when do we get moderator elections ?

[Viren]

Why do you sound as if there is an election to begin with? Your 'term' is long over and you are only hogging on to it so that you can silence critisisms or roasts heading your way. Whether people are narrow-mided or not is none of your business, and you did a poor job twisting our words as if we'd like a full on police state instead of minimal fiddling. You are the only one doing narrow-minded censorships here.

If anything, you should demod yourself, until the new moderators are elected, I'll enjoy the anarchy. I'm sure if the so called 'charter' upholding people care enough, they'll run the elections. I somehow know the combined testosterone production isn't sufficient for you to call my bluff.

I'm afraid I'm right again, sorry that must hurt your feelings.

All you prove is that you are delusional. Because what you claim to believe has no roots in reality.

Organizing elections is the responsibility of the membership. Not of the moderators. If you are dissatisfied that there have been none, the only one to blame for it is yourself. Moderators are there only to censor those who cannot refrain from personal attacks, and labeling a person a troll without explaining what the heck you mean by that, without substantiating it by any evidence very obviously counts as such. And yes, if banning people who have not broken any law, without any trial or other opportunity to defend himself... If that is not a full-on police state, I don't know what is.

In other words, the main task of moderators is to censor people like you.

So you like to see the forum degenerate into anarchy. Unfortunately for you, your opinion carries zero weight. So it won't happen. IMO ideally the members should decide the rules for this forum by special-majority vote, but I think the majority of the Founder Group would rather have the FG to decide about this. Any way, the current charter specifies that this is a moderatod forum, and it is a fact that I am the last elected moderator. So I will continue to uphold the charter as long as the membership cannot come up with a widely supported replacement, or the charteris changed.

It is no surprise that it is always the crooks who complain loudest about the fact that the police exists!

"Organizing elections is the responsibility of the membership. Not of the moderators."



Is it any surprise the main financial contributor to saving this site is pissed off when you are lying about the agreement that was made. It quite clearly says the responsibility of organizing the election is on the FG group, who are refusing to do so.

[Viren]

The FG and its installed moderators are responsible to keep the forum on topic, thus
talks are about computer chess only and while free speech is high valued, personal
attacks, links to illegal material (downloads), commercial advertising are not tolerated.


It’s up to the FG (Founders Group) to install moderators. Currently installed moderators by the FG are the three FG members. To date there have been no discussions to change moderators nor install new ones.
FG will remain responsible to keep forum on topic in any case, as per text agreement above.

I can happily nominate myself to be a mod, at least I will cleanse all bullshit posting like sf troll one that has literal 0 reasons to be alive.

Speaking for myself, not even as a mod, at the moment I don't see any good candidate to do the mod job. With your (above) attitude it would mean the banning of members who don't have broken the charter. The charter is written at the foundation of the forum back in 1997 by Chris Whittington. As a mod you first have to find a majority vote to change the charter before you can (using your words) I will cleanse all bullshit posting like sf troll one that has literal 0 reasons to be alive

"Currently installed moderators by the FG are the three FG members."
"Speaking for myself, not even as a mod"

You cant even be consistent amongst yourselves. The FG group are not the moderators. They were only for the initial site transfer, they are supposed to be handing off their power to elected mods as was described in the site transfer.

[hgm]

Is it any surprise the main financial contributor to saving this site is pissed off when you are lying about the agreement that was made. It quite clearly says the responsibility of organizing the election is on the FG group, who are refusing to do so.

I never made such an agreement. I had already quite clearly expressed my stance in this matter, being that I (then in the role of only remaining forum admin) considered it a matter of the members, and would scale down my own activity down to the absolute necessary tasks for keeping the forum running until I could be replaced. That was long before there was any FG, and I in fact only became member of the FG because if there isn't at least one member that occasionally takes action (such as renting a VPS), the forum would have long since disappeared. Now that this is done my role is already larger than I would wish, my ideas for democratizing TalkChess are not appreciated by other FG members, so I keep a low profile, and leave governance of TalkChess to the other FG members.

[smatovic]

Drama, drama, drama

Chris mentioned it, the three members of the Founders Group are so different in nature, they probably can only agree to the rules of chess

--
Srdja

[noobpwnftw]

Just to mention, among all things, more than one member in your forum offered to host it on some server and do the maintainance work during that time. Whoever turned them down is everyone's guess.

BTW, I'm not surprised about them having no elections, as for the contributor story, they were licking my ass to get them bailed out of a blackmail, probably lied about things they didn't mean to do, who cares.

There is some truth to the idea that online characters are the opposite images of who people really are, and I'm quite sure I do not have the urge pretending to be a professor know-it-all well-off PC alpha male on some dead forum. Make double sure you quote my hot takes in bold red flashing text since I might get butthurt.

[hgm]

Just to mention, among all things, more than one member in your forum offered to host it on some server and do the maintainance work during that time. Whoever turned them down is everyone's guess.

Well, I am not aware of that, and offer or not, it was not done in time. Words are cheap, but when it comes down to action nothing usually happens here unless you do it yourself. (Same with moderator elections. People complain, but do we see any candidates?) Just a week before TC would be axed I had to step in to start an actual action to save the forum (which I could not have done without the help of Sjrda).

[Peter Berger]

Organizing elections is the responsibility of the membership. Not of the moderators. If you are dissatisfied that there have been none, the only one to blame for it is yourself.

I probably risk this to be the first message I ever wrote on the internet to get "moderated".
1. Yours is an "interesting" take on what democracy is about. So the electorate is supposed to organize elections now, else they'll never take place again ?
This is not how things are supposed to work in democratic entities per usual. As only the people currently in power ( or some higher divine forces) have the power to organize them, we are used to trust THEM to organize these things.
Steve used to organize the elections. He never got involved with moderator decisions, but he set them up as some kind of neutral background power.
2. What is this new "founder group" about anyway?
We are talking about like the only member who ever received a life time ban on CCC (and dealing with his various new accounts was one of the major tasks of every moderator group ever), Ed and hgm (who may have founded something in his life, but certainly not talkchess).
3.

It’s up to the FG (Founders Group) to install moderators. Currently installed moderators by the FG are the three FG members. To date there have been no discussions to change moderators nor install new ones.
FG will remain responsible to keep forum on topic in any case, as per text agreement above.

No man (or woman or otherwise) with a sane mind would agree to become a moderator under these conditions. As this would mean that the self-acclaimed "FG" people would mess with their job.
OK - I will resist the temptation to continue for now to keep this succinct enough to be able to work some things out in an organized way if possible.

[hgm]

Drama, drama, drama

Chris mentioned it, the three members of the Founders Group are so different in nature, they probably can only agree to the rules of chess

--
Srdja

But we don't have to agree on anything. We can just vote. As I recall it the idea was never to have the FG member do anything; they would just guard continuing existence of the forum, only taking the minimally required action when this is somehow threatened.

[smatovic]

Viz said he runs for moderator, I am sure there will be others popping up if we call for moderator teams/elections. And it is pretty much the duty of FG to organize moderator elections, you can not turn that away. How were the past cycles? Every 6 months elections? With the last one 2020?

I doubt this will be a better place (at least for me) if FG hands over moderation, but that is not the point.

--
Srdja

[Rebel]

Viz said he runs for moderator, I am sure there will be others popping up if we call for moderator teams/elections. And it is pretty much the duty of FG to organize moderator elections, you can not turn that away. How were the past cycles? Every 6 months elections? With the last one 2020?

I doubt this will be a better place (at least for me) if FG hands over moderation, but that is not the point.

--
Srdja

Surely everyone who desires to run for moderator should uphold the charter, else he/she can not run.