Unfair Poll

[Guenther]

What would there be to run for if there is no more CTF? But if candidates insist, I would not try to prevent them running for moderator-of-nothing. I would probably withdraw from such an election myself, though.

IMO it was a bit premature to call for elections before the survey even closed (which was today) and a final count could be made. But we will see what is decided.

Odd to put this in public, you as the spokeman for Sam (as you often claimed) while the election is already running, but in the end Sam (as only elected moderator) is end responsible for putting you in a position of power and he should have removed you a long time ago.

Why would those “in power” announce elections, call for democratically selected moderator candidates, whilst simultaneously keep open the option to terminate the elections? Well, that’s pretty obvious, if those “in power” don’t like the democratically selected mod candidates, or think that ones they don’t like will get elected, then they’ll cancel the elections. What else game are they playing?

What candidates do those “in power” not like? Well that’s pretty obvious too. Any who have spoken on the topic of whether the computer chess forums should be ultimately under control of the shop, or those who have questioned the long reign and non-elect status of the TCAdmin, or even asked the question, who actually is it that is the owner of the 200 share certificates that own the shop.
This whole topic is not really about CTF at all, it’s about removing all possible danger to the shop-forums status for benefit of shop by moving gradually to no elections at all and closing the one part of the site where any “opposition” could take place.
So, it’s actually about democracy and the shop/admin power of controlling the software switches via a vis the original concept of the forums as a community asset where the community organised and ruled itself. These forums are only “special” because they are community based forums. But they are also on the shop site and the shop controls the all important switches. That’s the contradiction.

Well, may be I should remember you to this post of yours, just one day old?
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p868730

Obviously the elections already (were) started before anyone was knowing, who is allowed to vote/being voted at all?
Also I think that a member of one camp now should be responsible to *compile that list*, seems a bit strange, no?
IMHO this are signs of a premature start, don't you think so?

The list should be double-checked by other people too and made available to the public I guess before more damage is done.

[chrisw]

What would there be to run for if there is no more CTF? But if candidates insist, I would not try to prevent them running for moderator-of-nothing. I would probably withdraw from such an election myself, though.

IMO it was a bit premature to call for elections before the survey even closed (which was today) and a final count could be made. But we will see what is decided.

Odd to put this in public, you as the spokeman for Sam (as you often claimed) while the election is already running, but in the end Sam (as only elected moderator) is end responsible for putting you in a position of power and he should have removed you a long time ago.

Why would those “in power” announce elections, call for democratically selected moderator candidates, whilst simultaneously keep open the option to terminate the elections? Well, that’s pretty obvious, if those “in power” don’t like the democratically selected mod candidates, or think that ones they don’t like will get elected, then they’ll cancel the elections. What else game are they playing?

What candidates do those “in power” not like? Well that’s pretty obvious too. Any who have spoken on the topic of whether the computer chess forums should be ultimately under control of the shop, or those who have questioned the long reign and non-elect status of the TCAdmin, or even asked the question, who actually is it that is the owner of the 200 share certificates that own the shop.
This whole topic is not really about CTF at all, it’s about removing all possible danger to the shop-forums status for benefit of shop by moving gradually to no elections at all and closing the one part of the site where any “opposition” could take place.
So, it’s actually about democracy and the shop/admin power of controlling the software switches via a vis the original concept of the forums as a community asset where the community organised and ruled itself. These forums are only “special” because they are community based forums. But they are also on the shop site and the shop controls the all important switches. That’s the contradiction.

Well, may be I should remember you to this post of yours, just one day old?
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p868730

Obviously the elections already (were) started before anyone was knowing, who is allowed to vote/being voted at all?
Also I think that a member of one camp now should be responsible to *compile that list*, seems a bit strange, no?
IMHO this are signs of a premature start, don't you think so?

The list should be double-checked by other people too and made available to the public I guess before more damage is done.

Already covered. My offer was also to make the list-compile software public on GitHub as Python source code for cross-checking/recompiling/running by anyone who wanted. Parameters of the compilation were public agreed in open discussion. Anything that is completely open in that way is by definition fully democratic.
See post below:

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic. ... 20#p867266

I’m not really in a camp, Guenther. My only interest is 1) correct analysis of what is really going on and 2) to argue that any process is community democratic.
In practice this is all moot, because Sam didn’t respond in the end and announced elections via normal method instead. I guess he fixed the software problems on voting that were the reason for the offer to pull the data out of the site by web scraping and compile a list to agreed parameters in the first place.
Which is just as well, because if I am going to get to be accused of “cheating the list compile” when actually I go out of my way to make the compile as open as possible, with full transparency and verifiability, then I adopt my general policy here to do NOTHING since anything positive anybody does is almost invariably attacked in this kind of mean way. Thanks for the reminder, Guenther.

