July moderator elections - new format

[Hood]

Hi,

i think that that team election can be the start of the end.
but we do have open-chess.org as asilum

Having 'differrent' moderators was a chance that the differences between posters will be accepted and supported. The fact that mods have different opinions was positive in reality. It allowed the forum to survive the years.
Method has been checked and proven. The last 'accidents' shall not change that tradition.

It may be difficult for the posters to form the teams but it will be easier for people connected by business matters to form it.
Ie. team leaded by HW will shut the mouths of the posters.

I think that we can save the situation demanding the candidates to be not involved in any chess business making money nor be employed there.

Rgds
Hood

[Steve B]

No matter which sides team wins the election, the other side is not happy with it. So you gonna devide the CCC into two parties, even more than it is now.

The only problem right now is that one mod did not work together with the other mods. It's not the fault of the "system", it's the fault of us, the users. We elected the wrong mod. It was obvious that a moderator with a fanatic opinion in the clone question (no matter pro/contra) will destroy the CCC, and we elected him. Not me btw...

Unfortunately the owner of the forum reacted too late, and in the wrong way. Well done all...

well what you say is true
one mod put his personal opinion above the interests of the forum and above the interests of the voting members
however the system is set up in a way that it is assumed that the 3 elected mods will work together for the overall good of the forum
every mod team i know(and was a part of) used the common sense approach of majority rule
this is simply not the case this term and so we have had nothing but havoc
at least with a team who all agree on the big issues there will be some sort of peace and quiet to make posts about computer chess

perhaps we can go with a team approach until the Derivatives issues are settled one day and then back to the individual candidate system

i say lets give it a try for once

i dont see us having anything to lose..the board is divided now and will be regardless of the voting system used

Regards
Steve

[M ANSARI]

That is a good idea as there is nothing more disturbing that seeing infighting among the moderators. This way each team can decide on a moderation platform and we get to vote on that.

[PawnStormZ]

Hi Sam.

No system will ever be "perfect", but what you have outlined about "teams" seems to be much better than the current situation. In politics, having opposing sides "working together" does provide for checks and balances, but often causes the kind of fighting and "stalemates" that we have seen here lately.

I think that letting the membership decide on the policy direction through a like-minded (or at least similar enough to want to work together) moderation team is the best solution to the current issues.


I am sorry that as a new member, with only a handful of posts, I will not be able to participate, but I agree with your reasons. I am willing to be left out if it eliminates the "ballot-stuffing" that goes on using fake accounts.


Good luck in sorting this out!

[JWorcester]

No matter which sides team wins the election, the other side is not happy with it. So you gonna devide the CCC into two parties, even more than it is now.

The only problem right now is that one mod did not work together with the other mods. It's not the fault of the "system", it's the fault of us, the users. We elected the wrong mod. It was obvious that a moderator with a fanatic opinion in the clone question (no matter pro/contra) will destroy the CCC, and we elected him. Not me btw...

Unfortunately the owner of the forum reacted too late, and in the wrong way. Well done all...

well what you say is true
one mod put his personal opinion above the interests of the forum and above the interests of the voting members
however the system is set up in a way that it is assumed that the 3 elected mods will work together for the overall good of the forum
every mod team i know(and was a part of) used the common sense approach of majority rule
this is simply not the case this term and so we have had nothing but havoc
at least with a team who all agree on the big issues there will be some sort of peace and quiet to make posts about computer chess

perhaps we can go with a team approach until the Derivatives issues are settled one day and then back to the individual candidate system

i say lets give it a try for once

i dont see us having anything to lose..the board is divided now and will be regardless of the voting system used

Regards
Steve

No one is ever completely happy in a vote. However I would still favor an individual approach rather than a team one. Put it this way, Graham's term as a moderator this time around has exposed how polarised his stance is and no doubt lost him the respect of quite a few middle of the road members (me included) who have no strong views about the derivatives issue.

If you have a team of moderators with the same stance and if the censors win, there will be zero balance in check to stop them wreaking havoc and closing down discussions. I would rather see some dissension between the moderators than an all out hardcore where you toe the line or you're out. At least in the former we have debate. A forum where we're all yay-sayers would be a boring place indeed.

P.S. 40-60 posts? I guess I better start posting ditto

[wolfv]

Oh, my... you sound so Orwellian, Big-Brother look-alike. Nothing could be more disturbing than having uniformness and lack of diversity. But, from what I've seen so far here, reading posts every now and then, this is the real you, unflinchingly sticking to one and the same position, never willing to see things from a different angle and, possibly, in a different light.

If I were to look for a counterpart of what is going on here in the movies, this forum might well be renamed to "Road to Perdition" and you are now aware of it, are you.

[Peter Berger]

Sam Hull was never interested in computerchess in these ancient days .

He participated at CTF ( and yes, to answer what somewhere else was asked: CTF was just as public as CCC some time ago.

His alleged brother Matthew was a prominent poster there, but Sam Hull was a rather irrelevant contributor IMHO.

My forum break served as kind of a time travel experience: to suddenly see "Sam Hull" as somehow relevant person on this board came as quite a surprise to me. When he was a regular member, the only topics he ever was able to contribute to was evangelical Christianism.

Peter

[Dan Honeycutt]

His alleged brother Matthew ...

Peter, can you support "alleged" with any evidence?

Best
Dan H.

[Peter Berger]

His alleged brother Matthew ...

Peter, can you support "alleged" with any evidence?

Best
Dan H.

That's so funny. Your mistakes *always* come back to haunt you. I read my own message 3 minutes ago and thought: "OK, you may have been a bit drunk when you wrote this, but this is an absolutely fair account of things except for this brother thingy."

OK, I apologize for my message then. I have no reason whatsoever not to believe that Sam and Matthew Hull are brothers, which is probably rather irrelevant for most, but you were right to point out my mistake.

Peter

[dj]

Hood wrote:

The fact that mods have different opinions was positive in reality. It allowed the forum to survive the years.
Method has been checked and proven. The last 'accidents' shall not change that tradition.

You are in error in supposing that problems have appeared only in the current moderation period. Divisions have not affected every CCC and CTF mod team in the past three years but they have affected all too many. Have you forgotten Thorsten Czub? And it is not long since the CCC mods dismissed the CTF mods and called an election within a month of the previous one. That is why a number of us having been campaigning for teams for several years.