Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

[Roland Chastain]

Hello!

I would be interested to here from anyone who voted to shut it down, if their position was a decision in principle, or a decision to shut down Ctf as it is now.

... as it is now. But I doubt that it can become something else. I read CCC+CTF since 2018 (if I remember correctly): I never saw an interesting discussion in CTF. In fact, I never saw a discussion. The CTF is like Twitter : propaganda for this or that party, invectives, personal attacks, rhetoric... So, why not use Twitter?

This is just my humble opinion.

[chrisw]

37 posters want Ctf shut down.

The counting is wrong and intimidating with an already started election. I don't want to be part of this community any longer.

This is the entire reason why forums such as CTF shouldn't exist in the open in a community such as this one. They create strife in the community, while they add nothing to chess programming.

If there are people who must have such a forum because they want to vent their political and/religious views (or whatever) in a community they are part of, then do as I suggested and hide it. Put in an FAQ that people who want it can have it by requesting access, and people who don't care, don't even have to see it. Forbid it to spill topics or discussions from CTF into the chess programming forum. Done. Everybody happy.

This isn't the point, the point is the actions of the moderators.

1. The misbehavior of HGM which goes without punishment. Any member would have been banned. But apparently as a mod you are untouchable.

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?

3. Fantasy counting by Harvey.

Harvey - After filtering out a couple of very recent members and those who didn't express a clear opinion, we get the following totals:

Option 1, keep as is: 19
Option 2, shut it down: 37
Option 3, hide it: 3

My count, put a "*" when I am not sure.

Code: Select all

Dump [2]           Keep [1] or [3]   Not allowed             Unclear
Joerg Oster        mhull             Madeleine Birchfield    Colin-G
adnoh *            Stephen Ham       Koivisto                mvanthoor
cc2150dx           Graham Banks      dannyb                  
hgm                mwyoung           gaard
sam                Daniel            Sam Watson
MikeB              mclane            willmorton
mbabigian          duncan            etihan92
jp                 Henk              Peter Hegger *
BrendanJNorman     D Sceviour
Frank Quisinsky    Damir
Michel             Alayan 
emadsen            Leo
Dokterchen         Joost Buijs
Volker Pittlik     chrisw
Wilson             rcmaddox *
mar                AndrewGrant
Guenther           A Distel
yurikvelo          Rebel
Ferdy              towforce
Ras                kasinp *
schack *           Peter Berger 
MOBMAT             dj
Gerd Isenberg      Ovyron 
Tony P.            Albert Silver
syzygy 
Roland Chastain
maxdeg
sarona

That's hardly a victory.

4. Elections already running, you can not stop that, not sure what kind of democracy that is.

Small correction. Three of the names in the list "2. Dump it" fail the eligibility criteria. Harvey should be in it, but isn't, and the 7th poster down in the "dump it" list actually voted for [1] not [2].

I make that overall minus 3 for list [Dump], and plus 1 for list [Keep]. Assuming no more mistakes in counting, that gives 28-3=25 for Dump and 24+1=25 for Keep.

I'ld also tend call the vote lists [Dump Immediate] and [Keep with caveats]. Anyway, looks like pretty much a dead heat. Maybe some miscounts or whatever, but either way, no real result to decide anything with, as if a forum can be arbitrarily closed by "majority" anyway. See Milos deleted commentaries.

What remains disturbing is the extremely creative counting figure put to the the top of Closed Pinned Thread.

[Guenther]

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?

That is interesting. It is worth pointing out his moderation philosophy seems to focus only on "personal insults" just like the previous ones.
I hope we don't have a moderator group that can't work together.

Daniel, just for clarification, your post looks completely unclear to me, about whom are you talking here?

[Laskos]

37 posters want Ctf shut down.

The counting is wrong and intimidating with an already started election. I don't want to be part of this community any longer.

Ed, it's also funny. Maybe after all the hell with that CTF latrine, but the moral superiority and the virtue signaling of those arguing for closure are entertaining. Among them is a follower of Holocaust denial authors, whom I ridiculed on CTF:
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 70&start=8

[chrisw]

Hello!