[Guenther]

Well, may be I should remember you to this post of yours, just one day old?
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p868730

Obviously the elections already (were) started before anyone was knowing, who is allowed to vote/being voted at all?
Also I think that a member of one camp now should be responsible to *compile that list*, seems a bit strange, no?
IMHO this are signs of a premature start, don't you think so?

The list should be double-checked by other people too and made available to the public I guess before more damage is done.

Already covered. My offer was also to make the list-compile software public on GitHub as Python source code for cross-checking/recompiling/running by anyone who wanted. Parameters of the compilation were public agreed in open discussion. Anything that is completely open in that way is by definition fully democratic.
See post below:

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic. ... 20#p867266

I’m not really in a camp, Guenther. My only interest is 1) correct analysis of what is really going on and 2) to argue that any process is community democratic.
In practice this is all moot, because Sam didn’t respond in the end and announced elections via normal method instead. I guess he fixed the software problems on voting that were the reason for the offer to pull the data out of the site by web scraping and compile a list to agreed parameters in the first place.
Which is just as well, because if I am going to get to be accused of “cheating the list compile” when actually I go out of my way to make the compile as open as possible, with full transparency and verifiability, then I adopt my general policy here to do NOTHING since anything positive anybody does is almost invariably attacked in this kind of mean way. Thanks for the reminder, Guenther.

Sounds good. Of course I only wanted to show potential issues and a kind of hastiness going on (suddenly).
After nothing has happened for so long, even this is understandable though, as Sam probably wants to get ridd off extra tasks and this elections finally.

This was not intended as a premature 'cheating accusation' :)

[chrisw]

Well, may be I should remember you to this post of yours, just one day old?
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 00#p868730

Obviously the elections already (were) started before anyone was knowing, who is allowed to vote/being voted at all?
Also I think that a member of one camp now should be responsible to *compile that list*, seems a bit strange, no?
IMHO this are signs of a premature start, don't you think so?

The list should be double-checked by other people too and made available to the public I guess before more damage is done.

Already covered. My offer was also to make the list-compile software public on GitHub as Python source code for cross-checking/recompiling/running by anyone who wanted. Parameters of the compilation were public agreed in open discussion. Anything that is completely open in that way is by definition fully democratic.
See post below:

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic. ... 20#p867266

I’m not really in a camp, Guenther. My only interest is 1) correct analysis of what is really going on and 2) to argue that any process is community democratic.
In practice this is all moot, because Sam didn’t respond in the end and announced elections via normal method instead. I guess he fixed the software problems on voting that were the reason for the offer to pull the data out of the site by web scraping and compile a list to agreed parameters in the first place.
Which is just as well, because if I am going to get to be accused of “cheating the list compile” when actually I go out of my way to make the compile as open as possible, with full transparency and verifiability, then I adopt my general policy here to do NOTHING since anything positive anybody does is almost invariably attacked in this kind of mean way. Thanks for the reminder, Guenther.

Sounds good. Of course I only wanted to show potential issues and a kind of hastiness going on (suddenly).
After nothing has happened for so long, even this is understandable though, as Sam probably wants to get ridd off extra tasks and this elections finally.

This was not intended as a premature 'cheating accusation'

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
I guess the hastiness comes from those who operate behind closed doors, coupled with statements of what will happen from one of those operators and the negating opposite from another. In practice now, nobody can know if an election go-ahead is happening or not. I personally have no idea even if my account would exist for the next time I log in, it's been threatened so many times now, in public, that's not a feeling I've had before. I also have no idea whether CTF will just be vapourised one morning, that's also been threatened many times.
The reality is the contradiction referred in prior posting. Those "in power" want to get rid of pesky elections which from time to time threaten to upset things and challenge the base of what HGM calls "power", whilst at same time, it's the elections and community control, or potential community control, or original community control which makes this particular set of computer chess forums "special". The interest of the shop is to maintain the "special" narrative whilst also eliminating the actual threat of community control which, for example, could take the forums elsewhere. The contradiction has been left unresolved, quietly in the background, by the expedient of having no elections for four years, but like all contradictions, one day it emerges in reality, in this case, because half the four year sell-by date moderators more or less just removed themselves and, same time, Daniel Shawul, black chess engine programmer, became troubled by racism he encountered on CTF and offered himself as a route to deal with this. And yes, I know you are on record as stating this ten years too late. Maybe. Then again maybe not. I tend to a natural optimism.

