July moderator elections - new format

[Harvey Williamson]

When the poll started and when I voted the philosophy was not available. Surely it should have been posted well in advance of the poll opening? Evertything is being rushed why?

Harvey,

I love you man, but this incessant pissing and moaning is making me wonder if something else is impinging on your usual sense of well-being. I encourage you to take more time to read before writing.

The election poll runs for four full days, yet you "rushed" to vote in the first few minutes without reading the poll and without waiting for any philosophy to be posted. Then you accuse ME of rushing a poll that has been in the works for over a month and a half. Sorry, but if this thing caught you with your hands in the air and your pants around your ankles, that's your fault. Read more carefully and thoughtfully, and you won't be surprised when things that have been announced in advance actually happen.

To answer your other monotonous refrains, I read this board every day, and all suggestions and comments (including many past discussions) were carefully weighed and evaluated. Apparently you judge my presence here by whether or not I post; that would be a mistake on your part. Faulting me for things that pertain only to the world of your imagination erodes your own credibility more than mine.

This time around we're trying out a variation based on a great many member suggestions, looking for the best way to democratically choose mods for the board. It doesn't mean the terrifying specter of Soviet communism has engulfed Talkchess just because everything wasn't done to your personal liking.


-Sam-

A reply worthy of publication in Pravda.

[Steve B]

I think, a lot more people are willing/able to moderate, than are willing to go into a 100-email series of discussions about how they will do this as a team.

actually there would be alot more nominated but history shows that not very much more would agree to actually moderate
in fact..if we had just one more team that came forward we would have had 8 members agreeing to moderate which is higher then the avg number of members who agreed to run in the past five elections
some stats:

Code: Select all

   election  # nominated  #running 
   01/2010      29            9
   06/2009      18            5
   11/2008      16            6
   05/2008      24            7
   11/2007      51            9
                 AVG.        7.2

Regards From The Stats Desk
Steve

[Sam Hull]

Come on Sam,

whenever someone says something about your moves, you always cite him/her for complaining/etc. ( in this latest - Harvey Williamson. )

why don't you answer the issue

instead of

sidestepping by accusing the poster of blabity-bla.
( maybe it's time you changed this technique. it's getting worn-out )

I have "answered the issue" several times now - maybe you missed it. I'm typing as slowly as I can.

-Sam-

[bob]

Personally I think the one team in the running is a good one, but having one choice will make a lot of people unhappy, I expect.

Why there was no vote or even poll held regarding the new election format, before it was put into effect, I can't fathom. I certainly had doubts about the possibility of getting multiple teams organized on short notice.

Even assuming the current slate wins, I'd like to a see a re-examination of the election format and the possibility of reverting it to individuals vs teams.

--Jon

I think this is problematic either way. For example, one could put together a slate of candidates, and then each candidate could say something like "I will serve if elected, unless xxx, yyy or zzz are also elected. I can/will not serve with them as our moderation philosophies are too diverse. That turns into a can of worms trying to figure out who will serve together.

This approach should work, but it requires communication and discussion to form a team. Steve, Fernando and I had maybe a hundred emails in correspondence as we formed the team, found a fourth member, and then formalized our moderation philosophy. We wanted to be sure we could work together effectively before "signing up."

Everything about moderating is work without pay. Just choosing 3 random people may well work out (it has in the past) or not (also happened in the past). This could work, if enough are interested in actually doing the work of a moderator.

Agree with everything you say except not enough time given to form the teams.

Steve and I started working on this 2 weeks ago at least.

Good for you and Steve but there were 4 official days only for teams to declare.

Not sure why since this discussion about teams has been going on for over 4 weeks now. That should have served as a "hint" that this might happen. And even if not, it is not a bad idea to discuss moderation philosophy with peers as your view on some things might well change...

[Rolf]

Since I am on vacacions I dont know the details of the debate but I know one thing for sure and that is that a voting with a single candidate (although a group) is not a democratic procedere.

Election is not a poll if yes or no. Election in democracy means at least two alternatives for a vote.

Another dark aspect is that Bob Hyatt left the CCC a couple of weeks ago with not so nice comments against a decent mod. Minutes later he came back and is now running for mod himself. This isnt a sound procedere in a democracy.

