My views on moderation

[BubbaTough]

We should be very careful putting in position of authority those who crave it, and want to dictate to others. This guy is a mod on 2 commercial websites, and now he wants to be a mod here. We should be very careful.

You are right. He was against Stockfish. In his post from the refference you sent us he said:

"Good post Charles. I suppose it begs the question will Stockfish be allowed if Toga is not? I certainly agree that both Stocfish and Glaurung can not play."

You are mixing up completely the semantics of Harvey's statement. It is obvious for everyone reading carefully that the meaning was "I certainly agree that it is not possible that Stockfish and Glaurung both play at the same time, i.e. only one of them can play." I only mention this because today, regarding the high posting activity, it may happen that not all readers are reading carefully enough to detect that.

The conclusion is simply that your statement about Harvey's position against Stockfish is 100% false.

Sven

Everyone has taken sides; some based on friendship, interests, principles, etc. We all love chess that is one thing that is for sure.

It doesn't matter what "side" you are on, Tord and Sven are 100% right. There is no attack there, and independent of your opinion on Harvey it is annoying to read claims that there was. I imagine its particularly annoying to Harvey and Tord.

sigh...I really hope this kind of malarky dies down after the election, because its creating a pretty unpleasant environment. The whole reason I (and I assume most people) come here is hear from and talk to people like Tord. And the type of environment being fostered here right now makes that difficult.

-Sam

[kingliveson]

sigh...I really hope this kind of malarky dies down after the election, because its creating a pretty unpleasant environment. The whole reason I (and I assume most people) come here is hear from and talk to people like Tord. And the type of environment being fostered here right now makes that difficult.

-Sam

The malarky will die when some who feel the need to impress upon others their own world view step-back. And if you really want this place "cleaned" up, drop your nomination and start campaigning for Harvey. He would love it. He is already a mod on 2 commercial websites. Some people just love having to be in position where they can dictate authority over others. So drop your nomination and start a Elect Harvey Campaign. I will be the first to leave once your campaign succeeds. And then you can have all your peace and quietness you desire. I will keep my word.

Franklin

[UncombedCoconut]

My views on moderation:

Promoter of a commercial (Chess) software should not moderate here!

Thank you.

Correct !

I second that....dogs of commercial authors should be banned too....
Right Or Left Flipside regards,
Dr.D

What happened to this:

Thanks Graham and you're right....I stop this once and for all....
Cheers,
Dr.D

I was looking forward to more interesting posts about chess from you...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

My views on moderation:

Promoter of a commercial (Chess) software should not moderate here!

Thank you.

Correct !

I second that....dogs of commercial authors should be banned too....
Right Or Left Flipside regards,
Dr.D

What happened to this:

Thanks Graham and you're right....I stop this once and for all....
Cheers,
Dr.D

I was looking forward to more interesting posts about chess from you...

Well,I had to contribute to the mederation election process somehow
Dr.D

[M ANSARI]

What is the matter with you guys ??? It was EXTREMELY obvious to anyone that read that thread that the talk was of having several iterations of the same program. And since Glaurung and Stockfish are basically the same program with improvements, it would make no sense to have them BOTH participate in the same tournament. I think Bob once mentioned that he would have excellent chances in any tournament if he was allowed to put in several different iterations of Crafty. It is OK to disagree with someone ... but at least let's keep the facts accurate.

[Henrik Dinesen]

Everyone can read this thread and decide for themselves: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31506

Neither Harvey nor anyone else made any attacks against Stockfish in that thread. They were simply emphasizing the basic and entirely non-controversial point that two versions of the same program shouldn't be allowed to compete in the same tournament.

Harvey is a friend, and is evidently just as happy to see Stockfish improve as I am to see Hiarcs improve. We are not rivals or adversaries in any way, and we even cooperate to some extent (most of the GUI code is shared between the iPhone versions of Glaurung and Hiarcs).

I hate the way the moderation elections have degenerated into a mudslinging contest, and more generally, the atmosphere of suspicion, accusations and distrust that dominates the computer chess community at the moment. The community has never seemed less healthy. It is tempting to yet again take a few months of break from this forum.

Thx Tord, for pointing out what should be obvious ...

