Author: Roger
Date: 11:20:00 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 01:41:29, Michael Cummings wrote: >On January 23, 2000 at 00:35:36, Roger wrote: > >>I think this is a good idea. You should be able to vote for someone and against >>someone. In a case where you are voting for three moderators from a pool of six, >>I think you should be able to vote against at least one person, and preferably >>two. >> >>It often happens in life that you are not exactly sure who you want for a >>position, but you are damned sure who you don't want. Voting ought to reflect >>this, so that the moderators chosen conform MOSTLY to likes of the voters, >>embodying their dislikes as little as possible. >> >>That is why only this form of voting can deal with a situation in which a group >>is polarized into two camps of approximately equal size, both of whom favor >>their own pet candidate. >> >> >>Roger > >It will never happen, nor should you be able to. What is it going to do, just >say there is a moderator who gets elected and also has the highest votes against >him also. > >As for making statements against certain people who are running is rubbish as >well. How about we all write what we dislike about Fenando or you Roger. It will >turn into people making statements which can sometimes be false and it turns >into the person being picked on getting pissed off. > >Sounds like you guys want this to turn into one big fight. We have already heard >in posts what some stupid people think about bob and bruce, what the hell do you >think will happen if we also allow people to go over this crap (which has been >deleted) all over again. > >Moderator elections does not mean that you have free will to abuse another >members. It is no different from soldiers committing war crimes and blaming it >because it was war time. Gosh, I guess it really does bring out the negative side of human nature. ;) Take a chill pill, dude. I was just talking about a means of minimaxing the fit between the people and their representatives. A democratic mechanism. That's all. Remember, voting is supposed to be anonymous. No one is FORCING anyone to vote against someone, just as no one is FORCING you to vote for someone. Moreover, voting is not a qualitative smear campaign...it's just Yes or No. And, the NO vote does NOT necessarily mean you DISLIKE someone, or that you DISRESPECT them, it can mean only that their platform is most opposite to that which suits your preferences. If someone wants to let ideological differences grow into a heartfelt antipathy, I don't recommend it, but that's a PERSONAL choice, not a democratic mechanism, which is my subject here. Roger
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.