Questions regarding the Election and Nomination Process

[Henrik Dinesen]

I'll give it some thought, but I've not been officially notified I have been nominated so it is moot at present...

You've been in the list of nominees in the sticky for some time, so if you haven't been officially notified there may be a problem with the process.

I think it goes for all the nanes on the list - I suppose quite some of them hasn't seen it yet - and others, like myself and Bob apparantly, is reholding our decisions, waiting for something more official like the usual e-mail notification.
So I can clearly understand Steve's initial confusion, except for the cases where people had nominated themself. As it is, to me, the formal part is missing; others may get a suprise when they hear they had been nominated while away for a little period, without a direct accept/decline request.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.

I'm not sure if i can take it as it is written.

I believe it was written in a time where it wasn't possible, from technical software view of this forum, to edit positings. So, they just thought, ok, how to define if its time to delete a positing or not.

If this is true, it's time for an CCC charter "upgrade", because it's outdated already.


Best,
Daniel

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Therefore I will no longer edit personal attacks from posts. I'll just the delete the post in its entirety.

Hi Graham,

hmmm, changing views isn't bad if the most users want it.

But i think you're to quickly here at the moment. Just a tiny poll and some positings doesn't justify a so big changement.

Your public handling seems unlucky as well. To do such things short before the moderator elections looks a bit despaired.

Yes, sir, i believe you did that to do the best for CCC and you don't thought about the elections as you done it . However, i'm convinced you only want the best for CCC.

Best,
Daniel

[Graham Banks]

Therefore I will no longer edit personal attacks from posts. I'll just the delete the post in its entirety.

Hi Graham,

hmmm, changing views isn't bad if the most users want it.

But i think you're to quickly here at the moment. Just a tiny poll and some positings doesn't justify a so big changement.

Your public handling seems unlucky as well. To do such things short before the moderator elections looks a bit despaired.

Yes, sir, i believe you did that to do the best for CCC and you don't thought about the elections as you done it . However, i'm convinced you only want the best for CCC.

Best,
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

I'm not too worried whether I get re-elected or not.
If the membership votes me in again, I'll continue to do my best with the other mods to keep this place respectful.
If I don't get in, I certainly won't take it personally. In fact the extra sleep would be great!

Although the voting numbers are still small, I'll hazard a guess and say that the pictures portrayed in those polls are unlikely to change much.

I've always said I'm flexible regarding those issues, but my expectations of standards are still the same regardless of the methods used to enforce them.

I'll say this though - people more often than not moan like hell when their posts get deleted, particularly when they're long ones with lots of good information tarnished by unnecessary remarks.
And it also means that any follow up posts from people quoting those unnecessary remarks will have to be deleted.
And even if they do selective quoting of a post that must be deleted, it won't help.


I expect lots of moans, but that's the way it is. I've always said that a moderator is damned if they and damned if they don't.

Regards, Graham.

[mhull]

That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.

I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".

Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.

[Steve B]

So I can clearly understand Steve's initial confusion, except for the cases where people had nominated themself

hi Hernrik

to be honest i am still confused about the nomination process

please have a look at this thread

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 88&t=15763



Steve

[mclane]

another interesting thing: i nominated Chris Whittington and got the response that

Only current active members of CCC are eligible for nomination.

I wonder where
the rules say that, they say: only current active membes can vote.

but vote and beeing voted is IMO 2 things.

there's a long history in various elections round the world, political, I
mean, of bringing in outsiders.

this policy smells strange, it denies IMO the members the ability to vote by
pre-screening by the executive/owners/moderators.

[Henrik Dinesen]

So I can clearly understand Steve's initial confusion, except for the cases where people had nominated themself

hi Hernrik

to be honest i am still confused about the nomination process

please have a look at this thread

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 88&t=15763



Steve

Well Steve,

What is there to say?
Quentin is very active these days, and the result of his actions is what we have. I agree with those who says he's folowing the treads - which should be a very good thing - but maybe some interlinear reading hasn't been done?
The questionmark above indicates that I too, at least via the tread, would add a bit to the confusion-part.
Basically, it looks as if Quentin is really reading the treads with interest, and react on them in relation to the election. A splendid thing, except for the forth and backs that occurs in those threads... If I was him, I guess I would sort out the confusion in general, what is written about the nominationis clear, but the personal information/e-mail notification is a miss, and the acceptance or declinance in other threads can be even more misleading; joking occurs there, as we see.

[Henrik Dinesen]

another interesting thing: i nominated Chris Whittington and got the response that

Only current active members of CCC are eligible for nomination.

I wonder where
the rules say that, they say: only current active membes can vote.

but vote and beeing voted is IMO 2 things.

there's a long history in various elections round the world, political, I
mean, of bringing in outsiders.

this policy smells strange, it denies IMO the members the ability to vote by
pre-screening by the executive/owners/moderators.

Only a fast one from the memory, but the nominees should have been active within the last 3 months... In case i misunderstood the point of you question, then sorry.

[mclane]

chris w. is one of the founders of CCC.

the charter was mainly written by him.