Congratulations to the new moderators

[Christopher Conkie]

The only things I can I can think of that the authors might have had in mind are threats of violence or terrorism, libel, slander or defamation. Otherwise, I'd say yes, point 5 is pretty much meaningless.

If it is about terrorism, it would be the first chess forum I have seen that had such a rule. I doubt that quoting a post while having dynamite strapped around you is going to be noticed much by the members.

Certainly. But, it's likely that the authors were leaving themselves the opportunity to moderate posts of any unforeseen questionable legal status rather than limiting themselves to a well-defined list. That's what I would have done.

Well if one cannot define what is may be illegal and is therefore questionable, then there is no point in having a Charter at all.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

Cheers,
Graham.

Until Vasik mans up and prove his source code to be stolen,which I strongly doubt,there is no need to delete links....so your fellow moderators are doing just fine
Dr.D

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

Indeed Christopher,nobody says that their status is not questionable but the same goes for Vasik's statements and accusations....
Dr.D

[markboylan]

there is no point in having a Charter at all.

That might not be as bad as it sounds. After all, this is an internet forum for people who share a common interest. The need for a constitutional government is questionable itself. The success of the forum is entirely dependent on the satisfaction of its members, with or without a charter. That doesn't really require anything except reasonable moderation.

[Edward German]

My congratulations and good luck, the new moderators Graham Banks, Swaminathan and Matthias Gemuh.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

What would constitute a post with illegal status?

I didn't claim that it made any sense, only that it's worded that way.

So really it means nothing?

Everything is legal....right?

If you don't know/or cannot decide what is questionable, everything must be unquestionable....right?

Means anyone could do anything. Talk about rigged votes etc.....no?

The only things I can I can think of that the authors might have had in mind are threats of violence or terrorism, libel, slander or defamation. Otherwise, I'd say yes, point 5 is pretty much meaningless.

If it is about terrorism, it would be the first chess forum I have seen that had such a rule. I doubt that quoting a post while having dynamite strapped around you is going to be noticed much by the members.

[Christopher Conkie]

there is no point in having a Charter at all.

That might not be as bad as it sounds. After all, this is an internet forum for people who share a common interest. The need for a constitutional government is questionable itself. The success of the forum is entirely dependent on the satisfaction of its members, with or without a charter. That doesn't really require anything except reasonable moderation.

In the next six months you are going to learn exactly what unreasonable means in here.

The fact that you can bastardise what should be a free election and get people in who will only allow their own agenda is disturbing. I wonder how many more times there will be a Afghanistan/Zimbabwe type election in here before they shut the place down.

You can see how satisfied the members are by the fact that most of the ones that matter have left the place.

Not to worry. The poll records in the database who voted and in what way.

It's easy to get that examined. Then again, people could do what they did. Sign up lots of accounts in advance. make a few silly posts and then vote with them all in the next election.

[markboylan]

there is no point in having a Charter at all.

That might not be as bad as it sounds. After all, this is an internet forum for people who share a common interest. The need for a constitutional government is questionable itself. The success of the forum is entirely dependent on the satisfaction of its members, with or without a charter. That doesn't really require anything except reasonable moderation.

In the next six months you are going to learn exactly what unreasonable means in here.

The fact that you can bastardise what should be a free election and get people in who will only allow their own agenda is disturbing. I wonder how many more times there will be a Afghanistan/Zimbabwe type election in here before they shut the place down.

You can see how satisfied the members are by the fact that most of the ones that matter have left the place.

Not to worry. The poll records in the database who voted and in what way.

It's easy to get that examined. Then again, people could do what they did. Sign up lots of accounts in advance. make a few silly posts and then vote with them all in the next election.

I'm not prepared to ague on any of those points. You certainly know more about the computer chess community than I do. But, I don't think point 5 should be your argument.

[Christopher Conkie]

there is no point in having a Charter at all.

That might not be as bad as it sounds. After all, this is an internet forum for people who share a common interest. The need for a constitutional government is questionable itself. The success of the forum is entirely dependent on the satisfaction of its members, with or without a charter. That doesn't really require anything except reasonable moderation.

In the next six months you are going to learn exactly what unreasonable means in here.

The fact that you can bastardise what should be a free election and get people in who will only allow their own agenda is disturbing. I wonder how many more times there will be a Afghanistan/Zimbabwe type election in here before they shut the place down.

You can see how satisfied the members are by the fact that most of the ones that matter have left the place.

Not to worry. The poll records in the database who voted and in what way.

It's easy to get that examined. Then again, people could do what they did. Sign up lots of accounts in advance. make a few silly posts and then vote with them all in the next election.

I'm not prepared to ague on any of those points. You certainly know more about the computer chess community than I do. But, I don't think point 5 should be your argument.

That is questionable.

[meschle]

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.

Maybe these links can help clarify the situation.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30772

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30665

Hi clare - a new poll though with same voting restrictions as the moderation election may give a fairer result.

As harvey states i think it is worth listening to larry kaufman on this matter - i think this sheds new light on the whole issue.

It is a shame that such a great forum has been blighted with all this stuff - chess is great fun lets keep it that way

[Guenther]

Whoever they are :-)

I see that the polls closed, with 197 votes. (!)

Just to be the first to congratulate.

Miguel

It is obvious to me that the elections are faked. There are at least 25% more
votes than in all elections before, despite being much less members than in
the past. Time to leave that place.