Thanks for the nomination, but I have to decline.
The fact that I just found out I was nominated, shows how too busy I am at the moment.
Cheers,
Tony
** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
Moderator: Ras
-
Zach Wegner
- Posts: 1922
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:51 am
- Location: Earth
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
I have accepted the nomination. Here's some info about me:
I am 19 years old, but will be 20 in a few weeks. I live in Austin, TX, USA. I have been a CCC member since 2002, as well as a chess programmer. I am the author of ZCT (Zach's Chess Test), which is private at the moment, but will be open source sometime in the future.
My moderation philosophy:
1) I believe I can work as a team with any of the current nominees.
2) I don't know if I could be completely impartial, but I don't think it will be a problem. I will try to restrain myself as much as possible.
3) I think moderators should have little visibility when moderating. I don't like editing posts or locking threads. I don't really like public warnings, unless it is targeted to a group of people (e.g. in flamewars).
4) Moderators should have no special privileges other that deleting posts/threads and banning members. Banning must be a unanimous decision. I think moderators should be treated just like normal members.
5) I think ICD should have _absolutely_ no influence on the board. The members are the owners of the group. I am not in favor of charter amendments, but
6) I am fine with a TCAdmin weeding out accounts, but their identity and actions should be public knowledge.
7) I have no problems with aliases in general. However, their use should be restrained. I propose:
a) Only one account per person.
b) No misleading names, i.e. of a famous person or another member.
c) The real name should be public knowledge, unless the member presents a valid reason to moderators.
8) Yes, I copied and pasted most of this from my thread.
I am 19 years old, but will be 20 in a few weeks. I live in Austin, TX, USA. I have been a CCC member since 2002, as well as a chess programmer. I am the author of ZCT (Zach's Chess Test), which is private at the moment, but will be open source sometime in the future.
My moderation philosophy:
1) I believe I can work as a team with any of the current nominees.
2) I don't know if I could be completely impartial, but I don't think it will be a problem. I will try to restrain myself as much as possible.
3) I think moderators should have little visibility when moderating. I don't like editing posts or locking threads. I don't really like public warnings, unless it is targeted to a group of people (e.g. in flamewars).
4) Moderators should have no special privileges other that deleting posts/threads and banning members. Banning must be a unanimous decision. I think moderators should be treated just like normal members.
5) I think ICD should have _absolutely_ no influence on the board. The members are the owners of the group. I am not in favor of charter amendments, but
6) I am fine with a TCAdmin weeding out accounts, but their identity and actions should be public knowledge.
7) I have no problems with aliases in general. However, their use should be restrained. I propose:
a) Only one account per person.
b) No misleading names, i.e. of a famous person or another member.
c) The real name should be public knowledge, unless the member presents a valid reason to moderators.
8) Yes, I copied and pasted most of this from my thread.
-
chrisw
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
I'm changing my (A)ccept into (D)ecline.
Reasons:
1. There are now four candidates who express a view broadly in favour of
a) democratic principles
b) that members own the forums
c) that ICD should have no influence on the forums
d) that TCAdmin should act only under the control of moderators
e) that moderators are elected by members and answerable to members only
f) that CCC be returned to its original roots and ideas
g) that moderators are elected to police the forums only and not to change the Charter
I would expect any three of these five, if elected, would reaffirm terms and conditions of the mutually beneficial relationship between the host and the members, in writing, and append to the Charter, preventing any of the recent nonsense happening again.
2. The election should be about this strong message above and not about personality. Since several persons have tried to make the election partly about me, I believe the best counter to this is to withdraw, placing the central message firmly back on the agenda.
3. I am extremely uninterested in becoming a moderator.
Good luck to those candidates who support democratic principles and support the original idea of CCC that the forums are owned by the members and only by the members.
Reasons:
1. There are now four candidates who express a view broadly in favour of
a) democratic principles
b) that members own the forums
c) that ICD should have no influence on the forums
d) that TCAdmin should act only under the control of moderators
e) that moderators are elected by members and answerable to members only
f) that CCC be returned to its original roots and ideas
g) that moderators are elected to police the forums only and not to change the Charter
I would expect any three of these five, if elected, would reaffirm terms and conditions of the mutually beneficial relationship between the host and the members, in writing, and append to the Charter, preventing any of the recent nonsense happening again.
2. The election should be about this strong message above and not about personality. Since several persons have tried to make the election partly about me, I believe the best counter to this is to withdraw, placing the central message firmly back on the agenda.
3. I am extremely uninterested in becoming a moderator.
Good luck to those candidates who support democratic principles and support the original idea of CCC that the forums are owned by the members and only by the members.
