Question to Shut Ctf Down posters

[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.

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'.

Another weird vote. Posting history in CTF is back at beginning last decade, looks perfectly normal, participates in political discussions. Come back, posts more. Then leaves.
Two posts only in “recent posting activity” period last three years up to start September. Then a flurry of posts, in CTF, over last couple of weeks, all perfectly fine, about hobbies and geneology, all looks positive. So why the shut-down vote? Just weird.

[Guenther]

FWIW transferred and cleaned up the count, should be self explaining.
Long and winding explanations were removed and replaced by ... only the most necessary (extra text) was left, except when trying to understand
what people really wanted, also for the sake of peace the latter derived 4th option was added too, don't shoot the messenger.

Seems I had too much times on my hands this early afternoon :)

[Harvey Williamson]

FWIW transferred and cleaned up the count, should be self explaining.
Long and winding explanations were removed and replaced by ... only the most necessary (extra text) was left, except when trying to understand
what people really wanted, also for the sake of peace the latter derived 4th option was added too, don't shoot the messenger.

Seems I had too much times on my hands this early afternoon

Nice work.

[chrisw]

FWIW transferred and cleaned up the count, should be self explaining.
Long and winding explanations were removed and replaced by ... only the most necessary (extra text) was left, except when trying to understand
what people really wanted, also for the sake of peace the latter derived 4th option was added too, don't shoot the messenger.

Seems I had too much times on my hands this early afternoon

I'm giving up shortly on going through other people's lists and cross-checking.

Two obvious contra-indications, there may be others.

Daniel was indicating the poll questions were kind of nonsensical. His vote is clearly "Keep CTF with new democracy".
Eelco was also complaining about the poll questions themselves. He was also clearly a not-2 vote, see last sentence plus points raised in lengthy post.

I still make that 25 for [Keep CTF (with possible improvements].

I didn't go through your [dump CTF now] list, but whichever which way, this is a broadly undecidable case based on "voting". Everything about it is weird. The questions asked. The interpretations. The votes. The counting. Just bizarre.

[gaard]

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.

I have since joined the SHID group.

[Guenther]

FWIW transferred and cleaned up the count, should be self explaining.
Long and winding explanations were removed and replaced by ... only the most necessary (extra text) was left, except when trying to understand
what people really wanted, also for the sake of peace the latter derived 4th option was added too, don't shoot the messenger.

Seems I had too much times on my hands this early afternoon :)

I'm giving up shortly on going through other people's lists and cross-checking.

Two obvious contra-indications, there may be others.

Daniel was indicating the poll questions were kind of nonsensical. His vote is clearly "Keep CTF with new democracy".
Eelco was also complaining about the poll questions themselves. He was also clearly a not-2 vote, see last sentence plus points raised in lengthy post.

I still make that 25 for [Keep CTF (with possible improvements].

I didn't go through your [dump CTF now] list, but whichever which way, this is a broadly undecidable case based on "voting". Everything about it is weird. The questions asked. The interpretations. The votes. The counting. Just bizarre.

Note that despite my preference, I have no beef here and the idiosyncratic way of some votes did not help much, but 'in good faith' I decided to count mclane, daniel and eelco as (4) now, as it was only available after your vote in this thread too.
It does not change the still narrow result of 32:28 (shut down vs. all other alternatives).

[chrisw]

FWIW transferred and cleaned up the count, should be self explaining.
Long and winding explanations were removed and replaced by ... only the most necessary (extra text) was left, except when trying to understand
what people really wanted, also for the sake of peace the latter derived 4th option was added too, don't shoot the messenger.

Seems I had too much times on my hands this early afternoon

I'm giving up shortly on going through other people's lists and cross-checking.

Two obvious contra-indications, there may be others.

Daniel was indicating the poll questions were kind of nonsensical. His vote is clearly "Keep CTF with new democracy".
Eelco was also complaining about the poll questions themselves. He was also clearly a not-2 vote, see last sentence plus points raised in lengthy post.

I still make that 25 for [Keep CTF (with possible improvements].

I didn't go through your [dump CTF now] list, but whichever which way, this is a broadly undecidable case based on "voting". Everything about it is weird. The questions asked. The interpretations. The votes. The counting. Just bizarre.

Note that despite my preference, I have no beef here and the idiosyncratic way of some votes did not help much, but 'in good faith' I decided to count mclane, daniel and eelco as (4) now, as it was only available after your vote in this thread too.
It does not change the still narrow result of 32:28 (shut down vs. all other alternatives).

The poll was either deliberately or incompetently put. With an initial option 4 in place there’s little doubt many more people would have selected it. Essentially me with no real beef either, it all looks like some dysfunctional mess, with some pretty dubious “voting” going on. Several people left in disgust already. I would guess, in a couple of years, it you’re still here, you be referring to this “action” here as yet another exodus moment. I pretty much washed my hands too.

[Ras]

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

So did I, but since it looks like the shutdown poll is being ignored, the backup option is implementing SHID as CTF moderator team, which in turn requires three mods agreeing on that policy - and of course, them being elected in the CTF election.

[hgm]

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.

That is exactly my POV as well.

The focus of this discussion is way too much on the issue whether CTF should exists or not. But the relevant question is whether it should exist as part of TalkChess. No one here has the right to decide about its existence elsewhere, no matter how repulsive we might think it is.

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. 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).

If CCC is of no benefit to an overwhelming majority of the 'CCC posters', and most 'CTF posters' do not want CCC to meddle in their affairs... What sense then does it make to keep CTF as part of TalkChess? Just make it independent. The very few that want to use both sections can continue to visit them without any trouble at all.

I really see no arguments for keeping CTF here. It seems the entire discussion is just driven by the desire of some who get a kick out of the idea that they can force their way onto others against the latter's will.

Don't analyze the survey in terms of "shutdown / anything else" (nice trick, BTW). But analyze it in terms of votes & motivations that have indicated whether both CTF and CCC are an indispensible asset for their activities here, or not. (Where shutdown votes of course are an obvious indication that it is not.) Then the picture that emerges is much more clear-cut.

[Sam Hull]

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

So did I, but since it looks like the shutdown poll is being ignored, the backup option is implementing SHID as CTF moderator team, which in turn requires three mods agreeing on that policy - and of course, them being elected in the CTF election.

The CTF poll is not being ignored. Discussions and critiques of the survey are not being ignored. Revised totals and opinions about the voting are not being ignored. Hasty or preemptive action is not being taken based on a single survey. The moderator elections will likely serve as an additional referendum on the issue as candidates declare their positions and garner votes accordingly.

Democratic processes aren't perfect, and they aren't pretty - especially when outcomes don't match the wishes of those who get outvoted. Carping and criticism without constructive suggestions is a waste of everybody's time. I don't like people wasting my time. Do you?

-Sam-