July moderator elections - new format

[Harvey Williamson]

It is your proposal ?

My proposal is clear.
People working and payed by some of chessbusiness oriented entertainments are not independent and will be influenced directly or undirectly by the companies they are working for.

We have had here example how it can look like and i doubt anyone want the next trial.

Thanks for your clarification of your proposal which means I am free to stand.

[Hood]

It is your proposal ?

My proposal is clear.
People working and payed by some of chessbusiness oriented entertainments are not independent and will be influenced directly or undirectly by the companies they are working for.

We have had here example how it can look like and i doubt anyone want the next trial.

Thanks for your clarification of your proposal which means I am free to stand.

I am sorry, do not think so, you are working for hiarcs, playchess,etc... you are involved in chess money business with all body. I think not only you here.

The ideal candidate will be person free from any obligations to the chess business , professional and personal ones.

rgds Hood

[Harvey Williamson]

It is your proposal ?

My proposal is clear.
People working and payed by some of chessbusiness oriented entertainments are not independent and will be influenced directly or undirectly by the companies they are working for.

We have had here example how it can look like and i doubt anyone want the next trial.

Thanks for your clarification of your proposal which means I am free to stand.

I am sorry, do not think so, you are working for hiarcs, playchess,etc... you are involved in chess money business with all body. I think not only you here.

The ideal candidate will be person free from any obligations to the chess business , professional and personal ones.

rgds Hood

Thanks Hetman,

I work for the BBC any time I give to Chess is voluntary. So if you would like to nominate me please go ahead....

[Hood]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

One question. Are the members here equal or not. What is the differrence in voting attribute between members who have 0 ,50, 30, 99 posts or are members 1 month, 1 year, 5years ?
It is another division for better and worse ones. It was in the Charter or not ?
If not then all members have right to vote.

rgds Hood

[Graham Banks]

One question. Are the members here equal or not. What is the differrence in voting attribute between members who have 0 ,50, 30, 99 posts or are members 1 month, 1 year, 5years ?
It is another division for better and worse ones. It was in the Charter or not ?
If not then all members have right to vote.

rgds Hood

There have always been criteria for members here to meet in order to qualify for casting a vote.

[Harvey Williamson]

It is your proposal ?

My proposal is clear.
People working and payed by some of chessbusiness oriented entertainments are not independent and will be influenced directly or undirectly by the companies they are working for.

We have had here example how it can look like and i doubt anyone want the next trial.

Thanks for your clarification of your proposal which means I am free to stand.

I am sorry, do not think so, you are working for hiarcs, playchess,etc... you are involved in chess money business with all body. I think not only you here.

The ideal candidate will be person free from any obligations to the chess business , professional and personal ones.

rgds Hood

Thanks Hetman,

I work for the BBC any time I give to Chess is voluntary. So if you would like to nominate me please go ahead....

If you want a serious answer, Hetman, imho anyone who is qualified to vote in the election should be free to stand in it. It is then up to the members/electorate to decide who they want.

[gerold]

Time to finalize the election conditions for the upcoming election

it seems that these might be the best terms...

Teams of three moderators will run as candidates
the term will be for 1 year
all members who have been registered for 6 months and who have at least 50 posts will be allowed to vote
in some rare cases there are long time members who post infrequently and they will be considered on a case by case basis
the vote will remain open for 4 days and if no team gets a clear 51% majority there will be a 3 day run off between the two top teams

this will provide harmony amongst the moderation team regarding the most divisive issues
it will provide consistency in moderation for a year rather then turmoil every 6 months
it will remove all clouds on the integrity of the vote eliminating non-posting.. late in the day sign-up's from manipulating the vote
long term but non posting members will have a chance to vote as well

if we can at least nail down the terms then teams can be formulated
we are running out of time

Best Regards
Steve

I am not so sure that a full year is a good idea (for the moderators's sanity).

Another thing we have to consider is what happens if one moderator quits for whatever reason after a given period of time. Considering teams are elected, the remaining two members should appoint a new third member if they consider it necessary (they may choose to run on two wheels rather than three). If two members of the original team quit, then a new election should be run. I think this is critical to be determined beforehand.

Miguel

well there needs to be some consistency in moderation
this turmoil every 6 months is beyond the pale given the derivatives issue
i imagine only those willing to moderate for a year will agree to run on the team
lets face it
appointed mods moderate forever and there seems to be no scarcity of appointed mods given every other site on the net has appointed not elected mods(including OPEN)

i thing the idea of a reserve mod(in case one of the three cannot complete his term) is a good one

so that makes a team of three( with one reserve )to be elected

Best Regards
Steve

The fourth member alternate seems like a good common sense idea. I can implement all of the criteria you have outlined if nobody has any strenuous objections.

I would suggest sticking with a 6-month term though, mainly because if members get seriously disenchanted after seeing the moderation philosophy in practice, they can typically endure it for a few months until the next go-round and then vote to 'throw the bums out' (NY accent implied). But if the year-long term has more support it wouldn't break my heart to cut the annual election work in half either. It would be good all around, obviously, if we can avoid ever having to run another "special election."

-Sam-

I'd almost suggest that as an alternative, we have an election, after 6 months, you initiate a poll "are you happy with current moderation or should we have a new election 1/2 way thru?" In fact, I'd like to see that option available at any time via a poll, sort of like a "recall election." Whenever the majority become unhappy, it is time for action anyway. Given the ability to get rid of bad moderators, a one year term would be workable.

I am against this recall option. One of the problems of this forum is that there too much discussion on how to moderate and too little on computer chess. If we have such option, every month there will be polls and discussion initiated by unhappy members. People can wait 6 months for a new election.

The Admin could remove the moderators in case of corruption, insanity etc. not on matters of moderation policy.

Miguel

I agree with you Miguel. No recall option.

6 month moderators is surely long enough.
In the past year there has been trouble with 6 month
moderators. 1 year is to long for anyone to serve.
Another note. If moderators leave and do not do there
job like what is happening now they should be replaced
within 10 days. New election to replace the ones who
left.

A meeting of the members every 6 months for elections
gives all a chance to express their opinion on many
things to do with computer chess.

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. I still in doubt about the team approach.

[Graham Banks]

1 year is to long for anyone to serve.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on that one, unless they are re-elected for a second six month term.

[gerold]

1 year is to long for anyone to serve.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on that one, unless they are re-elected for a second six month term.

Reelected for second,3rd, etc.as long as they want to hold the
post.

Good luck,
Gerold.

[Hood]

Thanks Hetman,

I work for the BBC any time I give to Chess is voluntary. So if you would like to nominate me please go ahead....

I am sorry, you are not convincing me. It seems you have halucinations. I will not nominate you. May be your collegaue Hetman will do it.