Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:44:43 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.. How about the fact that Chris knew Sean had 100 or so voting accounts setup before he was nominated. Then Chris accepted the nomination from Sean. You don't see any problem there. > >bruce
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.