Of course it's really odd if Bernstein is still a mod here after he built a new forum with many nasty comments against the CCC and actual mods here.

So yes, all this is looking like a putch.

Since Fern is in the single candidate group I still have hope that the putch will be kind of normalized by smart people.

Anyway, I think that the allowing of links to anon cowards and their crap is ethically wrong and a dangerous assault against computerchess as such. Against science and its basics too.

Just a short argument pro business programmers. I cant see the logic of Prof Hyatt who attacks business chess authors like Vas and puts them below science authors in the name of progress, when at the same moment he argues in favor of the DB team people who sold their science to a business called IBM which then mistreated the client Kasparov (just to make this quite clear: the DBteam did NOT bring progress in computerchess because what they did under the order of IBM was nothing else than psyching out a human opponent, but this has nothing to do with commputerchess with machines). When I asked about it I got the answer that these scientists couldnt do much against it, since it had been the financial sponsor IBM who dictated the scenario.

So, all in all I think that the policy of Hyatt towards anon cowards Hipo is a destroying factor against computerchess.

I am certain that the putch mainly against Graham isnt good for science and its ethics either.

I wished that the putchists would change the election mode and allowing at least a second team with Graham Banks, Albert Silver, and Dann Corbit or even me for a change, but sure I wont be a technical expert in the foreseeable future.

[gerold]

Since I am on vacacions I dont know the details of the debate but I know one thing for sure and that is that a voting with a single candidate (although a group) is not a democratic procedere.

Election is not a poll if yes or no. Election in democracy means at least two alternatives for a vote.

Another dark aspect is that Bob Hyatt left the CCC a couple of weeks ago with not so nice comments against a decent mod. Minutes later he came back and is now running for mod himself. This isnt a sound procedere in a democracy.

Of course it's really odd if Bernstein is still a mod here after he built a new forum with many nasty comments against the CCC and actual mods here.

So yes, all this is looking like a putch.

Since Fern is in the single candidate group I still have hope that the putch will be kind of normalized by smart people.

Anyway, I think that the allowing of links to anon cowards and their crap is ethically wrong and a dangerous assault against computerchess as such. Against science and its basics too.

Just a short argument pro business programmers. I cant see the logic of Prof Hyatt who attacks business chess authors like Vas and puts them below science authors in the name of progress, when at the same moment he argues in favor of the DB team people who sold their science to a business called IBM which then mistreated the client Kasparov (just to make this quite clear: the DBteam did NOT bring progress in computerchess because what they did under the order of IBM was nothing else than psyching out a human opponent, but this has nothing to do with commputerchess with machines). When I asked about it I got the answer that these scientists couldnt do much against it, since it had been the financial sponsor IBM who dictated the scenario.

So, all in all I think that the policy of Hyatt towards anon cowards Hipo is a destroying factor against computerchess.

I am certain that the putch mainly against Graham isnt good for science and its ethics either.

I wished that the putchists would change the election mode and allowing at least a second team with Graham Banks, Albert Silver, and Dann Corbit or even me for a change, but sure I wont be a technical expert in the foreseeable future.

You could form a team now for the next election if the present
team is elected. That gives you 6 months to compaign.
If the team does not win i nominate you Rolf to run in the next
election which will follow shortly.

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. I am not one of the putchists.
P.S.2. I nominated you before a few times and you would not run.

[Steve B]

With the change in voter qualifications and the shorter voting time(4 days from 7 days) i am guesstimating that there will be about 100 Members voting at the end of the day in this election

there are 70 who have voted so far(as i write)

previous vote totals for some prior CCC elections:
8/2007-168
11/2007-159
5/2008-137
11/2008-137
6/2009-146
1/2010-197

should we have a standard election(7 days) following this vote i would guesstimate about 125 voting in total

Survey Sez Regards
Steve

voting totals (as i write) have already exceeded my guesstimate with 106 voting and 15+ hours to go before the polls close
all in all a fairly decent turnout

it does illustrate however just how small the global
interest is in or hobby
on Utube for example..
a video of someones dog or cat taking a poop can garner 3 million hits in 1 hour

Putting Things In A Bit Of Perspective Regards
Steve

[bob]

Since I am on vacacions I dont know the details of the debate but I know one thing for sure and that is that a voting with a single candidate (although a group) is not a democratic procedere.

