hgm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:18 pm
Then I advice you to reread the sticky thread that discussed election methods ("Election preparation (important!)"), and the responses I got in the thread where I announced my candidacy as moderator for the SHID movement. Some excerpts:
ROTFL - you are a clown, a dishonest clown, but at least you +try+ to be funny.
OK - and as I lack patience.
You are also a dishonour to CCC . Your moderator decisions are a disgrace. And to add personal abuse to save as both some time: you are also a piece of shit.
hgm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:33 pm
Bit of a sour loser, methinks?
That I +try+ to be funny must be a success, or here wouldn't be a ROTFL.
Peter was slightly petulant there, but he made a couple of good points.
I'm not sure whether you've thought about this, but if you win a CTF moderation election on your ethnic cleansing platform, there would also be two candidates who were not on that platform, so you might be obliged to moderate CTF while not being able to carry out your holocaust?
Writing is the antidote to confusion.
It's not "how smart you are", it's "how are you smart".
Your brain doesn't work the way you want, so train it!
The assumption was that we were to run the moderator election as teams. Running as individuals seems completely pointless when the programs are diametrical opposits. Not just that they were incompatible with mine: some candidates wanted to purge CTF from the right (delete the racists/fascist), other from the left (delete the leftist/lbertarians), and still others wanted completely free speech. I had planned to run as a team of 1, as it involved zero-work; I would just have made CTF read-only. If necessary I am sure I could have found two running mates.
But you are right; moderator elections would have been more troublesome than this. It seems that every step of the way that brought us where we are now, CTF dwellers have always chosen to push for there own doom. Insane...
Maybe we can ONE moment forget to be funny HGM.
Let’s be serious for one moment.
When confronted with racistic and neo nazistic postings that were in the CTF forum for YEARS as Günter was able to show in example,
We came to the the conclusion that something has to be changed concerning moderation practise.
And we came to this conclusion years ago.
It took until NOW that this conclusion came to the surface of the participants in BOTH forums.
So the situation is for years and we complain over a period of years.
Maybe you can now understand our frustration in the fact that nothing really changes.
It would be my wish, and I tell you this from man to man, that you apologize to Ed Schroeder for calling him liar or mentally ill.
IMO as a moderator it’s not up to you to insult other chess programmers.
I was shocked by this behaviour,
We are all computerchess friends. And we should talk to each other with respect .
May I also ask you how close your relation is to the university of Leiden.
I ask this to find out how you think to move CCC to an university,
I have good memories working together with the free university of Berlin and the department of Artificial Intelligence there.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
I have no relation to any university; I am retired. Some 20 years ago I was 'extraordinary professor' at the Free University in Amsterdam at one time, which is really a position where you have no real relation with the university either (you are employed elsewhere).
And as far as I am concerned: if someone doesn't want to be called a liar, he'd better not tell lies. Pretty simple, I would think.
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.
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.
Explain the "what action".
90% of coding is debugging, the other 10% is writing bugs.