[Sam Hull]

I guess the hastiness comes from those who operate behind closed doors, coupled with statements of what will happen from one of those operators and the negating opposite from another. In practice now, nobody can know if an election go-ahead is happening or not. I personally have no idea even if my account would exist for the next time I log in, it's been threatened so many times now, in public, that's not a feeling I've had before. I also have no idea whether CTF will just be vapourised one morning, that's also been threatened many times.
The reality is the contradiction referred in prior posting. Those "in power" want to get rid of pesky elections which from time to time threaten to upset things and challenge the base of what HGM calls "power", whilst at same time, it's the elections and community control, or potential community control, or original community control which makes this particular set of computer chess forums "special". The interest of the shop is to maintain the "special" narrative whilst also eliminating the actual threat of community control which, for example, could take the forums elsewhere. The contradiction has been left unresolved, quietly in the background, by the expedient of having no elections for four years, but like all contradictions, one day it emerges in reality, in this case, because half the four year sell-by date moderators more or less just removed themselves and, same time, Daniel Shawul, black chess engine programmer, became troubled by racism he encountered on CTF and offered himself as a route to deal with this. And yes, I know you are on record as stating this ten years too late. Maybe. Then again maybe not. I tend to a natural optimism.

You spin this narrative out of some pretty thin yarn. All the steps for evaluating the options for CTF and carrying out an election have been done with the full participation of the remaining elected moderators, with discussions, suggestions, and surveys in full view of the membership. Your contributions were accepted and included in the election polling plan to the fullest extent possible, as were those of several others.

There is zero "interest of the shop" in doing away with community control, or whatever the hell you're imagining. The whole reason they asked me to do the admin job here was to put as much distance between Talkchess and themselves as they could. They don't know and don't want to know what goes on here. In the last 13-odd years there has been exactly ONE login here by the owner to request donations for the cost of the software upgrade. These weird perverse scenarios of yours come from a dark place unrelated to reality.

As I have explained numerous times, previous attempts to hold moderator elections failed for lack of interest on both sides of the board (two years running), followed by a loss of the ability to run them at all after the upgrade to this version (another two years). During the latter two years there was no call from mods or members for elections at all until a few months ago; at that point I clearly stated the problems that needed to be solved. Your unkind insinuation about "expedient" motives behind the four year hiatus reflects a lack of attention to previously communicated, easily verifiable facts. Go back and read the expired nomination threads, not enough candidates,virtually no individuals or teams interested.

Last time I checked, there is nothing democratic about one member pushing himself forward to be an unelected moderator, programmer or not. Nobody at that time who applauded this self-appointment bothered to tackle the genuine problems involved in holding a fair and legitimate election under current conditions. There was somebody who enlisted the support of the CCC moderators and requested help from the membership to work around those multiple significant obstacles, ultimately getting new elections underway, and you're reading a post from him now.

The only potential impediment to elections at this point is your seeming intention to renege on creating the eligible voter list which was to be published and used to ensure the integrity of the vote. It was your suggestion, and it was incorporated as a key piece of the plan. Have you changed your mind?

-Sam-

[hgm]

Ever since the dawn of humanity inability to grasp underlying causal relations between observed facts has led to the origin of superstitions.

It is just a minor disadvantage of our instinctive drive to understand nature, which otherwise has been the key to success of the human species.

[chrisw]

I guess the hastiness comes from those who operate behind closed doors, coupled with statements of what will happen from one of those operators and the negating opposite from another. In practice now, nobody can know if an election go-ahead is happening or not. I personally have no idea even if my account would exist for the next time I log in, it's been threatened so many times now, in public, that's not a feeling I've had before. I also have no idea whether CTF will just be vapourised one morning, that's also been threatened many times.
The reality is the contradiction referred in prior posting. Those "in power" want to get rid of pesky elections which from time to time threaten to upset things and challenge the base of what HGM calls "power", whilst at same time, it's the elections and community control, or potential community control, or original community control which makes this particular set of computer chess forums "special". The interest of the shop is to maintain the "special" narrative whilst also eliminating the actual threat of community control which, for example, could take the forums elsewhere. The contradiction has been left unresolved, quietly in the background, by the expedient of having no elections for four years, but like all contradictions, one day it emerges in reality, in this case, because half the four year sell-by date moderators more or less just removed themselves and, same time, Daniel Shawul, black chess engine programmer, became troubled by racism he encountered on CTF and offered himself as a route to deal with this. And yes, I know you are on record as stating this ten years too late. Maybe. Then again maybe not. I tend to a natural optimism.

