2024 Moderation Election ***Update***

[chrisw]

Can you imagine not allowing longtime members such as Ajedrecista or Carlos777 to vote just because they don't provide what you consider a 'real name', name that you won't and can't even verify in the first place?

Please stop embarrassing yourselves.

Why the aggression? We've not "not allowed to vote", we've asked for members to update their user name in preparation for a possible election, and given two weeks to do so. It's a procedure to go through in preparation of the voting list. We're not interested in preventing people from voting, we're interested in getting the best validity possible for the voting list of active members. We also indicated we're flexible on the rules. Please be civil if you want to complain or make suggestions.

[cpeters]

Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from anonymity.

Is this a bit thrown out for engagement or are you trolling here?

[Damir]

He has a point. Also in presidental elections, you have to use your real name when voting, and not any kind of anonymous garbage name.

If people can not/ do not want to provide their real name, than they should not be able to vote, here and anywhere else.

With real name you validate the election.With garbage name you indicate that you have something to hide.

[eduherminio]

Why the aggression? We've not "not allowed to vote", we've asked for members to update their user name in preparation for a possible election, and given two weeks to do so. It's a procedure to go through in preparation of the voting list. We're not interested in preventing people from voting, we're interested in getting the best validity possible for the voting list of active members. We also indicated we're flexible on the rules. Please be civil if you want to complain or make suggestions.

Why the aggression? Seriously?
Well, my bad, let me rephrase my opinion to make it more civil and aligned with the tone that moderators use and therefore is deemed acceptable in this forum lately:

I don't understand why members would want to remain anonymous in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from anonymity.

I don't understand why members of the FG would want to prevent anonymous users from voting in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from lack of anonymity.

[mclane]

I don't understand why members of the FG would want to prevent anonymous users from voting in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from lack of anonymity.

1. FG does not want to prevent users from voting. The advice to update name to a real name.
So your assumption is wrong.

2. your second sentence also makes no real sense to me. Why would criminals profit from users login with real names ?


So 2 times wrong.

The computer chess community is very small.
Why do we need to login in with anonymous names without real names ?

[chrisw]

Why the aggression? We've not "not allowed to vote", we've asked for members to update their user name in preparation for a possible election, and given two weeks to do so. It's a procedure to go through in preparation of the voting list. We're not interested in preventing people from voting, we're interested in getting the best validity possible for the voting list of active members. We also indicated we're flexible on the rules. Please be civil if you want to complain or make suggestions.

Why the aggression? Seriously?
Well, my bad, let me rephrase my opinion to make it more civil and aligned with the tone that moderators use and therefore is deemed acceptable in this forum lately:

I don't understand why members would want to remain anonymous in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from anonymity.

I don't understand why members of the FG would want to prevent anonymous users from voting in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from lack of anonymity.

Well, I can’t help your understanding lack, but one reason would be to protect the integrity of the vote. This is pretty base and fundamental part of a voting system. Voting systems have named real voters, that’s why we call it an election with an electorate rather than an opinion poll.

[hgm]

I don't understand why members of the FG would want to prevent anonymous users from voting in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from lack of anonymity.

Please give an example of this weird thesis. I think that anonymity encourages rude and shameful behavior.

I would not just want to prevent anonymous users from voting; I would like to prevent we have anonymous users period. Like the charter stipulates, BTW.

[chrisw]

I don't understand why members of the FG would want to prevent anonymous users from voting in the first place. Only criminals and convicts would have any real benefits from lack of anonymity.

Please give an example of this weird thesis. I think that anonymity encourages rude and shameful behavior.

I would not just want to prevent anonymous users from voting; I would like to prevent we have anonymous users period. Like the charter stipulates, BTW.

Period? That would knock out a bunch of known and valuable posters who have built up over the years.

[hgm]

True. What I would like and what can be reasonably achieved is unfortunately not always the same.

And the carrot often works better than the stick. So why not offering those who exhibit the desired behavior some extra perks, rather than kicking out those who don't? Like the opportunity to have a say in who will be moderator. Call it a reward for good behavior. People with bad behavior might relate more to moderator candidates with similar behavior, so from that POV it also makes sense.

Note that moderator elections are basically a favor granted by the FG to the members. The charter does not specify that moderators have to be elected. There doesn't exist any right to vote.

[chrisw]

True. What I would like and what can be reasonably achieved is unfortunately not always the same.

And the carrot often works better than the stick. So why not offering those who exhibit the desired behavior some extra perks, rather than kicking out those who don't? Like the opportunity to have a say in who will be moderator. Call it a reward for good behavior. People with bad behavior might relate more to moderator candidates with similar behavior, so from that POV it also makes sense.

Note that moderator elections are basically a favor granted by the FG to the members. The charter does not specify that moderators have to be elected. There doesn't exist any right to vote.

Yes, well, on sticks and carrots, we're not subjects and they're not objects and they're going to resent being on the receiving end of such a culture.

I concur on elections. They are desirable but not mandatory. I think our new founder job is not yet done, we made progress but there are still way too many people here with opening gambits of aggression, hostility, rudeness and general goodwill lack - not to mention those hell bent on forum destruction via out-group cleansing. Maybe something to do with being of the Covid generation where their essential socialisation got disrupted/stopped. The notion of impending elections just make matters worse as they extend their political war of trying to get their own way into attacks on moderators. God help us if the cleansing crowd managed to get into control. So, I'ld vote to hold on elections until the cleansers got bored and found something else to do.