And please note that Daniel, like several others, never wants to try to first resolve a problem privately in a civil manner. There is always the option of publicly airing grievances. I do not understand why that continuously must be the first option.

The crappiest thing about all of this is that Daniel is a great contributor to CCC. My stance as a mod is that I am fair game for receiving the opinions of the CCC members concerning my actions as moderator. Miguel and Julien do feel the same way. I have endured much more than that from Daniel. While I have stood my ground against his less than factual statements about me, I have never considered banning him, precisely because of his contributions. They help make this a better forum. But, it is ridiculous that people have to put up with the crap he unleashes when you do not agree with him. This time, it seems that he is determined to not leave us any options.

[Sam Hull]

The last 3 elections were a complete farce:

election 1: only teams were allowed, and they were the only team. voila.

You are clearly confused. Read the nomination post. Read the election poll.

election 2: Individuals were allowed. Now, if you have a choice of one team and many individual, mathematically the team has an advantage. If 75% want them out, but these 75% votes get spread across different candidates, they can still win. Admittedly there were few, almost no candidates. So I put forward two names (not myself, but people I trust): unfortunately they refused. So our moderator oligarchs were "elected" again.

Confused again. Read the nomination post. Read the poll. The election structure was identical to the previous one and votes were not diluted across individual candidates as you claim. No individual candidate accepted nomination.

election 3: Again, no one bothered to put their name forward. It's as if everyone knows already that it's a farce, not a real democracy, so there's no point in participating. One day before the expiry date, I finally decided to put myself forward, if only to force them to have an election. This was enough to push a couple of other candidates to put their name forward. So there was our moderator team + 3 other individual candidates. The election was not held. The matter was completely shushed up, and the thread locked.

Wrong again. Check the nomination post - the currently serving team didn't even sign up. So much for the power-hungry "oligarchy" theory. You and one other guy accepted nomination in CCC and you both nominated yourselves, which we normally don't allow, but I bent the rule to try to hold the election. I also extended the nomination period two more days and still got no additional nominations or acceptances. Two guys can't be a team, that's why we elect three mods and a designated alternate. For the record, none of the CCC moderators wanted to do another term but they agreed to do so at my request, and I have the replies they made to me at the time to prove it.

It is your privilege to disagree with the unpaid volunteers who keep this board running. It is not your privilege to slander them with falsehoods.

-Sam-

[Dirt]

You and one other guy accepted nomination in CCC and you both nominated yourselves, which we normally don't allow, but I bent the rule to try to hold the election.

I recall self nomination being allowed in the past, perhaps under Tim. When did this change?

I also extended the nomination period two more days and still got no additional nominations or acceptances. Two guys can't be a team, that's why we elect three mods and a designated alternate.

Two people can't be a team of moderators, but they can certainly be part of a team. Why didn't the current moderators select one guy to carry on with the two volunteers, and let the others rest?

[Sam Hull]

You and one other guy accepted nomination in CCC and you both nominated yourselves, which we normally don't allow, but I bent the rule to try to hold the election.

I recall self nomination being allowed in the past, perhaps under Tim. When did this change?

I also extended the nomination period two more days and still got no additional nominations or acceptances. Two guys can't be a team, that's why we elect three mods and a designated alternate.

Two people can't be a team of moderators, but they can certainly be part of a team. Why didn't the current moderators select one guy to carry on with the two volunteers, and let the others rest?

So your idea is to replace two elected moderators with two unelected self-appointed ones.

-Sam-

[Dirt]

So your idea is to replace two elected moderators with two unelected self-appointed ones.

Yes. If that doesn't work out then next time you might get some more nominees.

[Daniel Shawul]

The content of the stackOVERFLOW threads have been harmless. It has been Daniel's intent in creating the threads that has been the problem. He stated that the intent was merely to be informative. But his actions belie that assertion. The intent obviously also involved the desire to further protest the strcpy() discussion, for links to stackoverflow could have been given in the "About off-topic threads" thread. Furthermore, Miguel asked more than once that the dissenting opinions be contained in the "About off-topic threads" thread instead of multiple threads. That is the reason the stackoOVERFLOW thread was moved to the moderation archive 11 times.

In my absence you have dragged my name in the mud , CREATED another a new thread to defend yourselves. Why isn't the 'reply to Lucas's allegations thread subjected to same standards??

If you think that he is acting in this manner because he is being bullied by the moderators, then I can only say that you have not taken the time look over all of the exchanges in detail, nor have you seen previous exchanges between Daniel and the moderators during the past year. If he were to publicize his disagreement with a mod decision and then let it lie, then there would be no problem. His opinion would be noted and carry some weight in future situations. Instead, Daniel chooses the path of using innuendo, insults, and exaggeration to lash out at others, including the mods. And if you do not respond to his remarks, then in his book it is a tacit admission that all of his charges are correct. And please note that Daniel, like several others, never wants to try to first resolve a problem privately in a civil manner. There is always the option of publicly airing grievances. I do not understand why that continuously must be the first option.

In your own words my post was harmless, and yet you blame me for sticking to what I stated as my intention from the start. OTOH you are allowed to freely interpret my intentions as it suits you and then ban me, while allowing yourself to create new threads literally begging for support (+1,+2 which I interpret as I have been crossed by me at one point in time ). You said I insulted you but I don't remember doing that to any of you.

[Daniel Shawul]

So your idea is to replace two elected moderators with two unelected self-appointed ones.

Yes. If that doesn't work out then next time you might get some more nominees.

On top of that, they have clearly stated they do not want to run for a third term. It wasn't a lack of nominees (as I have learned only in this debate), so why breed dictatorship? Even US presidents last only for two terms...

[wgarvin]

So your idea is to replace two elected moderators with two unelected self-appointed ones.

Yes. If that doesn't work out then next time you might get some more nominees.

On top of that, they have clearly stated they do not want to run for a third term. It wasn't a lack of nominees (as I have learned only in this debate),

Where did you "learn" this, by the way? Sam clearly stated that it WAS a lack of nominees. There were only two, both self-nominated.

What would be the point of having an election where all of the candidates win by default? Just because you nominated yourself for the job doesn't mean everyone else wants to give it to you. Pressing the existing team of moderators into another term of service actually seems to have worked out quite well. I know a few individuals aren't happy about it, but many others are. And at least it is civil and polite around here.

I also extended the nomination period two more days and still got no additional nominations or acceptances. Two guys can't be a team, that's why we elect three mods and a designated alternate.