2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[hgm]

Fascinating. What about the bulk of the non real name cases where the sign up data was not filled out (eg real name left blank), can those cases even be said to have "signed up"?

Such people would not have signed up. Using the automated registration process does not result in creation of an active account; it requires human intervention (by a forum admin) to do so. I have never accepted registration where the the 'full name' field was not filled out, contained gibberish, an obviouly false, incomplete or fictitious name (such as Donald Trump, Billy, Peter Pan).

If there are members without full name it is probably because their full name was lost in the upgrade to phpBB 3.

[Brunetti]

I have never accepted registration where the the 'full name' field was not filled out, contained gibberish, an obviouly false, incomplete or fictitious name (such as Donald Trump, Billy, Peter Pan).

Hi,
so mr. Peter Pan from Bollingbrook Illinois and mr. Donald Trump from San Angelo Texas wouldn't be accepted here?

Alex

[hgm]

Not without further scrutiny. People who do not receive the registration confirmation can (and sometimes do) send an e-mail to inquire why they have not been registered yet. I then explain what is the problem with the name they provided, and invite them to correct it. Often their e-mail address also suggests the name they gave is a fake, or they sign the e-mail with another name than the one they have actually given. Sometimes they withdraw their application because they are not prepared to post under their real name.

[Ras]

I think your interpretation of the situation is very contrived

On the contrary. Do you even agree that the GDPR is applicable?

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.

Facebook could argue the same, so that doesn't hold water.

As far as providing 'services' goes: we do not 'bundle' anything, we only provide a single service.

Wrong. There are features that are not available to all members, namely the voting, so that feature is not part of a single service, it's special.

it is not mentioned anywhere that there should be elections.

Wrong. See the founder group's statement.

it is that when not verified it cannot be considered personal information in the sense of the GDPR

Wrong. My full name here is obviously personal data.

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

It would make more sense to even try to adhere to the law instead of acting as if this were a US based server in the 90s.

[hgm]

Well, I am the one that rents the server, so I suppose that any legal action would be directed against me, as from a legal perspective Ed and Chris are just non-involved parties who we have granted a nice title. And I have always made it very clear that I considered electing a moderator a matter for the users, and that I would not involve myself in it. If I don't feel like honoring the outcome of any election, for whatever reason (which no one can force me to divulge), no one has any legal recourse for forcing me to do so.

We seem to have a very different approach towards legal matters: you tend to interpret the law in the most oppressive sense, and then always paranoically try to stay within the bounds you imagine. I, on the other hand, simply do as I please as long as someone doesn't actually threatens to sue me, and even if they do there would be a large chance that I would prefer to argue the case in court rather than be bullied into allowing what I consider evil. Laws are always more heavy-handed than their actual application; this to provide the judges with a tool for banning undesirable behavior. They are like the fire arms carried by policemen: the intention is not that they should shoot every perpetrator of a misdemeanor, but that they can draw on them if a situation occurs where they are indispensible. The boundary between good and evil is meandering erratically, almost like a fractal, and as a law maker you want to make sure most of the evil is covered. Which unavoidably will cover a lot of the innocent as well. This is why we leave the exact determination for practical cases to the discretion of a judge, rather than appplying it through the police directly. Even if the opponent has a case, it doesn't mean he would win that case.

And suppose that someone would fight the validity of the elections in court, and win. Well, then apparently you would be right, and elections that I consider acceptable are forbidden by the GDPR. So we will abandon the idea of having elections, and make appointing moderators the prerogative of the FG. We are not under any legal obligation to conduct elections.

[Ras]

you tend to interpret the law in the most oppressive sense

No. I've been following the GDPR discussion for some years while I think you havn't.

I, on the other hand, simply do as I please as long as someone doesn't actually threatens to sue me

In the context of the GDPR, that doesn't make much sense.

[hgm]

Well, so in your eyes it doesn't make much sense. So what are you going to do about it? Because as long as you don't do anything, I would still continue doing what you think doesn't make sense...

[Ras]

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.

[hgm]

On the contrary, I think it is time to discuss in public whether we should have elections, if having those would be a violation of the GDPR, as you claim. Perhaps it is better to abandon these altogether. And this discussion thread seems the place to do that.

[Ras]

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.