You spin this narrative out of some pretty thin yarn. All the steps for evaluating the options for CTF and carrying out an election have been done with the full participation of the remaining elected moderators, with discussions, suggestions, and surveys in full view of the membership. Your contributions were accepted and included in the election polling plan to the fullest extent possible, as were those of several others.

There is zero "interest of the shop" in doing away with community control, or whatever the hell you're imagining. The whole reason they asked me to do the admin job here was to put as much distance between Talkchess and themselves as they could. They don't know and don't want to know what goes on here. In the last 13-odd years there has been exactly ONE login here by the owner to request donations for the cost of the software upgrade. These weird perverse scenarios of yours come from a dark place unrelated to reality.

As I have explained numerous times, previous attempts to hold moderator elections failed for lack of interest on both sides of the board (two years running), followed by a loss of the ability to run them at all after the upgrade to this version (another two years). During the latter two years there was no call from mods or members for elections at all until a few months ago; at that point I clearly stated the problems that needed to be solved. Your unkind insinuation about "expedient" motives behind the four year hiatus reflects a lack of attention to previously communicated, easily verifiable facts. Go back and read the expired nomination threads, not enough candidates,virtually no individuals or teams interested.

Last time I checked, there is nothing democratic about one member pushing himself forward to be an unelected moderator, programmer or not. Nobody at that time who applauded this self-appointment bothered to tackle the genuine problems involved in holding a fair and legitimate election under current conditions. There was somebody who enlisted the support of the CCC moderators and requested help from the membership to work around those multiple significant obstacles, ultimately getting new elections underway, and you're reading a post from him now.

The only potential impediment to elections at this point is your seeming intention to renege on creating the eligible voter list which was to be published and used to ensure the integrity of the vote. It was your suggestion, and it was incorporated as a key piece of the plan. Have you changed your mind?

-Sam-

We got as far in proposal, counter proposals as to be in agreement points 2 to 7, with point 1 on counter-proposal. You didn’t respond, then announced a format which was a “no” to counter proposal point 1.
I assumed that’s just the way you terminate negotiations and assumed you’ld found a way to make election process yourself. Fine, no problem. Not really my style of way to negotiate but each to his own.
You’ll note also my earlier condition that this was all dependent on an assurance I was not wasting my time, and that involved an assurance of a CTF election process and a goodwill operation of it. But, running parallel to Sam Hull with one face, was a second face, that of appointed proxy HGM, who was busy “exerting power”, threatening me (also Ed, Laskos and Milos) with banning immediate, deletions, arbitrary forum closure without election, insulting (serious insulting), granted power by YOU to do whatever unlawful by charter act he wanted with 100% immunity, granted by YOU. Threats to close the forum by unlawful by charter throwing if software switches remain open. Sam Hull in second face had not asserted this unlawful by charter act is not going to happen. YOU have the power to assert that the only power a moderator has to flick switches on postings or posters is if those postings/posters break the charter. YOU are not acting in defence of what is charter lawful or not, you just stand aside while proxy face two continues with his threats.

I’m not at all sure who I’m dealing with here. Sam Hull face one, or Sam Hull face two, and I can only assume face two is the real face. So, no, Sam Hull face one broke the positive proposal counter proposal negotiation process, and Sam Hull face two continues with threats and threats to act unlawfully, and I’m not supporting what, on the evidence, is an attempted coup d’Etat here. Negotiations and proposals are not promises, they only become promises if they go to conclusion. These ones didn’t, they could have but they didn’t. The break was yours, you own it.

