Author: Chessfun
Date: 10:46:04 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 13:36:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I actually don't mind the suggestion. Though clearly there are people who sometimes post a lot and then stop. Take Mogens for example who started this thread. Once a moderator candidate himself and frequent poster, then hardly ever posting. Not sure it matters too much anyway, what powers do moderators really have. They could create havoc for a couple of days and then they're gone again. Personally I always vote and I think the majority will vote for persons who they know or who post with reasonable frequency. This IMO makes the election of a bogus candidate less likely, as would adding a minimum posting requirement. I still think though adding the posters IP to the posts is a good idea if even to eliminate bogus posters who have no idea how to use other methods. Sarah. >> >> >>>> >>>>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.