Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:36:32 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 13:17:59, Chessfun wrote: >On February 05, 2004 at 12:10:19, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On February 05, 2004 at 11:19:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 05, 2004 at 10:14:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 05, 2004 at 08:23:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hey! >>>> >>>>>There's has been a disturbance in the force. Mainly in terms of numerous aliases >>>>>controlled by dubious characters. I think the time for action has come. To do >>>>>away with the evildoers, sooner rather than later. Therefore I propose this >>>>>contingency plan as electory platform for the upcoming moderator elections. >>>> >>>>Having been in politics some time i must admit that i am starting to dislike >>>>those who just are busy making more and more rules. The only result is that no >>>>one will use those rules unless someone can use such a rule to his own >>>>advantage. That's the classical problem in european politics nowadays. >>>> >>>>Especially when the state has to follow its own rules they really go to far. >>>>After speaking for 1 year with 2nd chamber (comparable with congress in USA), >>>>and province members (comparable with state politics) it still will take years >>>>to correct something where all political parties agree now more or less that it >>>>is wrong, except of course national health care. They are just counting bodies >>>>and are not convinced unless a major amount of bodies shows up. >>>> >>>>Now you propose to make for a small forum more and more rules, just meant to >>>>control 1 person, who is very recognizable right now which i prefer. It will be >>>>real bad when he starts to spell better, which he sure will do when you force >>>>him. >>>> >>>>Take Rolf Tueschen, the CCC was supported by Hyatt to get created in order to >>>>get rid of Rolf Tueschen. Just do some search on google on tueschen + hyatt. >>> >>>Better do your homework better. _I_ had _nothing_ to do with the creation of >>>CCC. I started posting here weeks _after_ it was created. I don't like this >>>format, usenet news is _far_ better. But I came because others came. I didn't >>>come first, regardless of your rambling suggestion. >>> >>>Rolf was _not_ the main reason for CCC. There were _several_ reasons, as in >>>people that were abusive on r.g.c.c. >>> >>>> >>>>Now you want to create new rules for a single member which i *can* very easily >>>>recognize now thanks to his spelling of english, even worse than mine. >>>> >>>>If you accept new rules and stick to them, this person will like Rolf Tueschen >>>>learn how to fall within the rules meanwhile still writing the same crazy >>>>nonsense. >>>> >>>>Yet others will be a victim of it when some moderator person X dislikes a person >>>>Y. No way to escape then. >>>> >>>>I find this a bad idea. >>>> >>>>Note that most here somehow recognize easier a person than some engine playing >>>>under a different name. I'm amazed by that. >>>> >>> >>> >>>It is still necessary. Otherwise you end up with moderators that are >>>incompetent or have some agenda of their own, and they use their cadre of >>>aliases to force their choices on the rest of us, if the "clones" are not caught >>>and weeded out as they come in. >>> >>>One simple idea is "you can not vote if you don't average five posts a week in >>>the 6 months prior to the election." I can't imagine our "canadian friend" >>>creating 300 fake IDs and then posting something sensible from each, doing 3000 >>>posts a week. :) > >>Bob I don't care for this one too much. You might have folks just increase >>posting to meet voting requirement. I am not that active in posting so I would >>not be able to vote. Then again perhaps your intension is to eliminate my class >>of participant as well....Wayne p.s. I check in here at least 3-4 times each day >>and read the posts that interest me..... > > >Actually Wayne it would seem you have around 25 or so posts during the last 6 >months, so you'd be ok. !! opps > >Sarah. > I think the point has to be that it is necessary to prevent multiple aliases from affecting election outcomes. It obviously is not easy to eliminate this with today's free email sites, non-sourceaddress-checked spoofing, anonymous remailers, and so forth. But the problem has to be addressed. At some point this is going to get cleared up as anonymous email and the like is going to disappear from the network as too many are now tired of it. But until it does, we need a solution. And one solution is that if you post here, you vote. If you don't, you don't. That at least makes it difficult to make your own "population" of aliases and use them to stack the election, as it would be hard for one person to post under hundreds of aliases and make much sense, much less not get discovered. :) Whether we require 10 per week or 5 per month doesn't much matter to me, just so it is enough to make it hard for a "group" to sneak by unobserved. > > > >>> >>>If you don't have rules, you have anarchy. Anarchy is _bad_. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>1) Punishment of the inability to capitalize correctly, ie. to write or print in >>>>>capital letters appropriately. >>>>> >>>>>Examples: >>>>>a) i'm incapable of remembering passwords, so now i have a few hundred aliases >>>> >>>>passwords,so :) >>>> >>>>>(Here "i" should be "I"). >>>>> >>>>>b) what? that wasn't me! really, it wasn't! (Here there should be capitalization >>>>>after question and exclamation marks) >>>>> >>>>>Both violations will result in a warning and then expulsion if repeated. >>>>> >>>>>2) Excessive use of question and exclamation marks, ie. more than one in >>>>>succession. Misuse of ldots (...) will not be accepted either. >>>>> >>>>>Failure to comply with those guidelines will have consequences similar to 1). >>>>> >>>>>3) Free accounts from yahoo, hotmail, aol and maybe others will not be allowed >>>>>without a plausible profile. This determination is subjective and without >>>>>appeal. Only a written testimony from a reliable member in triplicate will be >>>>>accepted. >>>>> >>>>>No profile equals termination of membership. >>>>> >>>>>4) Last, but not least, good conduct. From good manners to correct quoting >>>>>techniques. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Mogens
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.