-
smirobth
- Posts: 2307
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:41 pm
- Location: Brownsville Texas USA
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
About myself: I have been somewhat interested in computer chess since the mid 70’s, and a CCC member (although usually a very quiet one) since near its inception in 1997. Before that I was a subscriber to "Computer Chess Reports" and a reader at RGCC for several years. I have never written a chess program, but I have used and owned them for almost 30 years. I am a correspondence chess grandmaster, two time US correspondence chess champion, and author of the book “Modern Chess Analysis”. I am an electrical engineer by trade and have repaired numerous old dedicated chess computers.
Of course moderators need to follow the charter. The only real question is how to interpret it:
* Editing posts. I will not edit any posts. If I deem a post needs to be "edited" I will delete the entire post instead. I believe that editing posts can cause as many problems as it solves. Also I do not want to do that much work.
* Locking threads. On rare occasions I may favor locking a post if it seems to be getting way out of hand, but usually only after consulting my fellow mods. Hopefully this should not be too often.
* Personal attacks. There is no place for personal attacks in CCC and they will be deleted. If you want to attack people take it to CTF
.
* Policy changes. Major policy changes, such as changes to the charter, should not be entered into lightly, and should require member approval. For issues where the mod team sees a need for a policy change I would advocate that a thread be started in the forum soliciting the views of members. Then based on both these member views and the mods perspective, the mods would work on a policy change proposal. If a majority of mods in both forums approve the proposal it should then be presented to the membership for an up or down vote.
* Moderator misbehavior. It is absolutely essential that moderators be able to work together effectively as a team. Having moderators work at cross purposes is intolerably disruptive to the mod team and the forum. If a moderator repeatedly acts contrary to the charter, or even if he merely repeatedly violates the mod team’s internal team operating rules, he should be removed from office. This need not necessarily mean that the removed moderator is “wrong”; merely that he can’t work with his team mates as a team. I favor allowing the mods teams to make the removal determination by a 2/3 majority in both forums. I don’t favor a public “trial” since it is too slow, it creates havoc and animosity in the forums, and since only the mod team themselves know if and why they cannot work with another mod team member.
* Aliases. I favor a softer stance on aliases than the present no new aliases policy. As long as the alias is a “real sounding” name I favor allowing them. I have many reasons for this view, too many to list here. I would be willing to work with mods who hold a different view to reach a consensus proposal among the mods. Then any proposed alias policy should be presented to the membership for an up or down vote.
Of course moderators need to follow the charter. The only real question is how to interpret it:
* Editing posts. I will not edit any posts. If I deem a post needs to be "edited" I will delete the entire post instead. I believe that editing posts can cause as many problems as it solves. Also I do not want to do that much work.
* Locking threads. On rare occasions I may favor locking a post if it seems to be getting way out of hand, but usually only after consulting my fellow mods. Hopefully this should not be too often.
* Personal attacks. There is no place for personal attacks in CCC and they will be deleted. If you want to attack people take it to CTF
.* Policy changes. Major policy changes, such as changes to the charter, should not be entered into lightly, and should require member approval. For issues where the mod team sees a need for a policy change I would advocate that a thread be started in the forum soliciting the views of members. Then based on both these member views and the mods perspective, the mods would work on a policy change proposal. If a majority of mods in both forums approve the proposal it should then be presented to the membership for an up or down vote.
* Moderator misbehavior. It is absolutely essential that moderators be able to work together effectively as a team. Having moderators work at cross purposes is intolerably disruptive to the mod team and the forum. If a moderator repeatedly acts contrary to the charter, or even if he merely repeatedly violates the mod team’s internal team operating rules, he should be removed from office. This need not necessarily mean that the removed moderator is “wrong”; merely that he can’t work with his team mates as a team. I favor allowing the mods teams to make the removal determination by a 2/3 majority in both forums. I don’t favor a public “trial” since it is too slow, it creates havoc and animosity in the forums, and since only the mod team themselves know if and why they cannot work with another mod team member.
* Aliases. I favor a softer stance on aliases than the present no new aliases policy. As long as the alias is a “real sounding” name I favor allowing them. I have many reasons for this view, too many to list here. I would be willing to work with mods who hold a different view to reach a consensus proposal among the mods. Then any proposed alias policy should be presented to the membership for an up or down vote.
- Robin Smith
-
F. Bluemers
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:21 pm
- Location: Nederland
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
Hi
Thanks to the person(s) who nominated me ,but i have to decline
Maybe if i had more time at hand i would have decided otherwise.
there are enough good candidates, including/excluding (whatever you want) the 3 current moderators.
