Unfair Poll

[A Distel]

Alright, I see the thread is still here and so I take the liberty to write something that hopefully makes (some) sense.

The CTF forum was founded a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and because of that immediately was flooded after the terrorists flew two planes in the twin towers, emotions ran high. It's said that politics can ruin life time friendships. CTF (contrary to CCC) often is about sensitive issues, politics and religion always were the 2 top sensitive issues and quite recently immigrants and notable also racism (!) made its ugly entry. I thought that in our modern 21th century way of thinking there is no place for racism any longer but after the tragic death of George Floyd I learned otherwise and for quite some time CTF became an unbearable place. There were rightful voices who loudly were complaining against this filth, even wanted to become moderator and clean the place.

In the past I ran for CTF moderator 2 or 3 times, last time 12 years ago, or so. What I learned, you can not wait till people start to press the complaint button, that's maybe works for CCC, in CTF moderators need to actively monitor the forum on a daily base and act, put the fire out before it becomes unmanageable. The 3 mods can decide to divide the days they are active if there is a need for it. This did not happen during the last CTF period, moderators expected that people are responsible themselves and hit the complaint button, it did not work.

Several people offered their help to clean the place, there is a will among the members to improve. I want to make the following suggestion, give the CTF members a short time to sort out their problems, come up with a trio that is united, actively monitors the forum on a daily base and is not afraid to act, strictly following the charter.

Thanks for your attention.

I think you do not really want others to have freedom to say what they want, you just want others to be given the freedom to say what you want to hear.
You want a forum where the Left-wing have the right to express their opinion and have others listen to it....
Let's call it LTF.

[Rebel]

Alright, I see the thread is still here and so I take the liberty to write something that hopefully makes (some) sense.

The CTF forum was founded a couple of months before the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and because of that immediately was flooded after the terrorists flew two planes in the twin towers, emotions ran high. It's said that politics can ruin life time friendships. CTF (contrary to CCC) often is about sensitive issues, politics and religion always were the 2 top sensitive issues and quite recently immigrants and notable also racism (!) made its ugly entry. I thought that in our modern 21th century way of thinking there is no place for racism any longer but after the tragic death of George Floyd I learned otherwise and for quite some time CTF became an unbearable place. There were rightful voices who loudly were complaining against this filth, even wanted to become moderator and clean the place.

In the past I ran for CTF moderator 2 or 3 times, last time 12 years ago, or so. What I learned, you can not wait till people start to press the complaint button, that's maybe works for CCC, in CTF moderators need to actively monitor the forum on a daily base and act, put the fire out before it becomes unmanageable. The 3 mods can decide to divide the days they are active if there is a need for it. This did not happen during the last CTF period, moderators expected that people are responsible themselves and hit the complaint button, it did not work.

Several people offered their help to clean the place, there is a will among the members to improve. I want to make the following suggestion, give the CTF members a short time to sort out their problems, come up with a trio that is united, actively monitors the forum on a daily base and is not afraid to act, strictly following the charter.

Thanks for your attention.

I think you do not really want others to have freedom to say what they want, you just want others to be given the freedom to say what you want to hear.
You want a forum where the Left-wing have the right to express their opinion and have others listen to it....
Let's call it LTF.

Nope, the charter says nothing about left or right wing, it does say, don't insult.

[chrisw]

Sorry, not interested in discussion here

From your start posting in this very thread:

I am asking permission to discuss the CTF survey poll here in CCC

You asked for permission to discuss, only to reveal that you are not interested in discussion. What's next - promoting democracy by stripping most voters of their voting rights? Oh, that's already done, nevermind.

It's not fair to claim Ed proposes voting rights of anybody be stripped.

There have been no moderator elections on either forum for four years, prior to that, it was every six months. Reasons given are
a) member list contains dupe accounts, fake accounts, possible vote-stuffing accounts and its a task to weed out and whittle down the list for actual voting, also including post-count as a factor. This weeding out is a long term policy used here btw.
b) the actual polling software is broken, its too much hassle to fix, so an actual vote by the historical method can't be held anyway.

CTF has had one moderator vanish some time ago, and a second one withdrew around the time Daniel Shawul offered himself as moderator in a to-be-held election, several months ago. This option was rejected.

Principally this lack of mods is a CTF problem, and Ed Schroeder has proposed a solution to get round the member list and polling problems, by suggesting to make a vote by PM process, compiling an 'active poster' list by searching/trawling CTF posts. HGM has proposed a secure method of PM post counting and validation by use of a simple password. I've proposed extending the active poster list with those active CCC posters who made also some minimal count of CTF postings. I can count all these in any parameters agreed using webscrape software (would be open published for verification) for the forums I already wrote last year or so. Because voting has to be by PM (polls are otherwise broken) probably total voting poster list needs to be kept to a workable number, I'm not sure what that number ought to be, polls in the past, I think, are voted on by not actually that many people.

I find Ed's proposals to have taken into account all stated problems and to be entirely fair and entirely sensible. I don't think 'active posters' is set in stone, and it ought to be possible to agree in general on how to define this group.

