Author: Mark Young
Date: 04:06:47 12/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1998 at 05:16:27, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 20, 1998 at 04:12:57, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On December 20, 1998 at 03:14:03, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On December 20, 1998 at 02:02:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On December 19, 1998 at 23:27:24, Will Singleton wrote: >>>> >>>>>There have been a number of messages recently pertaining to the moderator >>>>>election, that have been posted by unknown members, usually using only a first >>>>>name. >>>>> >>>>>Just for informational purposes, I would support restricting memberships to >>>>>those who provide a full legitimate name, with a valid email address. And, >>>>>mambers must show a track record of legitimate computer chess posts prior to >>>>>posting on procedural issues. >>>> >>>>Actually, if you look into it further, you will discover that some of these >>>>people have been using secondary email sites (I don't know what they are really >>>>called), which let you make a new email address to order, effectively. >>>> >>>>The use of these things can cause a lot of problems here, for instance someone >>>>can vote many times in the moderator election, and someone can attempt to >>>>legitimize their viewpoint by agreeing with themselves, which is actually a very >>>>powerful rhetorical tactic, as you'll know if you ever have it used on you. >>>> >>>>I think it is possible that this is happening in the "ChrisW Nomination Snow >>>>Job" thread, where at least three "different" responders have been using these >>>>things, and all have expressed similar viewpoints. >>>> >>>>I think it might be worthwhile to allow votes only from accounts established >>>>before the election schedule became public, unless it is possible to reliably >>>>detect users with multiple accounts. >>>> >>>>bruce >>>> >>>>Copyright (C) Bruce Moreland, 1998. All rights reserved. >>> >>>I would support the idea of allowing votes only from members who have had active >>>accounts for at least 60 days. >>> >>>Will >> >>There are any number of reasonable suggestions, but now is perhaps not the best >>time to be tinkering with the rule set. I'm not sure how it is really possibly >>to enforce OPOV (one person, one vote) when people can have multiple accounts, >>but it is probably worth a shot. But before we start from scratch, I think we >>should clearly identify the rules that were in force for the previous election. >> >>ICD is the sponsor of the site, and perhaps these sorts of issues will require a >>statement from them. Given the Christmas rush, perhaps ICD may prefer to >>delegate dealing with this situation to the moderators? It seems that ICD is >>content to host the site, and not really get involved too much in the details of >>its governance, so long as the charter is upheld. (In general, this is probably >>a good thing.) >> >>Some food for thought: >> >>Are there any authenticity checks performed on the names provided? (I don't >>know, but I suspect not.) >> >>If not, how realistically can we say that OPOV is enforceable? (If the answer >>to the first question is no, then the answer to this one is "not very".) >> >>Many people read the posts on-site, without posting themselves. Do they have >>less of a right to determine the future moderation direction of this group? (I >>think "clearly, no".) >> >>There's also this mix-up regarding Chris W., but I have never been a player in >>what went on and how. I guess I will watch to see what shakes out on this one. >> >>Dave Gomboc > > >I share Bruce's concern, and I think the danger is very real. I didn't think of >this before, but now I think it's quite probable that if we would let Chris run, >he would be supported by many new signups, all of whom would never be heard of >again. > >Anyone who remembers the "Evans" family, and the "Steve" series, starring "Steve >Blatchford", understand that this is not only possible, but has been done here >before. It seems that yesterday we saw another wave of that. > >I propose to limit voting rights to people who were registered as members on the >16th (last Wednesday). This is good enough for now. > >Amir I don't care who runs for moderator, but I did not now that the moderator could just disregard the CCC charter. If I read Chris W. position correctly on how he would moderate. If thats the case and that what people want to vote for, it ok with me. I just don't see the need of having CCC anymore if that the case.
This page took 0 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.