Congratulations to the new moderators

[slobo]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

Correct interpretation.
In fact, our electoral campaign was made on that bases, and it had 66.66% of sucess. We almost managed to get 100%.

But we should not subestimate Banks group. A year ago Banks was a leader of the "mob" rising against other two moderators, Chris Wittington and Swami, and with the help of the administrator they made a coup d'état. That's was all member must be carefull and keep an eye on GB and his group activities (Conkie, Skiner, Diosi at al.)

Apparently a given mob, coup, campaign, or conspiracy is only bad if you are not a part of it.


-Sam-

Not at all, Sam. Forced changes, not based on free elections, are always bad.

[kingliveson]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

The CCC members elected a team of moderators who represent a true cross section of the membership
a team with varying views on the issues of the day and very importantly the team includes a Fine ..current day.. Chess programmer(Engines and Gui's)

a solid team whom i hopeful will work together for the forums benefit
in stark contrast we can see the reactions of some who have lost..

as members lets support the new team and give them a chance to work out some immediately compelling issues out..
such as the status of those currently under ban..

Regards
Steve

I want to congratulate the new team. But first let me thank the retiring team for doing a good job. They showed maturity in their approach to decisions. When the issue of Ippolit first came up, they did what is called caution, and after some time had past they did what is called logic. So thank you Dr. Hyatt, Steve, and Dann (Thanks for SS too).

Matthias, Swami, Graham congratulations I think it's a good team. There is a reason we are not born with 2 right legs...balancing could be very difficult. I look for the best in people and hope the best come out of you guys.

[slobo]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

The CCC members elected a team of moderators who represent a true cross section of the membership
a team with varying views on the issues of the day and very importantly the team includes a Fine ..current day.. Chess programmer(Engines and Gui's)

a solid team whom i hopeful will work together for the forums benefit
in stark contrast we can see the reactions of some who have lost..

as members lets support the new team and give them a chance to work out some immediately compelling issues out..
such as the status of those currently under ban..

Regards
Steve

I want to congratulate the new team. But first let me thank the retiring team for doing a good job. They showed maturity in their approach to decisions. When the issue of Ippolit first came up, they did what is called caution, and after some time had past they did what is called logic. So thank you Dr. Hyatt, Steve, and Dann (Thanks for SS too).

Matthias, Swami, Graham congratulations I think it's a good team. There is a reason we are not born with 2 right legs...balancing could be very difficult. I look for the best in people and hope the best come out of you guys.

Rightful compliments.

[Sam Hull]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

Correct interpretation.
In fact, our electoral campaign was made on that bases, and it had 66.66% of sucess. We almost managed to get 100%.

But we should not subestimate Banks group. A year ago Banks was a leader of the "mob" rising against other two moderators, Chris Wittington and Swami, and with the help of the administrator they made a coup d'état. That's was all member must be carefull and keep an eye on GB and his group activities (Conkie, Skiner, Diosi at al.)

Apparently a given mob, coup, campaign, or conspiracy is only bad if you are not a part of it.


-Sam-

Not at all, Sam. Forced changes, not based on free elections, are always bad.

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-

[sockmonkey]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

Correct interpretation.
In fact, our electoral campaign was made on that bases, and it had 66.66% of sucess. We almost managed to get 100%.

But we should not subestimate Banks group. A year ago Banks was a leader of the "mob" rising against other two moderators, Chris Wittington and Swami, and with the help of the administrator they made a coup d'état. That's was all member must be carefull and keep an eye on GB and his group activities (Conkie, Skiner, Diosi at al.)

Apparently a given mob, coup, campaign, or conspiracy is only bad if you are not a part of it.


-Sam-

Not at all, Sam. Forced changes, not based on free elections, are always bad.

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-

It seems like, after every election on this forum, someone (usually someone who doesn't agree with the results) steps up to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote. I'm sorry, but that's totally counterproductive and it's sour grapes.

I don't think that any of the candidates went vote-fishing outside of this forum, and the candidates certainly can't be held responsible for what their supporters do, if they post 'get out the vote' appeals on other sites.

Anyway, I'm glad that the elections are over, look forward to seeing how the new mod team works out, and hope that we can start the next 6 months without the unpleasant taste of bad sportsmanship in our collective mouth. The forum is dead, long live the forum!

Jeremy

[Matthias Gemuh]

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-

It seems like, after every election on this forum, someone (usually someone who doesn't agree with the results) steps up to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote. I'm sorry, but that's totally counterproductive and it's sour grapes.

I don't think that any of the candidates went vote-fishing outside of this forum, and the candidates certainly can't be held responsible for what their supporters do, if they post 'get out the vote' appeals on other sites.

...

Jeremy

perfectly correct.
The 3 CCC mods will still do a good job.

Matthias.

[Oratios]

Congratulations to those moderators who left for their job.
All the best to those who came.

[slobo]

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,"

Inactive members are not allowed to vote, are they?

Very good observation. Thanks.
Sam, we did an electoral campaign, nothing more. It is legal in any democratic country. What is not legal is a coup d'etat, it was not legal to overthrow a democraticaly elected moderation team, before the end of their mandate period.

[dj]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

The CCC members elected a team of moderators who represent a true cross section of the membership
a team with varying views on the issues of the day and very importantly the team includes a Fine ..current day.. Chess programmer(Engines and Gui's)

a solid team whom i hopeful will work together for the forums benefit
in stark contrast we can see the reactions of some who have lost..

as members lets support the new team and give them a chance to work out some immediately compelling issues out..
such as the status of those currently under ban..

Regards
Steve

I share your hope that there will be a balanced approach to moderation on both sides of the board; I will certainly push for it in CTF.

Bans apply during the term in which they are issued, so everyone is starting with a clean slate today.

-Sam-

I hope this applies to Terry McCracken. He is an institution on the forum but is at present banned.

[dj]

Hi Jeremy

You said it yourself. It is majority which decides... 2 vs 1, so not much he can do about it. If he does not like it, he can step down, and let you take over his place, as you come right after him...

Correct interpretation.
In fact, our electoral campaign was made on that bases, and it had 66.66% of sucess. We almost managed to get 100%.

But we should not subestimate Banks group. A year ago Banks was a leader of the "mob" rising against other two moderators, Chris Wittington and Swami, and with the help of the administrator they made a coup d'état. That's was all member must be carefull and keep an eye on GB and his group activities (Conkie, Skiner, Diosi at al.)

Apparently a given mob, coup, campaign, or conspiracy is only bad if you are not a part of it.


-Sam-

Not at all, Sam. Forced changes, not based on free elections, are always bad.

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-

Sadly we are in a minority in knowing the truth. Your views should carry more weight as a man of integrity, a tireless servant of TalkChess and (as TcAdmin now and a mod in the past) a person with unrivalled knowledge of the forum and its accounts.

If CCC and CTF are to survive there must be open elections next time so that we can see precisely who has voted and who they voted for. If Candidate A gets, say, 50 votes from members we all know and recognize whilst Candidate B gets 60 votes (but only a few from names we recognize) then we can all draw the appropriate conslusion.