[beachknight]

My views on moderation:

Promoter of a commercial (Chess) software should not moderate here!

Thank you.

Correct !

I second that....dogs of commercial authors should be banned too....
Dr.D

Harvey Williamson with his ties to commercial interest should definitely not be allowed as mod here. Recently, he engaged in subliminal attacks on stockfish due to its strength gain.

I second, Franklin. Plus he is working for BBC. He can easily access our
dirty secrets.

Best,

Vote No to Harvey campaign supporter HT

[mcostalba]

Everyone can read this thread and decide for themselves: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31506

Neither Harvey nor anyone else made any attacks against Stockfish in that thread. They were simply emphasizing the basic and entirely non-controversial point that two versions of the same program shouldn't be allowed to compete in the same tournament.

Harvey is a friend, and is evidently just as happy to see Stockfish improve as I am to see Hiarcs improve. We are not rivals or adversaries in any way, and we even cooperate to some extent (most of the GUI code is shared between the iPhone versions of Glaurung and Hiarcs).

I hate the way the moderation elections have degenerated into a mudslinging contest, and more generally, the atmosphere of suspicion, accusations and distrust that dominates the computer chess community at the moment. The community has never seemed less healthy. It is tempting to yet again take a few months of break from this forum.

I completely second Tord 100%

More then an attack to Stockfish was a (not needed) defence of Hiarcs, but Harvey was wise enough to understand his request was clearly nonsense and stopped just after the first post.

Regarding the elections, well, that's the way it is....in real world it is even worst...much worst !

So I am not scared by this and I accept as a fact of life. All people here is chess and computer chess enthusiasts, but not all here is technical people or wishes to discuss about the best magic bitboard algorithm or what is the best value of a pawn in middle game.

I think this is a good thing, because makes this forum rich and interesting. Yes, there is the mud but I think here we are all grown up and should not be a problem to just skip the thread, as I usually do when I understand content has been lost.

The only thing that I think could be improved is that a "clean" thread should not be allowed to be deteriorated by off topics. I mean, there are threads that already from the start are looking for trouble...and there it is ok to follow that line. The problem is that there are threads that actually start with valuable content, first replies are very interesting and thread grows up to be of good quality (this can and do happen in any subforum), then, due to an out of content and damaging reply thread loses quality and starts to drift toward garbage. This is not good and I think mods should not tolerate this. Garbage should be allowed and tolerated (because it has a function, but this is another subject) on garbage borne threads, but should not be allowed that a good one is attacked and deteriorated by trolls.

[aturri]

The only thing that I think could be improved is that a "clean" thread should not be allowed to be deteriorated by off topics. I mean, there are threads that already from the start are looking for trouble...and there it is ok to follow that line. The problem is that there are threads that actually start with valuable content, first replies are very interesting and thread grows up to be of good quality (this can and do happen in any subforum), then, due to an out of content and damaging reply thread loses quality and starts to drift toward garbage. This is not good and I think mods should not tolerate this. Garbage should be allowed and tolerated (because it has a function, but this is another subject) on garbage borne threads, but should not be allowed that a good one is attacked and deteriorated by trolls.

Excellent, I agre 100%. I hope the new mods second your idea and make it effective in the next period.

[Thomas Mayer]

My views on moderation:

Promoter of a commercial (Chess) software should not moderate here!

Thank you.

Correct !

I second that....dogs of commercial authors should be banned too....
Dr.D

Harvey Williamson with his ties to commercial interest should definitely not be allowed as mod here. Recently, he engaged in subliminal attacks on stockfish due to its strength gain.

Sorry Franklin, but it is the democratic charter that makes this computer chess forum so unique from others - even when this produces some chaos here and there. So you can't exclude someone from the elections, how democratic would that be ? I mean Harvey never hides the fact that he is involved in the Hiarcs team so everybody knows what he is voting for. In fact in Harvey's position I would have declined the nomination just because everybody will have a suspicious eye on him just to find some reason to bash him even when his decisions would have nothing to do with the interests of the Hiarcs team. He has decided the other way, I respect that. Finally the voters will get what they vote for, that is how a democracy works. However, to exclude someone is for sure the wrong way.

Greets, Thomas