2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[Ras]

I guess I'ld argue btw, that with real named posters, posting volume and time passing is a form of verification of the name?

I was mostly addressing HGM's principled stance that members without real name shouldn't be allowed, referring to the charter. However, the legal situation is very different from 1997, both in scope and territorial applicability of the law, so I considered a reminder as good idea. I think it's more of a charter issue (probably needs an overhaul), and the voting rules question just flows down from there.

Given that only few prominent posters, e.g. long-standing chess programmers such as you, Rebel, Bob, can count as somewhat verified, and others can put in whatever they like as "real name", I don't think this can be a meaningful criterion. Posting history and date of registration can ofc be used, that's easy to verify.

[chrisw]

I guess I'ld argue btw, that with real named posters, posting volume and time passing is a form of verification of the name?

I was mostly addressing HGM's principled stance that members without real name shouldn't be allowed, referring to the charter. However, the legal situation is very different from 1997, both in scope and territorial applicability of the law, so I considered a reminder as good idea. I think it's more of a charter issue (probably needs an overhaul), and the voting rules question just flows down from there.

Given that only few prominent posters, e.g. long-standing chess programmers such as you, Rebel, Bob, can count as somewhat verified, and others can put in whatever they like as "real name", I don't think this can be a meaningful criterion. Posting history and date of registration can ofc be used, that's easy to verify.

The charter, realnames and registration is an incoherent mess. Originally you needed to sign up in order to READ as well as post. This sort of worked because we were all word of mouth and RGCC people. The realname thing was programmer demanded (see Bruce Moreland), end users and faux-experts were pretty much discouraged. The shop undid the realname policy by allowing some of their customers to use fake names (KarinsDad and Komputer Korner eg), much annoying the programmers who wanted them seen as a nuisance to real chess programming and should shut up. Times have changed of course, since.
The Charter and registration documents was amended by the shop without reference to the original founders or moderators or users. Some moderators argued the shop owned the forum (yes, Graham Banks, you) and could do what they wanted, etc. Shop just usurped control.
So, yes, the documents are now a mess and obviously outdated since now the forum is back outside commercial interest control. We ought to amend and tidy them up. Presumably we should also clarify on data usage?

Btw, Is it even lawful that the forum publishes post count, sign update, real name on every post?

[towforce]

I don’t like lawyers. They mainly produce problems. If you take a farmer e.g. he mainly produces food.

+1

[Ras]

Presumably we should also clarify on data usage?

Yes, some privacy policy is required under GDPR as soon as personal data are processed. The easiest way is to collect as few personal data as possible, following the "privacy by design" approach. You don't need to worry about what you don't process, after all. And then, e.g. with cookies, only do what's necessary for the technical functionality of the forum, in which case you don't need consent, only to inform the user.

Btw, Is it even lawful that the forum publishes post count, sign update, real name on every post?

Post count and sign update (assuming as date of signup) are not personal data, so that's not critical. Real name counts as personal data. As explained, I don't think there is a legal basis for even requiring the full name during registration, so even less for displaying it. If, however, that were declared as optional, and explained that if a full name is provided, it will be displayed on all postings, but can be changed later in the profile section, that looks OK. In that case, the basis is Art. 6.1.a (consent) without interfering with Art. 7.4 (forbidden bundling).

On a general note for disliking lawyers - a lawless society is usually called "failed state". I'm pretty sure this would be quite a downgrade for everyone here. Specifically, the GDPR was a reaction to what the unregulated web had become.

[a_node_uncut]

Take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I do think requiring full name to vote for moderators is the right approach. Forums like this doesn't have much identification to begin with, and we all know how anonymity can turn into uncontrollable aggression (e.g. Stockfish github/discord).

[Ras]

I do think requiring full name to vote for moderators is the right approach.

Since the stated name cannot be verified, the whole approach is ineffective. Malevolent actors can simply state a "John Miller" style fake real name (my apologies to all John Millers).Things that cannot work cannot be required, which is why GDPR Art 6.1.f (legitimate interest of the controller) doesn't work. If you claim legitimate interest for that purpose, it means that is important to your operation, but then not verifying also tells that you don't really care, so it isn't important. You can't have it both, at least IMO and IANAL. Organisations who actually care collect some real life data, often a phone number, or in case of shops, resort to 6.1.b (necessary to fulfill the contract) instead of 6.1.f (legitimate interest).

we all know how anonymity can turn into uncontrollable aggression

Social media has shown that this happens even without anonymity. The kicker is that the whole assumption of people behaving under their real name not only hinges on actually stating their real name, but also on being ashamed, and neither assumption holds true anymore. Eternal September has spiralled into eternal hurricane season.

[a_node_uncut]

Social media has shown that this happens even without anonymity. The kicker is that the whole assumption of people behaving under their real name not only hinges on actually stating their real name, but also on being ashamed, and neither assumption holds true anymore.

Yes, I suppose. Maybe it won't be such a bad idea to make this forum invite-only, or do some personality checks on new members. I think the community TalkChess had created is very special, and it would be a shame if all that gets destroyed by these mere hecklers. Another solution would be a stronger moderation team, just like we've had. But I fear that will soon be coming to an end...

PS: My last message got instantly screenshotted and posted on Stockfish Discord. They have an entire channel just for shaming Talkchess, I kid you not . Oh well...

[Rebel]

PS: My last message got instantly screenshotted and posted on Stockfish Discord. They have an entire channel just for shaming Talkchess, I kid you not . Oh well...

We love attention

[Graham Banks]

Nothing ever seems to be easy or straightforward these days.

[hgm]

I was under the impression that the GDPR only regulates which data we can store about people, and how consent is needed for that or can be revoked.

Exactly. So mandating it as per the charter is not a legal basis. Your opinion that the forum should not be usable without giving the real name is not a legal basis. I already lined out the issues in viewtopic.php?p=971644#p971644, so if you have specific questions, please refer to that.

Not about any obligations of website owners to provide read or write access to the entire content of their website to anyone who requests this.

Doesn't matter. TC is a controller, data subjects sign up for it, personal data are processed, GDPR is applicable. With your argumentation, Facebook etc. would not fall under GDPR, either. Not allowing all functions unless the real name is given collides with Art. 7.4 aka forbidden bundling.

Preventing voting fraud could count as legitimate interest as per Art. 6.1.f, but the problem is that the data are not verified in any way, so that method is not suited for the stated purpose. If it is not suited, then it cannot be necessary.

I think your interpretation of the situation is very contrived, and would not stand a chance to hold up in court. Article 7.4 refers to a 'contract', and we do not have a contract in any legal sense. We have no legal obligations to any member; I can flip the off switch of the server any time I want, and no one could sue me for it. As far as providing 'services' goes: we do not 'bundle' anything, we only provide a single service. Which is providing an opportunity for persons of verifiable identity to publish their civilized opinions on computer chess. Moderation is not a separate service; it is an intrinsic part of the one service we provide, to ensure by human intervention that people will not abuse the technical possibilities offered by the software for purposes other than that service.

Holding elections isn't a service that members signed up for; it is not mentioned anywhere that there should be elections. As far as I am concerned the moderator elections are just an activity of the members that falls within the definition of the single service we provide. How the site owners will interpret the expressed preferences for appointing moderators is still entirely up to them, and doesn't have to be justified to the members in any way.

If it makes any legal difference whether the 'full name' data is actually verified or not, it is that when not verified it cannot be considered personal information in the sense of the GDPR, and the latter would not apply to it at all.

As is the case in any difference of opinion in legal matters: let them sue me, then they will know for sure.