hgm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:20 pm
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.
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 2:53 pm
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.
Your supposition in (1) is wrong. What tool do you need for conducting elections that is not available to normal members? You can use postings and PM. The only thing moderators can do over normal members is edit other people's postings. How would that help elections? As and admin I can appoint moderators, but someone would have to tell me who to appoint.
Ed and Chris appear to be the only remaining members of the group that originally founded TalkChess. I don't know why they wanted me in; probably because I was admin, and admin permission was needed to move the forum. (Although that could have been limited to just doing a backup dump of the database, and making that available.)
IMO TalkChess should be governed democratically, the character within certain limits (such as remaining a forum on computer chess) being decided by the membership. Using elected moderators, who have the freedom to operate within the very general boundaries specified by the charter, seems a good way to do that. But if the members cannot even come up with a single team of candidates...
hgm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:56 pm
[...]
Your supposition in (1) is wrong. What tool do you need for conducting elections that is not available to normal members? You can use postings and PM. The only thing moderators can do over normal members is edit other people's postings. How would that help elections? As and admin I can appoint moderators, but someone would have to tell me who to appoint.
[...]
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?
Rebel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:53 pm
[...]
Surely everyone who desires to run for moderator should uphold the charter, else he/she can not run.
And you are the one to decide who can run for moderator?
--
Srdja
Only an election can, but candidates should uphold the constitution of Talkchess which is the charter. Can a politician of a democrate nation run for president when he/she wants to overthrow the constitution?
90% of coding is debugging, the other 10% is writing bugs.
Rebel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:53 pm
[...]
Surely everyone who desires to run for moderator should uphold the charter, else he/she can not run.
And you are the one to decide who can run for moderator?
--
Srdja
Only an election can, but candidates should uphold the constitution of Talkchess which is the charter. Can a politician of a democrate nation run for president when he/she wants to overthrow the constitution?
Then all candidates for moderator have to officially announce a vow to uphold the TC charter
If you make a new, sticky post and call for moderator teams, you can add a *by running for moderator I declare to uphold the TC charter, or something like this.
So do you have this genuine fear that the members will elect someone that will toss the 'charter' away and withholding the elections is the right path forward? It seems like your desire to cling on power overruled your faith in democracy to begin with.
It gets even funnier because it appears that you are the ones who insist on giving those trolls a chance to vote in the first place.
Last edited by noobpwnftw on Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rebel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:53 pm
[...]
Surely everyone who desires to run for moderator should uphold the charter, else he/she can not run.
And you are the one to decide who can run for moderator?
--
Srdja
No, but it seems sensible to put in some safeguards that prevent people that have already confessed they have disregard for the charter from acquiring the power to do as they please. In the past moderator candidates would need to be supported by other members before being accepted as candidates, and would have to publish their intended moderation policy that people then could vote for. Which should be objectively tested for not violating the charter. And be somehow bound not to violate their announced policy.
Democratic states typically have such precautions. To get on the ballot for parliament elections you have to accumulate a certain number of signatures of people that support your candidacy, and if parliament exceeds its mandate judges can block their decisions.
To not make things unnecessarily complicated, it seems logical to have the FG act as supervisory power to prevent rogue moderators from terrorizing the forum.
Rebel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:11 pm
Only an election can, but candidates should uphold the constitution of Talkchess which is the charter. Can a politician of a democrate nation run for president when he/she wants to overthrow the constitution?
There are various potential teams that would uphold the constitution (besides the absolute power of the FG). I will name one: viren, noob and me. Probably none of us would ever run, but if you consider this idea for a split second, you will be able to imagine other names that would work for you pretty well, wouldn't you? Question is: is the FG interested to get a new team at all?
smatovic wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:06 pmAh 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.
?
