Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
"anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected" suggests that it is the elected person who stooped low.
As you were not the only one "elected" it is not clear why you are so determined to cling onto the notion that Sam's comment applied to you. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the past behaviour of one of the other members of your team. If you are not, it makes your comment even more inexplicable.
"seems to cast doubts on my integrity" just means I am one of a few suspects.
The point is that the forum does not exclude me from suspicion after reading Sam's post. I wish to exclude myself (without suspecting anybody either).
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
"anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected" suggests that it is the elected person who stooped low.
Yes, but three were elected. One person was very keen to see you, Jeremy and himself elected.
Yes, I had hoped to see Mathias and Jeremy elected.
I haven't called up any unknown dormant account people to vote for them if that's what you're implying.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
"seems to cast doubts on my integrity" just means I am one of a few suspects.
The point is that the forum does not exclude me from suspicion after reading Sam's post. I wish to exclude myself (without suspecting anybody either).
Matthias.
Matthias, you probably should not entertain this topic anymore. You got the most votes because more people agree with your views and how you've behaved yourself. Congratulations!!!!
michiguel wrote:According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
I have a technical question about the moderation.
In the above post, were the links edited out by Miguel, or by a moderator?
If the links were removed by moderation, here's something for the moderators to consider.
People do not generally take kindly to having their posts modified -- especially so in a technical forum. In most cases, it would probably be better to delete the post, send the poster a copy and ask him to repost it with suggested changes. In the event that you do decide that it is appropriate to modify posts, it is essential that you make it very, very clear that the post was edited my moderation.
There's a fine line between a post and a signature.
michiguel wrote:According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
I have a technical question about the moderation.
In the above post, were the links edited out by Miguel, or by a moderator?
Mods always indicate clearly and in colour if they delete anything.
No mod will edit anything. It either stays or is deleted, not edited.
michiguel wrote:According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
I have a technical question about the moderation.
In the above post, were the links edited out by Miguel, or by a moderator?
Mods always indicate clearly and in colour if they delete anything.
No mod will edit anything. It either stays or is deleted, not edited.
ok
There's a fine line between a post and a signature.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
"seems to cast doubts on my integrity" just means I am one of a few suspects.
The point is that the forum does not exclude me from suspicion after reading Sam's post. I wish to exclude myself (without suspecting anybody either).
Matthias.
I don't think anyone doubts your integrity Matthias. I for one am glad to see someone with significant computer chess programming experience elected.
I also don't see that much wrong with contacting inactive members. I have been contacted before to vote when I was less active, did not see it as wrong then, and have not changed my mind. I do think there is something wrong with having accounts and voting with them of course, but as far as I understand it that is not what anyone is accused of.
michiguel wrote:According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
I have a technical question about the moderation.
In the above post, were the links edited out by Miguel, or by a moderator?
I edited. Sorry, for the confusion, I made it look suspicious.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
"seems to cast doubts on my integrity" just means I am one of a few suspects.
The point is that the forum does not exclude me from suspicion after reading Sam's post. I wish to exclude myself (without suspecting anybody either).
Matthias.
I don't think anyone doubts your integrity Matthias. I for one am glad to see someone with significant computer chess programming experience elected.
I also don't see that much wrong with contacting inactive members. I have been contacted before to vote when I was less active, did not see it as wrong then, and have not changed my mind.-Sam
i agree
Matthias's integrity is above reproach IMHO
i imagine in the past and perhaps even now...certain groups with a particular like minded opinion have always voted in the elections
the major testing groups for example have about 25-30 members combined and i imagine many have voted in the elections probably for candidates with opinions much like their own and i dont think many are very active posters here
and it is perfectly right for them to do so
in addition there are long time members who come here often to read and some of those do not post very often
as long as the qualifications for voting have been met.. i dont see there is any issue with these election results or results in the past..on either forum
the qualifications to vote go back to 1997
Steve
meschle wrote:
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.