[Ras]

It's not fair to claim Ed proposes voting rights of anybody be stripped.

But that's what it is, a back-handed attempt at a change that nobody has agreed to - except those who would profit from that. Every TC member has voting rights in all of the TC forums, period. If the claim is that CTF is some out-of-area thing where this doesn't apply, then go all the way and host it somewhere else.

Even if seen with the benefit of doubt, the underlying assumption that CCC members wouldn't "know" CTF is downright wrong. They do know, all too well, which is why "nuke CTF" is currently at about 60% of the votes - and that already includes unclear votes counted as virtual option 4.

[Damir]

Lets make a pool how many want to get rid off CCC. The pool should be striclty made in CTF forum, where only CTF contributors can vote...

[chrisw]

It's not fair to claim Ed proposes voting rights of anybody be stripped.

But that's what it is, a back-handed attempt at a change that nobody has agreed to

Actually, it’s a call for long overdue and needed moderator elections. There’s no back-handing involved. I don’t even think Ed is proposing to stand as a moderator, I’m certainly not. You should read it as a call for democracy, and in the ensuing democratic process, a call for CTF voters to sort out how they going to behave in future.
You did read the tcadmins stated problems with the member list and on-site polling? Ed is proposing a solution to the problem, it may not work, but then again it may, this is the first time that CTF posters and moderators have been faced with the reality of their malfunctioning. I think I can guarantee they are going to sort themselves out, if they don’t then chop by all means.
Whatever, they need an election process.

- except those who would profit from that. Every TC member has voting rights in all of the TC forums, period. If the claim is that CTF is some out-of-area thing where this doesn't apply, then go all the way and host it somewhere else.

Even if seen with the benefit of doubt, the underlying assumption that CCC members wouldn't "know" CTF is downright wrong. They do know, all too well, which is why "nuke CTF" is currently at about 60% of the votes - and that already includes unclear votes counted as virtual option 4.

I’m not opposed to the nuke option, simply first, now that CTF posters can see the new reality, allow them to see if they can find a way to reset themselves. Democracy.
I would oppose an immediate nuke option on the grounds that it is not right for a majority formed from “outside” a democratic space to impose closure of that space against the will of those who are within that space.
At the moment it would seem that CTF posters (many of whom are absolutely zero problem btw) want to keep the space open. Several, including me, and I think Ed, would change position if the space proves unreformable. So, democratic process and then review it after a few weeks, I would argue is the fairest option.

[Ras]

There’s no back-handing involved.

Of course there is - limiting the voting to the most active CTF posters, i.e. mainly those who made that place a mess in the first place, as HGM correctly noted.

You should read it as a call for democracy

I read it as a call for vote rigging and overturning the charta just like that.

I think I can guarantee they are going to sort themselves out

No, they can't. Even Rebel himself admitted that when he argued that pro-active moderation was necessary - because way too many of the CTF posters are completely unable to get by without a heavy-handed nanny.

Whatever, they need an election process.

That's what's going on - in CCC.

[Milos]

You should read it as a call for democracy

I read it as a call for vote rigging and overturning the charta just like that.

Rigging, yeah right, like this willmorton guy that is obviously HGMs second account here (and who knows how many more) that appeared just to "vote".
Or putting 3 options out of which third one is totally senseless just to create illusion it is multiple choices question so to make sure that votes of ppl who are not for shutting down will be split and shut down of subforum executed based on 30-40 votes of his alter-egos, disgruntled CCC members who never even went into CTF (like yourself) and couple of "buddies".
This is a referendum question about changing the "constitutions" of this forum so acting on 2% of yes votes out of all membership is nothing but outrages. 98% of members simply don't care about CTF, still you are planning to take mandate of shutting it down based on 2% membership support???
And then you have a nerve to comment on "rigging and overturning the charta". Disgusting.

[Henk]

Maybe it's an idea not to allow political statements on CTF.

[chrisw]

Sorry, not interested in discussion here

From your start posting in this very thread:

I am asking permission to discuss the CTF survey poll here in CCC

You asked for permission to discuss, only to reveal that you are not interested in discussion. What's next - promoting democracy by stripping most voters of their voting rights? Oh, that's already done, nevermind.

It's not for me to apologise on behalf of Ed, but I'll do it anyway. You have posted 63 times on CTF this year, I didn't look too carefully but I don't see any points where there was any troublesome counterpostings around your posts, looks like you were just having more or less friendly discussions, I noticed one about the role of Rabbis. Seems interesting enough. Ed's "active member" list is incomplete (because of how he compiled it) and appears to miss you off it. That's obviously an error, so I pre-emptively apologise for him. If and when my offer to use webscraping software (would be open source available for verifying) to compile an active list on agreed parameters gets taken up, then you'll surely get "found" as would any others missing, and be on the list.
I think Ed was a bit hamstrung in compiling by just using the search function to do it, that needs fixing and fixing (by me anyway) awaits the signal that the work involved would be worthwhile. I didn't get any such signal yet, btw.