when do we get moderator elections ?

[smatovic]

[...]

Message is clear, you are out of the game, in your opinion we TC members have to organize elections by our self.

But, Ed and Chris seem to be blocking in here, I doubt they will accept an unofficial election started by me for example.

--
Srdja

[noobpwnftw]

Sure, you can start by removing yourself from moderators and argue with people fair and square, use the report button if you need.

Unfortunately your words have nothing do to with what you actually do.

[smatovic]

@Chris, @Ed:

HGM is out of the election procedure but willing to hand over moderator forum keys.

It is your duty to organize elections.

I myself am happy with the current FG moderation going on, but, members do ask repeatedly for elections, as promised by FG before migration from ChessUSA, one of them is a member of the first founders group, Thorsten, others are donators like Bojun and Berger, so....up to you.

--
Srdja

[noobpwnftw]

My position on election is quite simple, if you don't want people to vote on anything, just admit to it. Otherwise we'll need to see it materialized and as a result of any democracy, it may or may not end in your favor. As the de facto moderators over the years, you seem to have already shaped the population of your potential voters, so what exactly is the fear? I haven't even started to go about how many Daniels in here are in fact the same troll and they all definitely will be voting for you instead of people like Viz to get themselves grilled inside out.

[hgm]

This is again a good example of your delusional take on reality. Voting for me? How would they do that if I would not even run? As I have clearly stated I did not intend to, even long before the move...

What is more worrisome, though, is that you expect new moderators to 'grill' those who you call 'trolls', which seems to mean arbitrary people picked by you, e.g. because their first name is Daniel. I don't quite see how this is compatible with the charter specifying that one can post anything that is 'within reason on the subject of computer chess', and that insulting or libelous personal attacks are forbidden.

Sounds to me like you propose to appoint a 'thought police' here who will encourage verbal violence against against members with other interests or opinions than their own, or if necessary apply that violence themselves.

[noobpwnftw]

The professional victim thinks I have the power to appoint stormtroopers here, what a novel.

With all your glorious cause, how does that work out for you? Every now and then you get yourself into some scandal and people call for elections to get rid of you, that's your reality check.

The hilarity is that I don't even have anything to do with it, and I don't feel butthurt to be a laughing devil.

[hgm]

Well, what I stated years ago was very explicit and should have been easy to understand; there was not a word of Chinese there. (But in this case perhaps this was the problem?) As soon as you elected new moderators I, in my role as forum admin, would grant them the required permissions, and would retire from moderator duty. But of course it has not happened.

[chrisw]

Ah come on, the poll function does work again, but we need "official" moderator elections initiated from the last mods or founders, to hand over the keys of the forum. As Chris and Ed pointed out, the FG is responsible to initiate moderator elections, but you three obv. can not agree to a procedure?

--
Srdja

Well, since I am not ruly a founder, I decided to stick with my originally announced intention to not get involved in that, other than using my admin powers to grant the moderator status to those that the members manage to elect. I don't care who organizes any elections, as long as it is not me. I thought I made that abundantly clear long time ago.

Whether you think it or not you are a Founder because you’ve agreed contracts with third parties in that role. Being in the FG is immutable unless you specifically agree (also with the other FG members) to have somebody else replace you. In which case they take on your rights and obligations.
Like it or not the forum is (like all forums in fact) a hierarchy with an ownership (for lack of a better word). The owners make the contracts which allow the place to run on the net. Our contract also states we are responsible for installing moderators and upholding the charter.
So: Like it or not there’s an FG which acts as super moderator of last resort and this FG can/should/ought/might periodically install/uninstall moderators to do day to day moderation. Installation may or may not happen, it may be by appointment or voting. What the FG can’t do is breach the agreements it has necessarily already made. See main thread on Charter.

My own view on all this is undecided. The FG has opened internal discussions and will decide by majority vote if it can’t agree, although judging by the private rather than public views of the FG members, I don’t think there is much disagreement actually.

[RubiChess]

... those who you call 'trolls', which seems to mean arbitrary people picked by you

No, they are not "picked by Noob". They are identified by a majority of people who follow computer chess regularly. Not in TC but in places where computerchess happens: Discord, Github and some other places you keep ignoring.

Good bye Talkchess. Shut it down!

[chrisw]

[...]

Message is clear, you are out of the game, in your opinion we TC members have to organize elections by our self.

But, Ed and Chris seem to be blocking in here, I doubt they will accept an unofficial election started by me for example.

--
Srdja

False assumption. Nobody is blocking anything, better to wait for people to state what they think rather than pre-suppose. My views are unstated, I just liked to express what is the ground zero position we start from as defined by actual agreements and contracts. That’s done (I think).