Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

[duncan]

37 posters want Ctf shut down.

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.

Ie if Ctf operated in a satisfactory manner with a new set of activist moderators, you would consider keeping it open.

If you fall into the latter category, please could you post the changes you would want in Ctf before considering it remain open (either hidden or revealed)

If there are enough people who are willing to keep Ctf open on a reformed basis,then perhaps the moderators may agree to give it a 6 week trial basis, assuming there are elected Ctf moderators who agree to these terms.

(Speaking personally, I feel in a democracy one should also consider those most affected by it and while a hidden forum would only affect Ccc posters in a minor way. (ie being associated), its removal would affect Ctf posters in a far more major way. Ie the inability to post on Ctf which has many keen fans.)

[Rebel]

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.

[schack]

The place is a cesspool and nothing short of removing it will change the problems.

This is a computer chess forum, not a place for conspiracy theories and bald racism.

[corres]

37 posters want Ctf shut down.

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.

Ie if Ctf operated in a satisfactory manner with a new set of activist moderators, you would consider keeping it open.

If you fall into the latter category, please could you post the changes you would want in Ctf before considering it remain open (either hidden or revealed)

If there are enough people who are willing to keep Ctf open on a reformed basis,then perhaps the moderators may agree to give it a 6 week trial basis, assuming there are elected Ctf moderators who agree to these terms.

(Speaking personally, I feel in a democracy one should also consider those most affected by it and while a hidden forum would only affect Ccc posters in a minor way. (ie being associated), its removal would affect Ctf posters in a far more major way. Ie the inability to post on Ctf which has many keen fans.)

I think you know the answer.
The majority of voters have only superficial knowledge about the disputes going on CTF and their opinion was influenced by the loud and aggressive left-side members like mclane, chrisw, hgm, daniel and smatovich.
Nowadays, the age of BLM, ANTIFA and the general demand and officially forced policy of Political Correct Speech
and manifested opinion it is very comfortable to say the sentence: Close it!
Think about the daily practice of facebook, twitter and other social media. For the brain washed mass they are the example to follow. Moreover the political bindness of peoples (hgm, williamson) who directed the voting are rather unambiguous. The voting was no more than only the glaze on their dictatorial decision. And result of voting was expected
"If I am prohibited to tell my real, own opinion without punishment there are no any other people who can do it even on a small sub forum either "

[mvanthoor]

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.

[Michel]

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.

Frankly I don't even see the point of hiding CTF under the talkchess URL. Its existence would still be a completely unnecessary embarrassment.

It would be much cleaner if CTF just moves to a new URL (e.g. chessthinkersforum.org) and is then left to its own devices. That should make both the "shut it down" voters and CTF addicts happy.

[towforce]

...a place for conspiracy theories...

Three questions:

Did Jeffrey Epstein have substantially more wealth than was possible from his known sources of income?

Did Jeffrey Epstein have good connections with the rich and powerful?

Did Jeffrey Epstein go to a lot of trouble to get recordings of the rich and powerful doing things that they wouldn't want published?

Let me help: the answer to all three questions is "yes".

A lot of really stupid conspiracy theories mysteriously seem to get traction, and conspiracies thus get a bad name - but the known facts about Jeffrey Epstein amount to an alarming conspiracy.

I could go a lot further with the information about Jeffrey Epstein which has become public knowledge - but what I've said is enough to make the point.

[Rebel]

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.

[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?

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?

[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.