2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[hgm]

whether we should have elections, if having those would be a violation of the GDPR, as you claim.

I didn't say that. This is twisting my words so badly that I reported your posting for moderation.

Not sure I understand what your gripe is. Would it be better when I said "elections according to rules we consider acceptable"?

[chrisw]

At this point, I suggest that the Found Group discuss among each other whether disregard for the GDPR is the way to go for TalkChess.

Obviously we can not and will not disregard governing law. We’re not lawyers but FG has neither budget nor income and can’t therefore consult in any conventional way. I guess we need to listen to knowledgable/experienced people here and take a view, erring on the side of caution. This is why I started asking you questions.

[chrisw]

whether we should have elections, if having those would be a violation of the GDPR, as you claim.

I didn't say that. This is twisting my words so badly that I reported your posting for moderation.

Not sure I understand what your gripe is. Would it be better when I said "elections according to rules we consider acceptable"?

You’ve been alternating between I, we and the Royal we quite a bit recently. Apart from being confusing, it’s not entirely clear your use of “we” is at all appropriate given your bizarre suggestion that Ed and I are just here for decoration purposes. Facts are we form an equal triumvirate of equal ownership, something you’ve not only agreed but also acknowledged and actioned when the three FG made a lawful contract with the hosting entity. You’re signed up to operating within and as part of a democratic triumvirate. Period. That “you’ll do what pleases you unless sued using the word “I” is not acceptable to me as a member of the FG and as a member of the forum.

[hgm]

You don't really have the facts straight.

For one, you and Ed are not any party in the contract with the 'hosting entity'. Which is Strato, who provides the VPS on which this site runs. Only my name is on that contract. The CSVN is not the hosting entity, but merely the owner of the domain name, which we borrow from them. My name and Ed's are on the contract with them specifying the conditions under which they will make that domain name point to our server.

I know what we agreed, and don't want to contest it in any way, but I seriously think that in any litigation against TalkChess this would make me the sole liable person in the eyes of the court. Those who control the domain name cannot exert any influence on the content of the site, which would remain accessible by IP even when they disconnect us from the domain.

As to the use of 'we': there exists a linguistic construct called "pluralis modestiae" or "plural of modesty", so when I use the word 'we' to refer to myself it doesn't necessary imply I am of royal blood. (But perhaps there are some who would think that is still more likely than the alternative. )

When I use 'I' in describing my attitude vs law in general, I do this to avoid any misunderstanding about the fact that it is my personal attitude, and avoid the suggestion that there would be anyone here that shares that attitude, or thinks it should laso apply to legal matters concerning TalkChess.

[chrisw]

You don't really have the facts straight.

For one, you and Ed are not any party in the contract with the 'hosting entity'. Which is Strato, who provides the VPS on which this site runs. Only my name is on that contract. The CSVN is not the hosting entity, but merely the owner of the domain name, which we borrow from them. Ed and I have a contract with them specifying the conditions under which they will make that domain name point to our server.

I know what we agreed, and don't want to contest it in any way, but I seriously think that in any litigation against TalkChess this would make me the sole liable person in the eyes of the court. Those who control the domain name cannot exert any influence on the content of the site, which would remain accessible by IP even when they disconnect us from the domain.

As to the use of 'we': there exists a linguistic construct called "pluralis modestiae" or "plural of modesty", so when I use the word 'we' to refer to myself it doesn't necessary imply I am of royal blood. (But perhaps there are some who would think that is still more likely than the alternative. )

When I use 'I' in describing my attitude vs law in general, I do this to avoid any misunderstanding about the fact that it is my personal attitude, and avoid the suggestion that there would be anyone here that shares that attitude, or thinks it should laso apply to legal matters concerning TalkChess.

By hosting entity, I meant (incorrently termed maybe) the CSVN. I am named in the contract (see web page) and the decision to make the contract was democratic by the FG.
"Royal we" is a term to describe HM Queen often usage, then its hijacking by Mrs Thatcher, for which she got ridiculed. (wiki royal we describes).

Not sure, can't remember the legal term, but if you get sued for something and there are other responsible entities down the chain so to speak, you can bring them in to the case. Making you not the sole liable.

