Questions regarding the Election and Nomination Process

[Steve B]

hi Enriq

always good to see you taking an interest in the CCC even if only on rare but important occasions like elections

the board would be well served if it could be treated to more of your posting presence

Computer Chess Digest 81-82 Regards
Steve

[Enir]

when a member writes a long post full of valuable content, but is silly enough to include one out of line comment such as a personal attack, surely it makes more sense to edit out the offending remark and leave the valuable content?

Graham,

The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.

Why complicate matters? Next Fall CCC will be 10 years old, which managed to survive with the original charter, simple, clear and effective. Why not sticking to it instead of arguing about the sex of angels?

Enrique

[Marc Lacrosse]

(...)

I have a problem with someone changing my words in any form. I'm less disagreeable to the moderators removing the entire post if they think it is disagreeable. Because then it just disappears. But censorship by deletion is one thing. Censorship by selective redacting is something else. Censorship by changine words selectively is even worse.

I don't want to have to deal with "what level of editing is acceptable?" It's just easier to say "the post stands or it gets deleted in its entirety." That's fairer

(...)

I fully support this, Bob.

... and I hope you will stay and actively participate here for long.

In fact I wish you come back as a moderator.

Marc

[Graham Banks]

when a member writes a long post full of valuable content, but is silly enough to include one out of line comment such as a personal attack, surely it makes more sense to edit out the offending remark and leave the valuable content?

Graham,

The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.

Why complicate matters? Next Fall CCC will be 10 years old, which managed to survive with the original charter, simple, clear and effective. Why not sticking to it instead of arguing about the sex of angels?

Enrique

You're quite correct Enrique.

What happened is that when the CCC went through its first of the recent moves, the agreement of using phpBB forums stated that users were agreeing to the editing or deletion of posts by moderators.

However, the charter itself has never mentioned editing, and it is becoming apparent that the majority of members disagree with the practice also.

Therefore I will no longer edit personal attacks from posts. I'll just the delete the post in its entirety.

It seems that the temporary moving of threads to clean them up is also unpopular, so I'll just delete posts as necessary from now on.

I'm flexible - that was the purpose of putting the polls in the Help and Suggestions subforum.
A collective show is much better than the odd show of discontent.

In contrast, it seems that the practice of locking threads is sometimes seen as necessary.

Regards, Graham.

[Steve B]

Therefore I will no longer edit personal attacks from posts. I'll just the delete the post in its entirety.

It seems that the temporary moving of threads to clean them up is also unpopular, so I'll just delete posts as necessary from now on.

I'm flexible - that was the purpose of putting the polls in the Help and Suggestions subforum.

Regards, Graham.

2 excellent decisions!

i always said these polls were of great value

Regards
Steve

[bob]

when a member writes a long post full of valuable content, but is silly enough to include one out of line comment such as a personal attack, surely it makes more sense to edit out the offending remark and leave the valuable content?

Graham,

The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.

Why complicate matters? Next Fall CCC will be 10 years old, which managed to survive with the original charter, simple, clear and effective. Why not sticking to it instead of arguing about the sex of angels?

Enrique

You're quite correct Enrique.

What happened is that when the CCC went through its first of the recent moves, the agreement of using phpBB forums stated that users were agreeing to the editing or deletion of posts by moderators.

However, the charter itself has never mentioned editing, and it is becoming apparent that the majority of members disagree with the practice also.

Therefore I will no longer edit personal attacks from posts. I'll just the delete the post in its entirety.

It seems that the temporary moving of threads to clean them up is also unpopular, so I'll just delete posts as necessary from now on.

I'm flexible - that was the purpose of putting the polls in the Help and Suggestions subforum.
A collective show is much better than the odd show of discontent.

In contrast, it seems that the practice of locking threads is sometimes seen as necessary.

Regards, Graham.

Locking threads for the "right reasons" has never been a problem. But locking them for frivolous reasons (the thread has gotten too long, the topic has become different from the subject line, etc) is not reasonable. Let the people involved in a thread decide when it is too long, or if a new thread should be spawned.

I'm glad to see your change of heart on the editing. But moderators promising to not edit is not strong enough. We _really_ need that feature disabled completely. There's just too much room for manipulation when someone has that power. The power to delete / ban is more than enough to keep the forum running smoothly.

[swami]

and Swaminathan must have nominated himself

Hi Steve,

To be honest,I wrote "I would like to nominate Graham and myself(Swaminathan)" to Quentin.

I had initially planned to nominate Graham alone, when I read it that one can nominate oneself,I just included my name, and I had wanted to manage the club in a way,more interesting than my prediction contest

Regards and all the best.

I was the first to send an e-mail to Quentin it seems, If I had delayed my self nomination, Dr.Wael, Tony and some of my friends would nominate me, it's just that they were too late.

[swami]

Hi Bob,

Completely agree with you regarding editing and locking the thread.
I'm glad Graham took the right decision about editing and locking the thread it seems, recently moderators in CTF editing one members post was funny you wouldn't believe how that was edited.

Anyway, Why don't you plan to accept the nomination and go for election?You'd make a great moderator because you don't have bias towards anyone.

Regards.

[bob]

Hi Bob,

Completely agree with you regarding editing and locking the thread.
I'm glad Graham took the right decision about editing and locking the thread it seems, recently moderators in CTF editing one members post was funny you wouldn't believe how that was edited.

Anyway, Why don't you plan to accept the nomination and go for election?You'd make a great moderator because you don't have bias towards anyone.

Regards.

My primary reservation about being a moderator is that I have done it a bunch of times already, and "new blood" is always good to promote interest...

I'll give it some thought, but I've not been officially notified I have been nominated so it is moot at present...

[Dirt]

I'll give it some thought, but I've not been officially notified I have been nominated so it is moot at present...

You've been in the list of nominees in the sticky for some time, so if you haven't been officially notified there may be a problem with the process.