Author: Dan Kiski
Date: 13:34:10 12/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1998 at 16:21:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On December 22, 1998 at 14:01:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>In addition, a member with nearly 100 accounts should have any nomination he >>made thrown out anyway, because of the obvious intent to defraud the rest of us >>that cast only one vote per member. > >People are going to think that I would vote for Chris or something. I won't, >and I think that voting for Chris is basically voting to destroy this place, or >turn it into r.g.c.c., which would probably be worse. > >I don't think that your argument is good though. Sure, Sean was up to some >monkey business. But it's thin to try to disallow the nomination on technical >grounds. Steve has said that it's possible to put your own name in nomination, >so Chris could have done this himself if he had wanted to. He wants to run. I >think it's thin to try to stop this because his nominator got banned again and >it's too late to find another one. > >The only substantial grounds that I can think of for denying this nomination are >that Chris is banned. > >There are reasons to enforce such a rule and there are dangers, too. > >A danger is that you might cut someone off who was treated unfairly and who does >have a good deal of public support. Another danger is that you might make >members wonder why there is a choice you aren't allowing them to make. > >A reason to enforce the rule is that otherwise you leave a way for troublemakers >to cause more trouble. The whole point of banning is that you've get rid of >someone who has demonstrated that they can't handle the responsibility of >posting. Why let them be on the ballot, which would give them access to space >in the "moderator candidate philosophy" section of CCR, and grounds to argue >that they should be allowed to respond to questions and take part in debate >here, regarding the election issue? In short, simply being on the ballot could >be grounds to argue for at least partial reinstatement, regardless of the >possible disaster that could be caused by reinstating someone who's still >hell-bent to wreck this place. It can be a foot back in the door for someone >who has otherwise been gotten rid of. > >Chris isn't on the moderator ballot. I don't know why. If it's because you >can't be on the ballot if you are banned, I think that's a perfectly fine >reason. If there are other perfectly fine reasons, I haven't thought of them.. You should check some of his posts on rgcc, I myself find that reason enough, however we have already been down that track in previous posts.
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.