I would be interested to here from anyone who voted to shut it down, if their position was a decision in principle, or a decision to shut down Ctf as it is now.

... as it is now. But I doubt that it can become something else. I read CCC+CTF since 2018 (if I remember correctly): I never saw an interesting discussion in CTF. In fact, I never saw a discussion. The CTF is like Twitter : propaganda for this or that party, invectives, personal attacks, rhetoric... So, why not use Twitter?

This is just my humble opinion.

You have 90 posts in CTF. Most of them, and the posts in reply and so on, are just straight forward political discussion between posters of different world view and you played a full part in them and came back to repost and start off new topics on many occasions (90 posts). As Laskos points out, you have also posted about what some people would regard as some pretty far out stuff. Jean Marie le Pen, and some French holocaust denial author. Fine, you are free to do that, but you also have to accept that some people are going to be mighty provoked by it. So, I don't get the rationale behind your [2] Dump it, vote. On the one side you initiated and participated in political threads of a wide range. Fine, where's the problem? On the other you initiated what is hard to describe as anything but pouring petrol into the place (as Laskos just showed). Then you go away and argue to "Dump it". This is kind of weird, and is a pattern I observed looking at past CTF history of several "Dump it" voters. Have strong opinions (not necessarily the same as yours), argue a bit on CTF, find others with strong opinions, decide those strong opinions are somehow just way too off whatever is the personal scale, get argued with, and then what? I dunno. Retire hurt or something. And want to close the thing down. I don't find those particular "Dump it" votes very meaningful, they seem too wrapped up in the personal.

[corres]

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?

That is interesting. It is worth pointing out his moderation philosophy seems to focus only on "personal insults" just like the previous ones.
I hope we don't have a moderator group that can't work together.

You and other left-side fanatics do not want moderation but censorship over post on CTF.
This is obviously opposite to US lows but for the communists and BLM activists this kind of dictatorial thinking is the natural thinking mode.

[chrisw]

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?

That is interesting. It is worth pointing out his moderation philosophy seems to focus only on "personal insults" just like the previous ones.
I hope we don't have a moderator group that can't work together.

You and other left-side fanatics do not want moderation but censorship over post on CTF.
This is obviously opposite to US lows but for the communists and BLM activists this kind of dictatorial thinking is the natural thinking mode.

That will be a policy question to be considered *IF* there are CTF elections and no doubt discussed in full during the week or so between candidate announcements and actual vote. That is what democracy looks like. I doubt CCC wants to read partisan electoral voting posts, here, beforehand.

[Daniel Shawul]

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?

That is interesting. It is worth pointing out his moderation philosophy seems to focus only on "personal insults" just like the previous ones.
I hope we don't have a moderator group that can't work together.

Daniel, just for clarification, your post looks completely unclear to me, about whom are you talking here?

I am talking about the CTF moderator nominee "gaard" that Ed was referring to. I got a PM from him about his moderation philosophy, that I summarized above, in case we both got elected. I share Ed's concern that showing up after 1.5 years to run for moderator is suspcious to say the least.

[chrisw]

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?

It's best to separate this from particular individual posters. The Rule as stated by TCAdmin, is RECENT posts. I think it is a rule that has been applied since back whenever, probably over a decade, to determine voter eligibility. I believe the term "recent" means two to three years. The rationale behind the rule is written in a bunch of both recent and older posts. I took it to mean, at the outside, 40 posts on any or all boards within the period 1-Sept-2017 to 1-Sept-2020, and is applied both to eligibility of standing as moderator candidate and for actual voting.

[Guenther]

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?

That is interesting. It is worth pointing out his moderation philosophy seems to focus only on "personal insults" just like the previous ones.
I hope we don't have a moderator group that can't work together.

Daniel, just for clarification, your post looks completely unclear to me, about whom are you talking here?

I am talking about the CTF moderator nominee "gaard" that Ed was referring to. I got a PM from him about his moderation philosophy, that I summarized above, in case we both got elected. I share Ed's concern that showing up after 1.5 years to run for moderator is suspcious to say the least.

Well, but he voted for shutdown in this 'survey'.