Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

[duncan]

Reqeust to Harvey:

As 2 members seem to dispute your counting, in the interests of transparency would you be able to publish the names?

[hgm]

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!

Oh dear, you are really clutching at straws, aren't you?

You were always one of the very few reasonable people at CTF, but now you are sinking into the swamp fast. Do you really think that character assassination attempts on me would convince any 2-voter that CTF should stay? Do you really think that the prevailing negative opinion on CTF here has anything to do with me at all? That when you can incite a riot here that leads to people burning me at the stakes would deminish in any way their wish to see CTF shut down? This is extremely misguided thinking.

Your description of ousting CTF as 'ethnic cleansing' and calling it a 'holocaust' is already extremely tendentious and below the belt, and would have been worth moderating if it hadn't been so transparent. A more apt description would actually be 'ethics cleansing'.

It doesn't seem to have dawned on you that the postings I moved are exactly the kind of stuff that disgusts most members, and pushed them to vote 2. They don't want it on this website, and they certainly don't want it in this forum section.

[towforce]

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!

Oh dear, you are really clutching at straws, aren't you?

You were always one of the very few reasonable people at CTF, but now you are sinking into the swamp fast. Do you really think that character assassination attempts on me would convince any 2-voter that CTF should stay? Do you really think that the prevailing negative opinion on CTF here has anything to do with me at all? That when you can incite a riot here that leads to people burning me at the stakes would deminish in any way their wish to see CTF shut down? This is extremely misguided thinking.

Your description of ousting CTF as 'ethnic cleansing' and calling it a 'holocaust' is already extremely tendentious and below the belt, and would have been worth moderating if it hadn't been so transparent. A more apt description would actually be 'ethics cleansing'.

It doesn't seem to have dawned on you that the postings I moved are exactly the kind of stuff that disgusts most members, and pushed them to vote 2. They don't want it on this website, and they certainly don't want it in this forum section.

We have different standards. When I was a moderator, if the discussion was about me, I would ALWAYS recuse myself and ask the other moderators to judge. In contrast, you have just lopped the discussion about your own behaviour, and moved it to a place where most CCC users, who will be eligible to vote in the CTF moderation election, won't see it.

You might be right that because racist posts have been allowed to fester in CTF (a problem that can be solved simply by voting for candidates who will clean it up), 99% of CCC users have now reached a point where they will never, under any circumstances, entertain any further discussion. However, because such discussion has been stifled, we will never know now.

[hgm]

[Moderation] You still persist in discussing my behavior here. Why does it fail to register with you that this is not only off topic in this thread, but completely irrelevant for the survival of CTF.

The OP asked for motivations of 2 voters. Are you a 2 voter? No! Are you offering any motivation as a 1-voter for why CTF should better stay, against majority preference? No! So shut up and get the hell out...

It seems you now are falling into the same trap as those before in CTF who thought that badgering moderators and admins would in any way further their cause, rather than damage it beyond repair. But if you feel compelled to engage in such self-destructive action, do it in the proper place, and don't hijack other people's threads for it. I won't warn again.

[duncan]

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.

if "it doesn't bother me, because I know to avoid it" people are real democrats taking into account the feelings of the ctf supporters who want it to remain on it on this site, then imo it would be a valid 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).

CCC is a forum with a highly technical topic. I am very interested in many of the topics discussed, but infrequently post there because I do not the ability to contribute much. How many people have the ability to tell you, you missed saving a byte on micro-max. While with Ctf anybody can contribute. Lack of posting by on CCC by ctf members does not necessarily mean they do not really want to be 'part of' TalkChess,in the sense of lack of interest.

[hgm]

if "it doesn't bother me, because I know to avoid it" people are real democrats taking into account the feelings of the ctf supporters who want it to remain on it on this site, then imo it would be a valid reason to keep it on this site.

Well, not in my opinion. TalkChess is not a free hosting company, and offering space to anyone merely because we feel that it is their democratic right to exist is not enough. It is just what the vote expressed, and it was a minority POV. There has to be a specific reason to exist here to provide something extra.

CCC is a forum with a highly technical topic. I am very interested in many of the topics discussed, but infrequently post there because I do not the ability to contribute much. How many people have the ability to tell you, you missed saving a byte on micro-max. While with Ctf anybody can contribute. Lack of posting by on CCC by ctf members does not necessarily mean they do not really want to be 'part of' TalkChess,in the sense of lack of interest.

The argument of "not wanting to be part of TalkChess" was only used by me in connection with the claims / demands that people posting (almost) exclusively in CCC should have no vote in the CTF moderator elections. Quite some 1-voters have actually defended that POV.

That you are an interested reader of CCC topics is nice, but I don't see why that would require CCC and CTF to be sections of the same forum. It is not that we propose to ban all frequent CTF posters here. It would be just as easy for you to visit CCC as always if CTF had its own URL. Just open it in another tab of your browser. It would then only be 1 mouse click away, instead of 2.

[Terje]

I would've voted 2. I see no reason to keep this forum connected to talkchess, there are countless other places on the web to discuss any and all topics. There's nothing wrong with having it here if talkchess has the resources to host and moderate it properly, but even then I see few upsides over just going elsewhere to talk about non-chess things. Given that properly moderating it seems to have proven hard to impossible, and I see no reason this would change, I'm of the opinion that removing it is an easy fix, with few if any downsides for talkchess.

[towforce]

I'm of the opinion that removing [CTF] is an easy fix, with few if any downsides for talkchess.

Banishing members of your family who aren't really doing any harm doesn't usually work out for the best. Family is more important than anything else in the world, and CTF is part of our family. Moderators who have pledged to clean up CTF stand ready to start work, as soon as we elect them.

Here's what can happen when you thoughtlessly toss out a family member who's a little bit disruptive - link.

[Terje]

I'm of the opinion that removing [CTF] is an easy fix, with few if any downsides for talkchess.

Banishing members of your family who aren't really doing any harm doesn't usually work out for the best. Family is more important than anything else in the world, and CTF is part of our family. Moderators who have pledged to clean up CTF stand ready to start work, as soon as we elect them.

Here's what can happen when you thoughtlessly toss out a family member who's a little bit disruptive - link.

I disagree that this would be banishing members - from what I can tell, CTF is supposed to be a place for computer chess enthusiasts to post off-topic, and if they are here as chess enthusiasts, surely they stay for the on-topic and main purpose of talkchess while getting their off-topic fix elsewhere, like many undoubtedly already do.

Again, from what I've read it doesn't seem likely that any new mods will be able to clean it up. I might be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

[towforce]

Again, from what I've read it doesn't seem likely that any new mods will be able to clean it up. I might be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

New moderators who are willing to clean up CTF stand ready to do so.

Give them a chance.