Time to say thanks to ChessUSA for all the good years and move

[dkappe]

I don't really like posting about these types of matters, but.... JFC.

1) IP blocking is not a viable or reasonable solution to *any* attack by anyone who knows what they are doing.

2) Any host for which dos or ddos is an issue is not it. Reliable hosts have good CDNs and see that garbage every single day.

3) There is no excuse of not being on latest forum code and whining about "hacks" or attacks. None.


Difficulty level:
Was admin for decades old game server subject to relentless attacks. Game server still persists thanks to user donations.

TLDR: Ask for donations 5/10 $/year. Use that money to get a host worth a damn. GG.

+1

[Rebel]

ChessUSA is not the provider; they just rent the server in some data center. Quentin Turner of ChessUSA is the webmaster, though.

The technical reality is that there is a hierarchy of power, where every level is at the mercy of higher levels, which roughly goes from physical access -> root access -> webmaster access -> board admin -> moderators -> members -> guests. This is contrary to what is needed for enforcing a democratic system; the latter depends on those in power to be trustworthy, and voluntarily restrain himself for staying within their mandate. It is therefore important that the mandate is clearly specified. Unfortunately the charter says nothing about this. This seems a serious omission. We should extend the charter with a description on the methof of governance, and the tasks and limitations of every role in this. So that people to fulfil those roles can be 'sworn in' to abide to those rules. And be removed from power by someone higher in the technical hierarchy when they abuse these powers.

The following system seems workable:
* A team of 3 moderators will be appointed by the members through elections organized by the board admin.
* In case of disagreement, the moderators decide by majority vote.
* The moderators decide on organization of the forum (which sections exist) in the program they anounce before the elections, so that any changes in forum structure will also be under democratic control.
* The moderator team decides on sanctioning of members, such as banning or revoking membership, which on their request has to be performed by the admin.
* Moderators are appointed until the next moderator election, which can be requested by the memberships no sooner than 6 months after a previous election, or when one or more moderators offer their resignation.
* A 'rogue moderator' can get his moderator status revoked by the admin on request of the remaining two moderators; such impeachment counts as a resignation of the team.
* When the admin considers the behavior of the moderator team in violation of the charter, or the election program the moderators have been running with, he can start a referendum calling for impeachment of the moderation team, in which all members can vote.

In general I am in agreement and as such the forum more or less has operated since 1997, EXCEPT for one thing, the hierarchy of power of the admin (colored red above). It can't be that one person has absolute power. Also not 2 persons. Always 3 because of the democratic majority vote. And that would be the 3 elected moderators by the members. This all was well thought out during the foundation of the forum by the founder group. Giving the admin absolute power would be a breach with the stipulations on which this forum was founded.

Some other comments,

1. You speak of a 'rogue moderator' and what should be done, but forget to mention the case of a 'rogue admin' and what should be done then. In your supposed hierarchy of power system nothing can be done.

2. In your supposed hierarchy of power system where the admin has absolute power the question arises, how is he elected and by whom?

There are no such problems in the original set up by the founder group.

[hgm]

The board software is such that an admin has absolute power over the moderators. We either have to live with that, or we should develop our own forum software that organizes things differently. And even then we would be subject to the absolute power of the webmaster, who could modify that software any time he pleases.

So it doesn't seem very productive arguing about whether this is good or bad. It is what it is.

The only way to recover from a rogue admin is to have the webmaster remove him directly from the member database. The only way to recover from a rogue webmaster is to have the server superuser remove the webmaster from the server's password file. The only way to recover from a rogue provider is raid his data center with the aid of the police to confiscate the server. But there will always be someone at the top of the food chain.

It would be nice if a majority of the members, or a majority of the moderators, could 'vote away' an admin or a webmaster. But I don't know any operating system that grants super-user rights based on majority voting.

[Rebel]

An non elected webmaster, an non elected admin ?

Sorry HGM totally unacceptable.

Hierarchy of power, yours vs mine. Mine is the set up of the founder group.

Code: Select all

Yours           Mine
1. webmaster    members
2. admin        moderators
3. moderators   admin
4. members      webmaster

In case of a rough moderator or admin members have the right to call for an impeachment. Such a case successfully happened in CTF.

[Guenther]

An non elected webmaster, an non elected admin ?

Sorry HGM totally unacceptable.

Hierarchy of power, yours vs mine. Mine is the set up of the founder group.

Code: Select all

Yours           Mine
1. webmaster    members
2. admin        moderators
3. moderators   admin
4. members      webmaster

In case of a rough moderator or admin members have the right to call for an impeachment. Such a case successfully happened in CTF.

Well, you realize that you lived with that (technical) hierarchy here since 2006?
There never was a case members could have 'impeached' an 'admin' here. It would have been absurd anyway.
I still think your concept of moderator/admin for talkchess seems clouded.

[Rebel]

I believe it was in 2008 that the CCC moderators fired the CTF moderators after complaints of CTF members. So it has happened.

[Harvey Williamson]

I believe it was in 2008 that the CCC moderators fired the CTF moderators after complaints of CTF members. So it has happened.

But that is removing moderators not the admin. Thorsten was also removed as a CCC moderator by the other 2.

[hgm]

In case of a rough moderator or admin members have the right to call for an impeachment. Such a case successfully happened in CTF.

You mean like in Myanmar the people have a right to call for their elected government to be put back in power?

[xr_a_y]

This is one of the options Quentin proposed. The database of the forum is very big, though. We need a pretty big server to run the forum.

A second problem is that the IP ranges are blocked not just for fun. There seem to be hacker attacks targeting TalkChess, which basically paralyze the server the forum is on. In the current situation that is both the ChessUSA website and TalkChess. Migrating solves the problem for ChessUSA, but might still leave TalkChess inoperable if we don't find a way to make it immune to the attacks. By some other means than disabling IP ranges.

1. How can we hold elections if half of the members are denied access to the forum?
2. How can we hold elections if nominated members (for instance Chris Whittington) are denied access to the forum?
3. This IP blocking is going on for how long, a year? Happened to me 3 times, still can't access the forum in the normal way, I am just lucky it works with VPN. There are complaints from folks with VPN that they can't.
4. When will be the next hacker attack? Whoever they are they are quite successful to find new ways to attack the forum.
5. It's time to give it up and look for a different place.

You and Harvey are elected with the responsibility to keep the forum going, the forum isn't going anywhere at the moment, the longer the problem remains more and more people will give up here.

I know the problem is not your fault but right now it's decision time, keep on taking pain killers for the toothache or go to the dentist. Unfortunately the forum doesn't support polls so I have put a poll on mine.

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t481-poll ... erver#4005

As I said earlier -

Why should we not move to https://www.forumotion.com/
The setup is a piece of cake, polls are available, youtube support, likes support.

It's free and we are no longer dependent, put Talkchess on read-only for those who still can access it. The Talkchess database is of later concern.

Just for information, it's now been more than a month I think that I don't have access to the forum from France. I have to use a Canadian proxy to post.

[smatovic]

From another point of view, if the founding fathers would have established a kind of registered society, the Computer Chess Club r.s., then you would have a hierarchy like this:

members -> CCC registered society -> hosting or hosting sponsor -> TC board/forum moderators/admins

There are members of the r.s, the r.s. has representatives, the r.s. decides about any hosting or hosting sponsors.

Now it is a kind of upside down, the hosting sponsor can pull the plug, and we as TC members can only vote for board/forum-moderators.

If the founding fathers intend to fix this, they should do it the right way imho.

--
Srdja