noobpwnftw wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 11:56 am
Twist it all you want, it just gets more appearent that I'm not the one who couldn't read.
What's the matter even, do you think all others can't read too?
On the contrary, I think they will very clearly see who is delusional here. And if not, who cares? I never gave a damn about whether people hate me or not. Its like mathematics, minus times minus is plus. The world population can be sub-divided into good and evil, and if you belong to the good you will be hated by the evil for it. And the more evil people hate you, the more likely it is that you actually belong to the good. If everyone loves you, you must be doing something wrong...
hgm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 12:53 pm
It is clear what the people raising hell here really want:
TalkChess moderators should just be puppets that implement the orders they get from the 'community' at Discord and Github about who should have a free go at 'grilling', who shold be banned, etc.
It is significant that when they one guy they’ld been angling to get banned over several years actually was banned, they just switched the attack to new targets.
Rubichess revealed the truth, they want to close this forum down, it gets in the way of their feeling they are the centre of the comp chess universe.
Now you are back to your own echo chamber. I got what I want you to admit to, it's too predictable to say the least.
All I need to do is to not give a damn and look how much you cared about justifying yourself. Moral values, good vs evil, thought crimes, center of the universe... is there any adult in the room?
imo the current moderators, FG or not, usually remain quite clear in their communication(s)
in this thread. While this thread/discussion to a large extent in recent days has digressed to some
irrelevant, apparently partly emotional stuff, a logical question besides when there is election time,
is the following:
- is/are there currently any volunteer(s) for a moderator task (job) who are willing to maintain the
charter ? with the (imo reasonable) charter defined by the FG (and beyond discussion, it seems
comparable with a constitution and it's known to be hard in legal terms to change a constitution (*).
without any of such volunteers there are no elections, simple as that.
Humble suggestion: let some moderators being replaced by -decent and capable- volunteers
(if there are some) one by one, after democratic membership approval (more upvotes than
downvotes) first going to go as i understand from himself then would be hgm
(whereby we should thank him for all the work he has done for this forum).
PS personally i wouldn't even consider such a (moderating) job without a annual reward of less
than eg. two hundred thousand Euro's as i have other things to do, don't care about money (and
most of the bucks would anyway go to the Dutch tax system, although that's another subject).
(*) in some ways this forum (with the FG) also can be compared with a business, although the bucks
don't seem to be an issue here; a corporation isn't democratic, there usually is a Ceo, board of directors
and advisory board (the latter usually having the most power together with the shareholders).
With some creative thinking i can think of members having made productive contributions
to the forum (eg. amount of -decent- posts) as being comparable with shareholders; but it
shouldn't /cannot be formalized of course; so it will remain one on one votes (but also
not a true complete democracy, who cares, better be realistic).
They are just too afraid to have any real election because they think they are smarter than everyone else.
'Charter' is their scapegoat to disqualify anyone who contest their authority, there is nobody other than them who is at the center of the universe so they won't even bother to do the elections at all.
They tried to delay it with technical issues, that didn't last, then they say nobody will qualify, that didn't fly, now they simply won't do it and blaming the entire membership for not knowing better. Not trying to materialize any election in good faith is a big fuck off to everyone on this forum, they just hesitated for so long to finally admit it.
Last edited by noobpwnftw on Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@jefk - Electing moderators on a personal basis runs the risk of moderators with incompatible policies getting elected. There have been some problems with that in the past, hence it was decided it would be better to run as teams, under a single policy for each team. But since those who currently usurped the moderator functions have never declared any common policy, single-person replacements do not seem to deteriorate the situation. But unfortunately it also doesn't ameliorate the situation, so that it isn't clear how we would ever get back to the situation of a team operating with a coherent policy.
But it is clear that the true problem is actually lack of candidates. Even with 3 candidates there doesn't need to be any election; they can just be appointed, and I will happy to be the first to step down. TalkChess already has stopped being my primary 'home' on the internet; I hardly visit there other than for just looking at the notifications for registering new members (about 2 per day, now that we have locked out the bot attempts again by the captcha). I am often even too busy to address reported postings.
It's a moderator, he does the most basic things, do the charter and mess with no one, what kind of incompatible policies are you talking about? There are multiple versions of the 'charter'? Thought crimes? Siding with trolls? Silencing criticisms? Oh that is exactly what you did and that's why you suck at moderating. If anything, the 'correct' intrepetation is done by voting, and that seems the last thing you actually want.
Keep throwing rocks on the road and make sure no one passes, oh, we only have this one moderator who's available every once a week and someone is going to spam a dead forum alive, big deal.
noobpwnftw wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:36 pm
They are just too afraid to have any real election because they think they are smarter than everyone else.
'Charter' is their scapegoat to disqualify anyone who contest their authority, there is nobody other than them who is at the center of the universe so they won't even bother to do the elections at all.
They tried to delay it with technical issues, that didn't last, then they say nobody will qualify, that didn't fly, now they simply won't do it and blaming the entire membership for not knowing better. Not trying to materialize any election in good faith is a big fuck off to everyone on this forum, they just hesitated for so long to finally admit it.
You keep saying “they”, but “they” haven’t decided anything yet, “they” only just started discussions. I, for one have not yet decided anything. Situation unclear.
hgm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:48 pm@jefk - Electing moderators on a personal basis runs the risk of moderators with incompatible policies getting elected. There have been some problems with that in the past, hence it was decided it would be better to run as teams, under a single policy for each team. But since those who currently usurped the moderator functions have never declared any common policy, single-person replacements do not seem to deteriorate the situation. But unfortunately it also doesn't ameliorate the situation, so that it isn't clear how we would ever get back to the situation of a team operating with a coherent policy.
But it is clear that the true problem is actually lack of candidates. Even with 3 candidates there doesn't need to be any election; they can just be appointed, and I will happy to be the first to step down. TalkChess already has stopped being my primary 'home' on the internet; I hardly visit there other than for just looking at the notifications for registering new members (about 2 per day, now that we have locked out the bot attempts again by the captcha). I am often even too busy to address reported postings.
Moderators with allegedly incompatible policies can quite easily reach an operating agreement, and do.
It’s moderators who seriously dislike/disrespect a fellow moderator that cause problems.
noobpwnftw wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2024 1:53 pm
Now that's another confession.
It's a moderator, he does the most basic things, do the charter and mess with no one, what kind of incompatible policies are you talking about? There are multiple versions of the 'charter'? Thought crimes? Siding with trolls? Silencing criticisms? Oh that is exactly what you did and that's why you suck at moderating. If anything, the 'correct' intrepetation is done by voting, and that seems the last thing you actually want.
Keep throwing rocks on the road and make sure no one passes, oh, we only have this one moderator who's available every once a week and someone is going to spam a dead forum alive, big deal.
The charter actually offers quite a lot of leeway for moderation policies. Things it does not specify is how the forum should be sectioned, how strictly it will be policed whether a posting is in the proper section, how to handle off-topic posting within a discussion, thread hijacking, stalking, repetitive posting, excessive quoting, the severity of the penalties they would impose for various offenses, whether to act pro-actively or only consider postings that are reported, the threshold for what they consider offensive...
For someone that rants purely on imaginary situations you imagination is supprisingly poor...