[Sam Hull]

I guess the hastiness comes from those who operate behind closed doors, coupled with statements of what will happen from one of those operators and the negating opposite from another. In practice now, nobody can know if an election go-ahead is happening or not. I personally have no idea even if my account would exist for the next time I log in, it's been threatened so many times now, in public, that's not a feeling I've had before. I also have no idea whether CTF will just be vapourised one morning, that's also been threatened many times.
The reality is the contradiction referred in prior posting. Those "in power" want to get rid of pesky elections which from time to time threaten to upset things and challenge the base of what HGM calls "power", whilst at same time, it's the elections and community control, or potential community control, or original community control which makes this particular set of computer chess forums "special". The interest of the shop is to maintain the "special" narrative whilst also eliminating the actual threat of community control which, for example, could take the forums elsewhere. The contradiction has been left unresolved, quietly in the background, by the expedient of having no elections for four years, but like all contradictions, one day it emerges in reality, in this case, because half the four year sell-by date moderators more or less just removed themselves and, same time, Daniel Shawul, black chess engine programmer, became troubled by racism he encountered on CTF and offered himself as a route to deal with this. And yes, I know you are on record as stating this ten years too late. Maybe. Then again maybe not. I tend to a natural optimism.

You spin this narrative out of some pretty thin yarn. All the steps for evaluating the options for CTF and carrying out an election have been done with the full participation of the remaining elected moderators, with discussions, suggestions, and surveys in full view of the membership. Your contributions were accepted and included in the election polling plan to the fullest extent possible, as were those of several others.

There is zero "interest of the shop" in doing away with community control, or whatever the hell you're imagining. The whole reason they asked me to do the admin job here was to put as much distance between Talkchess and themselves as they could. They don't know and don't want to know what goes on here. In the last 13-odd years there has been exactly ONE login here by the owner to request donations for the cost of the software upgrade. These weird perverse scenarios of yours come from a dark place unrelated to reality.

As I have explained numerous times, previous attempts to hold moderator elections failed for lack of interest on both sides of the board (two years running), followed by a loss of the ability to run them at all after the upgrade to this version (another two years). During the latter two years there was no call from mods or members for elections at all until a few months ago; at that point I clearly stated the problems that needed to be solved. Your unkind insinuation about "expedient" motives behind the four year hiatus reflects a lack of attention to previously communicated, easily verifiable facts. Go back and read the expired nomination threads, not enough candidates,virtually no individuals or teams interested.

Last time I checked, there is nothing democratic about one member pushing himself forward to be an unelected moderator, programmer or not. Nobody at that time who applauded this self-appointment bothered to tackle the genuine problems involved in holding a fair and legitimate election under current conditions. There was somebody who enlisted the support of the CCC moderators and requested help from the membership to work around those multiple significant obstacles, ultimately getting new elections underway, and you're reading a post from him now.

The only potential impediment to elections at this point is your seeming intention to renege on creating the eligible voter list which was to be published and used to ensure the integrity of the vote. It was your suggestion, and it was incorporated as a key piece of the plan. Have you changed your mind?

-Sam-

We got as far in proposal, counter proposals as to be in agreement points 2 to 7, with point 1 on counter-proposal. You didn’t respond, then announced a format which was a “no” to counter proposal point 1.
I assumed that’s just the way you terminate negotiations and assumed you’ld found a way to make election process yourself. Fine, no problem. Not really my style of way to negotiate but each to his own.
You’ll note also my earlier condition that this was all dependent on an assurance I was not wasting my time, and that involved an assurance of a CTF election process and a goodwill operation of it. But, running parallel to Sam Hull with one face, was a second face, that of appointed proxy HGM, who was busy “exerting power”, threatening me (also Ed, Laskos and Milos) with banning immediate, deletions, arbitrary forum closure without election, insulting (serious insulting), granted power by YOU to do whatever unlawful by charter act he wanted with 100% immunity, granted by YOU. Threats to close the forum by unlawful by charter throwing if software switches remain open. Sam Hull in second face had not asserted this unlawful by charter act is not going to happen. YOU have the power to assert that the only power a moderator has to flick switches on postings or posters is if those postings/posters break the charter. YOU are not acting in defence of what is charter lawful or not, you just stand aside while proxy face two continues with his threats.

I’m not at all sure who I’m dealing with here. Sam Hull face one, or Sam Hull face two, and I can only assume face two is the real face. So, no, Sam Hull face one broke the positive proposal counter proposal negotiation process, and Sam Hull face two continues with threats and threats to act unlawfully, and I’m not supporting what, on the evidence, is an attempted coup d’Etat here. Negotiations and proposals are not promises, they only become promises if they go to conclusion. These ones didn’t, they could have but they didn’t. The break was yours, you own it.

Rubbish, and thanks for nothing; we'll do without your list.

