jdart wrote:Personally I think the one team in the running is a good one, but having one choice will make a lot of people unhappy, I expect.
Why there was no vote or even poll held regarding the new election format, before it was put into effect, I can't fathom. I certainly had doubts about the possibility of getting multiple teams organized on short notice.
Even assuming the current slate wins, I'd like to a see a re-examination of the election format and the possibility of reverting it to individuals vs teams.
which has received more then 5100 views and 125 replies
to me the real issue is whether this forum will allow links or not
Teams v individuals was suggested and discussed as a way to at least have mod teams who agree with each other on the link issue
this current term has seen elected mods disputing each other publicly with no less then 3 of them abandoning their posts over this one issue
if not for the very divisive link issue i doubt the concept of teams would even come up
besides every member can now vote to scrape the team idea right now.. in this election
Steve B wrote:
besides every member can now vote for an individual election right now in this election
Steve
Yes and No - if that was the case rather than none of the above the 2nd option should be do you want an individual election. The post by Sean yesterday asking what happens if None of the above wins proves many do not read the entire post before voting. i must admit I voted before reading the rest of sam's post also.
Steve B wrote:
besides every member can now vote for an individual election right now in this election
Steve
Yes and No - if that was the case rather than none of the above the 2nd option should be do you want an individual election. The post by Sean yesterday asking what happens if None of the above wins proves many do not read the entire post before voting.
well i mean its not too much to ask a voting member to at least read all of Sams post ..its only a few sentences in total
i didnt write it mind you but it took me about 5 seconds to understand it
and i am sure you can agree Harvey that i am no Rocket Scientist
Steve
Steve B wrote:
besides every member can now vote for an individual election right now in this election
Steve
Yes and No - if that was the case rather than none of the above the 2nd option should be do you want an individual election. The post by Sean yesterday asking what happens if None of the above wins proves many do not read the entire post before voting.
well i mean its not too much to ask a voting member to at least read all of Sams post ..its only a few sentences in total
i didnt write it mind you but it took me about 5 seconds to understand it
and i am sure you can agree Harvey that i am no Rocket Scientist
Steve
I did not read it I just voted. If the 2nd option, which would have been good, is do you want an individual election that is what it should have said. Instead Sam totally ignored the concerns and requests for a longer nomination period which you supported and just went ahead in good old 'Soviet' style. I remember when I studied Politics being told in the USSR they have elections you can vote for or against the candidate. Of course nobody will take note of who votes against!
In actual fact i doubt sam read any of the concerns. He was late starting the poll had probably not read any of the threads and just though I will go ahead anyway.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I did not read it I just voted. If the 2nd option, which would have been good, is do you want an individual election that is what it should have said.
I don't have strong feelings about this stuff one way or another, but as a data point, I must admit I also voted only reading the poll, and not the text underneath. At the time I voted, I thought it was a joke about the lack of opposition, and that of course the only team running would win. I was surprised to discover that there really were two options.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I did not read it I just voted..
and i bet you just voted AGAINST us
come hell or high water
they could have listed Attila the Hun as the other choice and you would have voted for that
one of the things i also supported personally was a one year term for this team election
not because i wanted an iron grip on anything or i wanted others to have an iron grip.. but because i wanted consistency in moderation for once while the Great Derivatives Debate rages on.and not upheaval every few months
that idea seemed to be universally rejected so it was dropped
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I did not read it I just voted..
and i bet you just voted AGAINST us
come hell or high water
they could have listed Attila the Hun as the other choice and you would have voted for that
one of the things i also supported personally was a one year term for this team election
not because i wanted an iron grip on anything or i wanted others to have an iron grip.. but because i wanted consistency in moderation for once while the Great Derivatives Debate rages on.and not upheaval every few months
that idea seemed to be universally rejected so it was dropped
Steve
One year is fine with me but not the way this is being rammed through.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I did not read it I just voted. If the 2nd option, which would have been good, is do you want an individual election that is what it should have said.
Instead Sam totally ignored the concerns and requests for a longer nomination period which you supported and just went ahead in good old 'Soviet' style.
The idea for the teams has been at the top for many weeks. That is plenty of time for teams to form. I was wondering why it took so long for any teams to register and why we had to wait so long for the election.
So your "Soviet style" insinuation comes across as mean spirited.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I remember when I studied Politics being told in the USSR they have elections you can vote for or against the candidate. Of course nobody will take note of who votes against!
In actual fact i doubt sam read any of the concerns. He was late starting the poll had probably not read any of the threads and just though I will go ahead anyway.
Your putting thoughts into other peoples heads and then condemning them for thinking that way is extremely unfriendly.
The idea for the teams has been at the top for many weeks. That is plenty of time for teams to form. I was wondering why it took so long for any teams to register and why we had to wait so long for the election.
the idea sure but where was the question to the members do you want them yes or no it would have been a simple poll that could have been open to the same members who are eligible to vote. There was a thread that Sam ignored where some of the candidates even supported a longer nomination period - anyway carry on this place is more about debates about ccc than it is about Computer chess. This so called election will not solve that.
Also why is the email to all forum members on the admin panel not used?
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I did not read it I just voted. If the 2nd option, which would have been good, is do you want an individual election that is what it should have said.
Instead Sam totally ignored the concerns and requests for a longer nomination period which you supported and just went ahead in good old 'Soviet' style.
The idea for the teams has been at the top for many weeks. That is plenty of time for teams to form.
For the record, I am not complaining and we should go with the team that is willing to moderate and be done with it.
but, we cannot say there was "plenty" of time to assemble teams. Being the first time, there were lots of uncertainties, and takes a while to wait confirmation from possible candidates, agree on a common platform and philosophy etc. I would say that there was barely enough time.
My point is: I suggest people who want to assemble a team for next January to start right away...
Miguel
I was wondering why it took so long for any teams to register and why we had to wait so long for the election.
So your "Soviet style" insinuation comes across as mean spirited.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I remember when I studied Politics being told in the USSR they have elections you can vote for or against the candidate. Of course nobody will take note of who votes against!
In actual fact i doubt sam read any of the concerns. He was late starting the poll had probably not read any of the threads and just though I will go ahead anyway.
Your putting thoughts into other peoples heads and then condemning them for thinking that way is extremely unfriendly.
