Questions regarding the Election and Nomination Process

[Henrik Dinesen]

Steve,

I got as well I'm not surprised.
But to be very honest, I think the election should be psotponed the equal amount of days, which is 3 in calendar. Hate to say that, but... Fair ?

[Graham Banks]

Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.

If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.

Just to clarify - we have never modified anybody's words, only deleted them.
Modifying a person's words would indeed be a gross abuse of power.

Regards, Graham.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.

If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.

Just to clarify - we have never modified anybody's words, only deleted them.
Modifying a person's words would indeed be a gross abuse of power.

Regards, Graham.

I agree,certin words or phrases were deleted,but the mods had never put words into someone mouth as it was said in a post....
The deletion master ,
Dr.Wael Deeb

[Steve B]

Steve,

I got as well I'm not surprised.
But to be very honest, I think the election should be psotponed the equal amount of days, which is 3 in calendar. Hate to say that, but... Fair ?

hi Henrik

i am not quite certain i understand your meaning here

do you mean that because of the lateness in establishing the nomination process by emal.. that the vote then should be delayed three more days?

if so,actually i would rather not have it delayed personally

the sooner elections are held the better
there has been so much of a delay between elections already that i just hope this goes off smoothly without further delay

Best
Steve

[bob]

The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.

I'm not sure if i can take it as it is written.

I believe it was written in a time where it wasn't possible, from technical software view of this forum, to edit positings. So, they just thought, ok, how to define if its time to delete a positing or not.

If this is true, it's time for an CCC charter "upgrade", because it's outdated already.


Best,
Daniel

Sorry, but when we decided to start CCC, there were no software "limits" imposed as we discussed the charter. We didn't develop the charter to match the software capabilities we had available, we developed the charter to define the way we envisioned CCC functioning.

Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.

If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.

It seems all that's happening with the "editing" of posts is the deletion of offending portions. Deleting a thread contribution (an entire post) is the same as deleting a thread contribution (part of a post). It's hard to see much logical difference.

If one doesn't like having his charter infractions deleted -- either wholly (past policy) or in part (current policy) -- then one probably shouldn't submit them in the first place.

Either way, one struggles to understand how such an issue rises to the level of deciding to leave or stay.

IMHO,

It wasn't "one such issue". It was two.

(1) I don't like the concept of editing. What I write is, by international law, instantly copyrighted material to which I hold the exclusive copyright until I sign it over to someone else. It is also a public record of something purportedly written by me. I want to see it actually be something written by me, rather than something that has been edited, no matter how significant/insignificant the changes. My words are my words. Either they should stand as written, or be deleted. But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.

(2) we were discussing a significant rule infraction that occurred during the last ACCA event. One so serious that such an infraction has been a _very_ infrequent happening. And suddenly the thread is locked/moved while the moderators edit. Meanwhile the discussion is dead. That's also not acceptable. Otherwise why not simply require that _every_ post be submitted to a moderator for approval before it is posted. Many message boards I use (blackjack, automobile tech stuff, etc, run this way so that the new members have a bit of a probationary period before they become "bypass moderation" status.

I know what we intended when we started CCC. It began to move in another direction over time, with respect to moderation.

[bob]

Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.

If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.

Just to clarify - we have never modified anybody's words, only deleted them.
Modifying a person's words would indeed be a gross abuse of power.

Regards, Graham.

There is not a lot of difference:

(a) I don't like that idea at all

(b) I like that idea.

All I did for (b) was just delete, didn't change a thing. But it made a bit of a difference in the meaning... Not that I noticed you doing that, but the potential is there. That's the problem with this ability. If you don't like (a) and delete the entire thing, there is no false impression left about what I said...

[mhull]

... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.

I agree that would be extreme. However, I've not seen words "put into" mouths but rather "taken out of" mouths (so to speak). Always characterizing such deletions as "putting words into mouths" doesn't seem like objective assessment, but more like presenting hyperbole for the lack of a better argument.

IMHO.

[Henrik Dinesen]

Steve,

I got as well I'm not surprised.
But to be very honest, I think the election should be psotponed the equal amount of days, which is 3 in calendar. Hate to say that, but... Fair ?

hi Henrik

i am not quite certain i understand your meaning here

do you mean that because of the lateness in establishing the nomination process by emal.. that the vote then should be delayed three more days?

if so,actually i would rather not have it delayed personally

the sooner elections are held the better
there has been so much of a delay between elections already that i just hope this goes off smoothly without further delay

Best
Steve

Hi Steve,

You got the meaning alright While I agree that we should get elections finished as soon as possible, my intention was only aimed at one thing: Fairness. As a result of the mail, we already have Oliver's respons in another tread.
Honestly, I don't think that postponing will make much of a difference when we boil it down, it's more a matter of signal value, some clear practice sort of speak. After all, those who accept the nomination, and get enough votes, may "risk" about 12 months as a moderator The argument could easily be turned in the direction, that if they don't see the sticky, they've already failed, just as long as it's a clear practice, which it's not at present.
Apart from that, I think Quentin is doing it pretty good job now, when the election was finally up, the energy is there. Guess that's the most confusing part to the long-time residents of the club (should be read with a bit humor).

[Steve B]

Hi Steve,

You got the meaning alright While I agree that we should get elections finished as soon as possible, my intention was only aimed at one thing: Fairness. As a result of the mail, we already have Oliver's respons in another tread.
Honestly, I don't think that postponing will make much of a difference when we boil it down, it's more a matter of signal value, some clear practice sort of speak. After all, those who accept the nomination, and get enough votes, may "risk" about 12 months as a moderator The argument could easily be turned in the direction, that if they don't see the sticky, they've already failed, just as long as it's a clear practice, which it's not at present.
Apart from that, I think Quentin is doing it pretty good job now, when the election was finally up, the energy is there. Guess that's the most confusing part to the long-time residents of the club (should be read with a bit humor).

a well considered position Henrik
if the sponsor will delay the vote then i would not object
conversely if he will not delay it i will also not object


so Dear Henrik..

you are going to accept your nomination or are we forced to remain in suspense until the last second??

Anticipatory Regards
Steve

[bob]

... But putting words into my mouth (or anyone elses for that matter) is simply unacceptable. In the extreme.

I agree that would be extreme. However, I've not seen words "put into" mouths but rather "taken out of" mouths (so to speak). Always characterizing such deletions as "putting words into mouths" doesn't seem like objective assessment, but more like presenting hyperbole for the lack of a better argument.

IMHO.

The problem is that the _potential_ is there. I didn't say it has happened, although in at least a couple of posts, deletions have given rise to alternative interpretations when sarcasm becomes lost due to deleted text...