Anyway,I hope that after the elections people will focus on _computerchess_ again.
Best
Fonzy
Thanks to the person(s) who nominated me ,but i have to decline
Maybe if i had more time at hand i would have decided otherwise.
there are enough good candidates, including/excluding (whatever you want) the 3 current moderators.
Anyway,I hope that after the elections people will focus on _computerchess_ again.
Best
Fonzy
-
Albert Silver
- Posts: 3026
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
My moderator philosophy is exactly the same as it was when nominated 2 months ago. WYSIWYG.
I will add that I believe now that there must be some form of impeachment policy so as to not let the forums be turned into the circus they were, and of course subjecting the members to it.
I have added a personal account of the events of the events, sharing the facts I know, and how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Albert
I will add that I believe now that there must be some form of impeachment policy so as to not let the forums be turned into the circus they were, and of course subjecting the members to it.
I have added a personal account of the events of the events, sharing the facts I know, and how the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Albert
-
Eelco de Groot
- Posts: 4681
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:40 am
- Full name: Eelco de Groot
Re: ** CCC Moderator Nominee Information **
Hi,
I believe I still have to put up something of a moderation philosophy but time is sometimes at a limit
. Thanks Albert for unlocking this thread so I could post here and to Greg for keeping my philosophy post on the first page!
P.S. Graham posted the following in reply to some of my points:
I believe I still have to put up something of a moderation philosophy but time is sometimes at a limit
. Thanks Albert for unlocking this thread so I could post here and to Greg for keeping my philosophy post on the first page!- The CCC-charter that we have should be the basis for moderation decisions and as far as I am concerned it is still functioning well.
- I believe I can call myself not very strict on having to post on-topic posts only in the main CCC-forum, compared to some of the philosophies we have seen in the past. I would be all for it to see a little more chess oriented posts in this forum, that do not necessarily also involve computerchess. Without chess, computerchess would not be having much meaning and I believe the same applies to this forum. Usually the computerchess content will enter in the discussions anyway. A good example of a mix would be for me the German CSS forum.
- I am afraid that not all the standing moderator candidates may agree with me here, but I do hope that the role of the TCAdmin is a bit clearer now and his function and role a bit better defined. Thanks also to our board owner Quentin Turner for clarifying some things. I hope the moderators, whoever will get elected, will be able to cooperate better with the TCAdmin in the future and we can prevent another crisis like we had in CCC. Maybe not everything is sorted out and new questions undoubtedly will come across the moderator's paths, but hopefully the foundation for working together on the whole can be better now, even for the present team of moderators, if they were to continue I hope they would have a bit better chances of working it out than a few weeks ago.
- I am not a big proponent of having to implement an impeachment procedure. The benefits would be unclear and the possible misuse can not be excluded. If you accept the possibility that one moderator would get so out of line that impeachment would seem necessary, but this moderator would be convinced of doing the right thing, could not the same happen with two moderators who would think they only have the best in mind for the forum by impeaching the third moderator. I honestly believe that in such cases it is better for the whole team of moderators to step down and call for new elections. An impeachment procedure would not add much substantial to this and could in my eyes even delay the new elections. So in this case I think there is no need to change or modify the charter.
- On the use of real names only; I can live with the present rules for new members, but I believe that as a tool against spambots, as I have posted earlier here
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 60&t=17307
the use of the "real names only"-policy seems limited and the phpBB software could be better applied hopefully by implementing some technical measures during sign-up that other forums, for instance the Hiarcs forum, are also using. - On the issue of 2-1 votings I am not sure that I agree completely with Graham in that I think the banning of a member is one case where you would need to be unanimous, but I am sure there can be more contentious issues that should not be be resolved with a mere moderator majority vote. But I suspect I read Graham's statement wrongly if I interpret it so narrowly and that we do not basically disagree on this.
- Finally, I tried to look up my original moderation philosophy of elections quite a few years back but could not find it in the archives, but what I said then was something like that I believe that moderation is a thing that all members are involved in, we all have to do our bit and I would like take this opportunity to thank everybody who has been involved in the recent discussions for their participation, even though I must admit there did not ever seem to get an end to it. Thank you very much!
P.S. Graham posted the following in reply to some of my points:
Hi Eelco,
just to clarify two things where I was mentioned.
I've stated that a ban should have the unanimous support of the 3 mods.
The proposed impeachment policy would have required a 2/3 vote from both sets of mods. However, any policies would need to be ratified by the membership before being put in place.
Regards, Graham.