Elections will be held next week. Votes will be posted via PM to a special account for that purpose where they will be counted by me and cross-checked by a couple of non-mod volunteers who will be given the password for it. I will publish who votes (not how they vote) in an open thread where the membership can object to any listed voter based on standard eligibility criteria used in the past. Any controversial case will be decided by current CCC moderators who won't know how the person voted.

-Sam-

[hgm]

As a small reminder to CCC members who don't know what this is about, because they have not followed the original discussion on CTF:

This point 1 that Chris wanted to 'negociate' (perhaps extort would be a more accurate description...) concerned exclusion of members that only post in CCC from the CTF moderator election. By offering the 'help' for vetting the CCC posters only after the CTF election would have taken place. This was of course a non-sequitor. But for Chris not getting his way on that count is apparently enough to withdraw his offer for vetting the voters.

We can only conclude that Chris' offer to help was never genuine, but only intended as an aid to realize his agenda: railroading the majority of the TalkChess members out of the CTF election.

Below you will see the original discussion, enjoy:

Thanks for mentioning this post above, it scrolled away so fast I missed it in the clutter. My opinions:

I’d like to know, plus some points ..

1. To what use will the resulting list be put. CTF election? CCC election? Any other form of referendum? Time frame?

As I said to Ed (or somebody somewhere) we have always run the regular elections for both sides of the board at the same time, with the same eligible voters, so ideally those who meet the agreed-on parameters would be qualified to vote in either or both of the elections. This of course means their activity wouldn't be measured on only one side. We also cut the number of PMs in half by letting choices for both forums be sent in one message.

That dual-PM would represent a fundamental change over past. Past has a vote here, from this candidate list, thread for CCC on CCC, and a vote here, from this other candidate list, on CTF. The voting is separate and there's no real reason for CCC voters to go to CTF and separately vote, not vice versa. They can if they want but the two processes are apart.

Your proposal puts the vote process into the same space and makes much more likely cross-voting (for want of a better expression) that in past precedents. HGM is constantly arguing for CCC to come and crush CTF or however the latest violent language he frames it, and same space voting undoubtedly biases to the crushing required cross-voting.

I would argue therefore, for keeping the processes separate, and I was really offering to help out re getting CTF elections going. I'm okay with helping filter lists for CCC at a later stage.

[Sam Hull]

As a small reminder to CCC members who don't know what this is about, because they have not followed the original discussion on CTF:

This point 1 that Chris wanted to 'negociate' (perhaps extort would be a more accurate description...) concerned exclusion of members that only post in CCC from the CTF moderator election. By offering the 'help' for vetting the CCC posters only after the CTF election would have taken place. This was of course a non-sequitor. But for Chris not getting his way on that count is apparently enough to withdraw his offer for vetting the voters.

We can only conclude that Chris' offer to help was never genuine, but only intended as an aid to realize his agenda: railroading the majority of the TalkChess members out of the CTF election.

Below you will see the original discussion, enjoy:

Thanks for mentioning this post above, it scrolled away so fast I missed it in the clutter. My opinions:

I’d like to know, plus some points ..

1. To what use will the resulting list be put. CTF election? CCC election? Any other form of referendum? Time frame?

As I said to Ed (or somebody somewhere) we have always run the regular elections for both sides of the board at the same time, with the same eligible voters, so ideally those who meet the agreed-on parameters would be qualified to vote in either or both of the elections. This of course means their activity wouldn't be measured on only one side. We also cut the number of PMs in half by letting choices for both forums be sent in one message.

That dual-PM would represent a fundamental change over past. Past has a vote here, from this candidate list, thread for CCC on CCC, and a vote here, from this other candidate list, on CTF. The voting is separate and there's no real reason for CCC voters to go to CTF and separately vote, not vice versa. They can if they want but the two processes are apart.

Your proposal puts the vote process into the same space and makes much more likely cross-voting (for want of a better expression) that in past precedents. HGM is constantly arguing for CCC to come and crush CTF or however the latest violent language he frames it, and same space voting undoubtedly biases to the crushing required cross-voting.

I would argue therefore, for keeping the processes separate, and I was really offering to help out re getting CTF elections going. I'm okay with helping filter lists for CCC at a later stage.

I will also point out that for nearly ten years on the old text board we voted for moderators by email to Steve at ICD, and the current plan to vote by PM is not much different. Generally better sense of community and trust in those days, I think ...

-Sam-