Questions for the FG about the organization of the election

[shawn]

ah so this is probably personal?
ok, just for the record - hgm has helped many people in the past (including myself) and is one of the brightest minds I met around here

Sure, I take back 25% of my statement. Although to be fair, Harm had already begun spreading nonsense to unassuming novice developers by the time that I joined

[lucametehau]

What if Shawn was the friends we made on Talkchess after all?

[hgm]

Indeed, the author of the strongest Java engine has no place here
the genuine Dr Pierce on the other hand... his posts are pure gold, his presence here pure joy so I think he deserves a honored member badge at least

How does the forum benefit from the presence of the author of a strong engine when the latter never posts about his engine or to help other people, but only to make nasty remarks about others?

This is certainly not true.

It was a hypothetical, general question, and questions have no truth value to begin with. Only statements have.

[hgm]

You seem to have missed the mark there, HGM. It was a commentary about your inconsistent application of the rules concerning names. For example:

- Discrimination against Viren on the basis of his sir name, paired with caring about Mr. Xylophone.
- But at the same time, saying things along the lines of "only a criminal would use a fake name".
- But then ignoring the guy openly using a fake name and pretending to be a Stanford professor.
- But then also saying "The task of the moderators is to see to it that the forum can be properly used. Not enforcing the real-name policy"

I suppose I don't actually care what you do regarding the charter. But it would be nice if it was uniform across people you like and dislike.

Wrong! Mocking the rules is not a 'commentary', it is a subversive action. A commentary would be posting questions about it.

And it appears you missed the explanation about my policy versus full names I posted above, which shows it is entirely consistent. In the given situation there is no organized attempt to act against fake names. But I do act against attempts to disrupt the forum. Be it through the 'real name', the avatar, their signature or otherwise.

There are no people I like or dislike. Only behaviors I encourage or condemn.

[hgm]

Indeed, the author of the strongest Java engine has no place here
the genuine Dr Pierce on the other hand... his posts are pure gold, his presence here pure joy so I think he deserves a honored member badge at least

How does the forum benefit from the presence of the author of a strong engine when the latter never posts about his engine or to help other people, but only to make nasty remarks about others?

viewtopic.php?p=969451#p969451
I have helped more people than you ever did and will do, Harm Geert Muller.

Funny you refer to a posting here that directly followed mine, in which I already had solved the issue.

I encourage everyone to have a look at your posting history; it will show that the 'help' you provided here does not go much further than a few one-liners pointing out to testers they should use SPRT, and to non-developers that LC0 uses MCTS.

I see you changed your name again, this time to make it the same as of a comedian. The name itself might not be disruptive, but the act of changing it for other reasons than repenting having given an incorrect one is.

[AndrewGrant]

You seem to have missed the mark there, HGM. It was a commentary about your inconsistent application of the rules concerning names. For example:

- Discrimination against Viren on the basis of his sir name, paired with caring about Mr. Xylophone.
- But at the same time, saying things along the lines of "only a criminal would use a fake name".
- But then ignoring the guy openly using a fake name and pretending to be a Stanford professor.
- But then also saying "The task of the moderators is to see to it that the forum can be properly used. Not enforcing the real-name policy"

I suppose I don't actually care what you do regarding the charter. But it would be nice if it was uniform across people you like and dislike.

Wrong! Mocking the rules is not a 'commentary', it is a subversive action. A commentary would be posting questions about it.

And it appears you missed the explanation about my policy versus full names I posted above, which shows it is entirely consistent. In the given situation there is no organized attempt to act against fake names. But I do act against attempts to disrupt the forum. Be it through the 'real name', the avatar, their signature or otherwise.

There are no people I like or dislike. Only behaviors I encourage or condemn.

Can we simply agree to disagree? I appreciate your recent moderation actions in this thread, and the good back and forth we have had. But I'm not likely to change my view on this, unless I suffer some brain injury that wipes clear my memory of the last few months worth of commentary and moderation actions.

[hgm]

You seem to have missed the mark there, HGM. It was a commentary about your inconsistent application of the rules concerning names. For example:

- Discrimination against Viren on the basis of his sir name, paired with caring about Mr. Xylophone.
- But at the same time, saying things along the lines of "only a criminal would use a fake name".
- But then ignoring the guy openly using a fake name and pretending to be a Stanford professor.
- But then also saying "The task of the moderators is to see to it that the forum can be properly used. Not enforcing the real-name policy"

I suppose I don't actually care what you do regarding the charter. But it would be nice if it was uniform across people you like and dislike.

Wrong! Mocking the rules is not a 'commentary', it is a subversive action. A commentary would be posting questions about it.

And it appears you missed the explanation about my policy versus full names I posted above, which shows it is entirely consistent. In the given situation there is no organized attempt to act against fake names. But I do act against attempts to disrupt the forum. Be it through the 'real name', the avatar, their signature or otherwise.

There are no people I like or dislike. Only behaviors I encourage or condemn.

Can we simply agree to disagree? I appreciate your recent moderation actions in this thread, and the good back and forth we have had. But I'm not likely to change my view on this, unless I suffer some brain injury that wipes clear my memory of the last few months worth of commentary and moderation actions.

I am not sure what exactly you want to disagree on. But as long as it is known that at this time there is no effort to enforce real-name policy, but that I will consistently act against attempts to disrupt the forum through whatever method, your opinion on this is not really relevant.

And to understand Andrew's remark on recent moderator action: please refrain from making ridiculous accusations on other member's identities. I have deleted all postings discussing this.

[jefk]

Graham Banks wrote

I prefer members to use their real names unless given permission otherwise.

well i (tend to) agree.
There was a discussion here recently that you cannot verify real names, but so what; it's easier
to identify fake names, and imo these are not desirable (and in the past were not allowed).

But if you want to change this, maybe you should also become candidate (moderator);
just spend a bit less time on these engine tournaments, and you could do it; after all you
seem to have (teaching) experience with youngsters (which would be useful with obviously
a current moderation issue remembering all the off topic - and often unjustified- postings).

So, think about it, (becoming a candidate) i would suggest.

[AndrewGrant]

I am not sure what exactly you want to disagree on. But as long as it is known that at this time there is no effort to enforce real-name policy, but that I will consistently act against attempts to disrupt the forum through whatever method, your opinion on this is not really relevant.

So... Viren can vote then?

[towforce]

I am not sure what exactly you want to disagree on. But as long as it is known that at this time there is no effort to enforce real-name policy, but that I will consistently act against attempts to disrupt the forum through whatever method, your opinion on this is not really relevant.

So... Viren can vote then?

...and myself?