Election is not a poll if yes or no. Election in democracy means at least two alternatives for a vote.

Another dark aspect is that Bob Hyatt left the CCC a couple of weeks ago with not so nice comments against a decent mod. Minutes later he came back and is now running for mod himself. This isnt a sound procedere in a democracy.

What is not a "sound procedure"? Not liking something and trying to do something about it by running for the position yourself? That is the _essence_ of democracy, in fact.

Of course it's really odd if Bernstein is still a mod here after he built a new forum with many nasty comments against the CCC and actual mods here.

So yes, all this is looking like a putch.

Since Fern is in the single candidate group I still have hope that the putch will be kind of normalized by smart people.

Anyway, I think that the allowing of links to anon cowards and their crap is ethically wrong and a dangerous assault against computerchess as such. Against science and its basics too.

Just a short argument pro business programmers. I cant see the logic of Prof Hyatt who attacks business chess authors like Vas and puts them below science authors in the name of progress, when at the same moment he argues in favor of the DB team people who sold their science to a business called IBM which then mistreated the client Kasparov (just to make this quite clear: the DBteam did NOT bring progress in computerchess because what they did under the order of IBM was nothing else than psyching out a human opponent, but this has nothing to do with commputerchess with machines). When I asked about it I got the answer that these scientists couldnt do much against it, since it had been the financial sponsor IBM who dictated the scenario.

So, all in all I think that the policy of Hyatt towards anon cowards Hipo is a destroying factor against computerchess.

I am certain that the putch mainly against Graham isnt good for science and its ethics either.

I wished that the putchists would change the election mode and allowing at least a second team with Graham Banks, Albert Silver, and Dann Corbit or even me for a change, but sure I wont be a technical expert in the foreseeable future.

There was no limit on the number of teams allowed. So exactly what are you talking about?

[Terry McCracken]

Since I am on vacacions I dont know the details of the debate but I know one thing for sure and that is that a voting with a single candidate (although a group) is not a democratic procedere.

Election is not a poll if yes or no. Election in democracy means at least two alternatives for a vote.

Another dark aspect is that Bob Hyatt left the CCC a couple of weeks ago with not so nice comments against a decent mod. Minutes later he came back and is now running for mod himself. This isnt a sound procedere in a democracy.

What is not a "sound procedure"? Not liking something and trying to do something about it by running for the position yourself? That is the _essence_ of democracy, in fact.

Of course it's really odd if Bernstein is still a mod here after he built a new forum with many nasty comments against the CCC and actual mods here.

So yes, all this is looking like a putch.

Since Fern is in the single candidate group I still have hope that the putch will be kind of normalized by smart people.

Anyway, I think that the allowing of links to anon cowards and their crap is ethically wrong and a dangerous assault against computerchess as such. Against science and its basics too.

Just a short argument pro business programmers. I cant see the logic of Prof Hyatt who attacks business chess authors like Vas and puts them below science authors in the name of progress, when at the same moment he argues in favor of the DB team people who sold their science to a business called IBM which then mistreated the client Kasparov (just to make this quite clear: the DBteam did NOT bring progress in computerchess because what they did under the order of IBM was nothing else than psyching out a human opponent, but this has nothing to do with commputerchess with machines). When I asked about it I got the answer that these scientists couldnt do much against it, since it had been the financial sponsor IBM who dictated the scenario.

So, all in all I think that the policy of Hyatt towards anon cowards Hipo is a destroying factor against computerchess.

I am certain that the putch mainly against Graham isnt good for science and its ethics either.

I wished that the putchists would change the election mode and allowing at least a second team with Graham Banks, Albert Silver, and Dann Corbit or even me for a change, but sure I wont be a technical expert in the foreseeable future.

There was no limit on the number of teams allowed. So exactly what are you talking about?

Nothing, as usual. It's not healthy to read Rolf's posts on a daily basis.

[Rolf]

voting totals (as i write) have already exceeded my guesstimate with 106 voting and 15+ hours to go before the polls close
all in all a fairly decent turnout

The above proves that the election is not democratic. Because how can you know how many have voted???????????

Ok, I gave my personal impression but it wont interest much, if it would you wouldnt have written your message and Bob wouldnt have run after his leaving to a new forum.

Cute regards to you three



Fern on the left of course!