As long as we are in agreement that no one of us is above the others, and we make our decisions democratically, abiding by them in full, I have no other gripes. The idea of triumvirates "three power centres" is historically used to prevent one power centre usurping control. That's what I'm signed up to.

[hgm]

At this point, I suggest that the Found Group discuss among each other whether disregard for the GDPR is the way to go for TalkChess.

Obviously we can not and will not disregard governing law. We’re not lawyers but FG has neither budget nor income and can’t therefore consult in any conventional way. I guess we need to listen to knowledgable/experienced people here and take a view, erring on the side of caution. This is why I started asking you questions.

This was what brought me to the remark that upset Ras: if satisfactory moderator elections are a transgression of applicable law, perhaps we should not hold them at all. Just ask people to suggest someone who they consider suitable, and then decide ourselves (as FG) who to appoint, perhaps taking heed of the advice of those members that we trust most.

[hgm]

"Royal we" is a term to describe HM Queen often usage, then its hijacking by Mrs Thatcher, for which she got ridiculed. (wiki royal we describes).

Indeed, there also exists a "royal we" (pluralis majestatis), and in these days where modesty has become a forgotten virtue the two are often confused. But the ridiculing of the Iron Lady might have been completely unjustified, as she would be very much entitled to use the plural of modesty. So the joke was more on those doing the ridiculing, showing their ignorance in linguistic matters.

[chrisw]

At this point, I suggest that the Found Group discuss among each other whether disregard for the GDPR is the way to go for TalkChess.

Obviously we can not and will not disregard governing law. We’re not lawyers but FG has neither budget nor income and can’t therefore consult in any conventional way. I guess we need to listen to knowledgable/experienced people here and take a view, erring on the side of caution. This is why I started asking you questions.

This was what brought me to the remark that upset Ras: if satisfactory moderator elections are a transgression of applicable law, perhaps we should not hold them at all. Just ask people to suggest someone who they consider suitable, and then decide ourselves (as FG) who to appoint, perhaps taking heed of the advice of those members that we trust most.

I believe was can lawfully hold elections. What Ras says is we can't bundle people based on their personal data (unless we made it clear beforehand). However, what we are in essence doing is asking people to register their real name with two weeks grace in order to be on the voting list. Obviously those who already registered don't need to re-register.
Ras says we can't use the personal data to punish people (ie your suggestion of de-membering those without real names), that would involve bundling based on personal data that was not pre-known to members. Anyway, that's how I read Ras comments.

[chrisw]

"Royal we" is a term to describe HM Queen often usage, then its hijacking by Mrs Thatcher, for which she got ridiculed. (wiki royal we describes).

Indeed, there also exists a "royal we" (pluralis majestatis), and in these days where modesty has become a forgotten virtue the two are often confused. But the ridiculing of the Iron Lady might have been completely unjustified, as she would be very much entitled to use the plural of modesty. So the joke was more on those doing the ridiculing, showing their ignorance in linguistic matters.

Well, Mrs Thatcher used it in the expression "We are a grandmother". Difficult not to find that somewhat ridiculous. Anyway, it's a term for usage by unelected monarchs, you're not one of those are you?!

[hgm]

I believe was can lawfully hold elections. What Ras says is we can't bundle people based on their personal data (unless we made it clear beforehand). However, what we are in essence doing is asking people to register their real name with two weeks grace in order to be on the voting list. Obviously those who already registered don't need to re-register.
Ras says we can't use the personal data to punish people (ie your suggestion of de-membering those without real names), that would involve bundling based on personal data that was not pre-known to members. Anyway, that's how I read Ras comments.

Well, if I correctly understood Ras asking people's name in order to vote is a violation of the GDPR if we cannot prove why a name would be essential for this purpose. And that any claim that it would be essential would be subverted by the fact that in that case we should not have accepted unverified names, which for all we know could be fakes.

But this GDPR discussion has really side tracked with this issue of bundling different services. My original stance is that the service TalkChess was set up for is to provide an opportunity for people of verifyable identity to publish civilized opinions on computer chess. For this purpose processing people's names should be a legitimate interest, and I don't think that the goal itself would be illegal. Therefore I don't think that requiring all members to provide their name, irrespective of whether they vote or not, is a violation of the GDPR.