2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[Graham Banks]

I think all members should be able to vote. People who have real names have a vote factor of 3, and other people have a factor of 1.

This is formula: Σ(V) = 3*R+F

R:Real name
F:Fake name
V:Vote

We can also define that members who have a real name but were not active in the last year can vote with a factor of 2.

Not a bad suggestion.

[LazySMP]

Not a bad suggestion.

Thank you for considering my suggestion. Here is the completed formula: Σ(V) = 3*R1+2*R2+F

R1:Real name with activity
R2:Real name without activity
F:Fake name
V:Vote

[Tibono]

My father used to share a "joke" (was it, really?), about home decisions, democratically voted. We were four, two parents and two children. Each vote counted once, but my father's counted three. And if balance occurred, he owned the final decision.

[chrisw]

I think all members should be able to vote. People who have real names have a vote factor of 3, and other people have a factor of 1.

This is formula: Σ(V) = 3*R+F

R:Real name
F:Fake name
V:Vote

We can also define that members who have a real name but were not active in the last year can vote with a factor of 2.

Not a bad suggestion.

Yesterday you were complaining mountains molehills, today you do more mountain, whilst advocating something so clearly against the EU law that we’ld possibly get fined for it. If you can’t make sense of the arguments in this thread you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better.

[Viz]

I think all members should be able to vote. People who have real names have a vote factor of 3, and other people have a factor of 1.

This is formula: Σ(V) = 3*R+F

R:Real name
F:Fake name
V:Vote

We can also define that members who have a real name but were not active in the last year can vote with a factor of 2.

Not a bad suggestion.

Yesterday you were complaining mountains molehills, today you do more mountain, whilst advocating something so clearly against the EU law that we’ld possibly get fined for it. If you can’t make sense of the arguments in this thread you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better.

I agree, we should just ban Graham from talkchess for all his malicious activity and trolling.

[chrisw]

I think all members should be able to vote. People who have real names have a vote factor of 3, and other people have a factor of 1.

This is formula: Σ(V) = 3*R+F

R:Real name
F:Fake name
V:Vote

We can also define that members who have a real name but were not active in the last year can vote with a factor of 2.

Not a bad suggestion.

Yesterday you were complaining mountains molehills, today you do more mountain, whilst advocating something so clearly against the EU law that we’ld possibly get fined for it. If you can’t make sense of the arguments in this thread you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better.

I agree, we should just ban Graham from talkchess for all his malicious activity and trolling.

Graham is not malicious nor trolling. Well maybe a bit trolling in stating mountain/molehill then adding to the mountain. But only a little bit. Meanwhile your accusation is a confession.

[Graham Banks]

........you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better.

Not a problem as I get the feeling that moderators aren't really desired by the founders group anyway.

[chrisw]

........you probably should not be commenting and probably also disqualify yourself from mod status on grounds of advocating unlawfulness when should know better.

Not a problem as I get the feeling that moderators aren't really desired by the founders group anyway.

Incorrect feeling, I for one would be only to happy to get rid of having to spend time on it. But we do need moderators who are going to work within legal framework (as pointed out by Mar), rejection of the idea of lawyers/law as some kind of evil and/or not comprehending applicable law is in danger of getting the FG (or whoever) fined. So we have to take it seriously.

[mar]

Incorrect feeling, I for one would be only to happy to get rid of having to spend time on it. But we do need moderators who are going to work within legal framework (as pointed out by Mar), rejection of the idea of lawyers/law as some kind of evil and/or not comprehending applicable law is in danger of getting the FG (or whoever) fined. So we have to take it seriously.

I think you probably meant Rasmus?

[chrisw]

Incorrect feeling, I for one would be only to happy to get rid of having to spend time on it. But we do need moderators who are going to work within legal framework (as pointed out by Mar), rejection of the idea of lawyers/law as some kind of evil and/or not comprehending applicable law is in danger of getting the FG (or whoever) fined. So we have to take it seriously.

I think you probably meant Rasmus?

Yes, sorry, dyslexia