OpenChess

Hello group,

Would you mind voting at the following link to stop the Hyattian-Triumvirate, we shouldn't let the CCC become the personal play-toy of Dr. Bobo!

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37566

Cordially,

Sean

Sean Evans wrote:Hello group,

Would you mind voting at the following link to stop the Hyattian-Triumvirate, we shouldn't let the CCC become the personal play-toy of Dr. Bobo!

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37566

Cordially,

Sean

First of all, this is a silly thread. I respect Hyatt and believe he usually calls things as he sees them -- which is why it is surprising to see him partake in a single-candidate "election." Maybe he feels he needs to be in so the place does not go to ruins after chaos created by another mod not too long ago.

The poll you yourself created, favors the type of "election" you want abolished. So, those who use talkchess the most like it as it is, and isn't that what matters...? No?

I stopped login onto talkchess right about June last year for serveral reasons. You have many there who feel as if their father owns the place, and the minute you post something they disagree with, they call for you to be banned.

It has happened to myself, and here was a recent one.

This post of you makes me very happy because it's a win-win situation for me.
I have report it and suggested you got banned because you can't accuse me of getting a free copy of Rybka in return of posting good comments about her here and get away with this.

So if they ban you this place will be better and when you come back i guess you would behave better and don't say these crap.
So a win for me if they ban you.

If you get away with this, i will leave the forum so i will not hear your nonsense so again a win for me.

I prefer the first.

There are also moderators who mis-behave, and it is allowed to continue.
You have moderators there who trace IP addresses, do background checks, make phones calls to your office to verify your identity...we are talking about a chess forum for goodness sake. Most people do not want to be stripped search, and it's not because they are trying to hide something...

All that said, I would log in and vote for the following candidates, Graham B., Chris C., Derek J., etc...if they were on the ballot.

This is a silly thread. Anyone can run that wants to run. The forum chose the "team approach" to avoid the debacle that led to the creation of OpenChess. And apparently you don't like the team approach, which means you don't like what the majority of the membership wants. That's called "democracy". There, you abide by the majorities decision, as opposed to trying to create a false majority that will vote for what you want...

The problem we have, and have always had, is apathy. I've probably been moderator more than any other person. I was chosen as the original moderator when we started CCC. I continue to serve from time to time since it is a sort of "civic responsibility" where anyone that enjoys something ought to do something to help others enjoy that same thing. I'd be happy to never be moderator again. But given that choice and dealing with some of the things we have seen in the last year or so, I'm also willing to serve with reasonable frequency. Anyone can get off their lazy butt, form a team, and run. Or they can sit and complain and whine and do nothing.

This certainly is not a job I want, but it is a responsibility I will accept, although not every term.

kingliveson wrote:All that said, I would log in and vote for the following candidates, Graham B., Chris C., Derek J., etc...if they were on the ballot.

There is a guy you didn't mention that is probably the worst of them all - Peter S (who's nothing but a genuine right-wing fascist). The same guy is important part of Bob's team (by his own bragging, never disputed by Bob which means it's true). The same guy, even though is "permanent" mod only on CTF, has strong influence on CCC and can make ppl get banned and kicked off.
How he's performing this is unknown (however only 2 possibilities exist through Bob, or through Steve B, since Fern is there just a coulisse), however it's obvious that things are not clear and that there is quite a bit of dishonorable happenings in the background.
The only bright spot seams to be Roger B, but my fear is that he will have fate of Mathias G. if he tries to oppose the "majority" decisions that are made by Bob and his "team member" (not Fern obviously).
Therefore, this thread is completely legitimate and all the ppl that are in possibility to vote (that are not intentionally banned just to be prevented to vote, and there are quite a few of those) should chose option 2 - None of the above and prevent the charade.

Sentinel wrote:

kingliveson wrote:All that said, I would log in and vote for the following candidates, Graham B., Chris C., Derek J., etc...if they were on the ballot.

There is a guy you didn't mention that is probably the worst of them all - Peter S (who's nothing but a genuine right-wing fascist). The same guy is important part of Bob's team (by his own bragging, never disputed by Bob which means it's true). The same guy, even though is "permanent" mod only on CTF, has strong influence on CCC and can make ppl get banned and kicked off.

This seems a strange accusation. The few times Peter S has commented on politics, it was extremely anti-right-wing. But he is also a 911 truther (unless he was just messing with people).

Sentinel wrote:How he's performing this is unknown (however only 2 possibilities exist through Bob, or through Steve B, since Fern is there just a coulisse), however it's obvious that things are not clear and that there is quite a bit of dishonorable happenings in the background.

As far as I can tell, the last time things were happening in the background at CCC was when CW, Swami, TC and friends created their email junta, spreading half-truths and outright misinformation. The only background activity I ever see regarding Peter S is team Crafty. He's been pretty much AWOL as a mod in CTF.

Sentinel wrote:The only bright spot seams to be Roger B, but my fear is that he will have fate of Mathias G. if he tries to oppose the "majority" decisions that are made by Bob and his "team member" (not Fern obviously). Therefore, this thread is completely legitimate and all the ppl that are in possibility to vote (that are not intentionally banned just to be prevented to vote, and there are quite a few of those) should chose option 2 - None of the above and prevent the charade.

I think most would find the reality at CCC the most boring read they ever saw. IMHO, the rumor mill here looks to be manufactured mostly from assumptions in the feelings of very sensitive individuals.

Sean Evans wrote:Hello group,

Would you mind voting at the following link to stop the Hyattian-Triumvirate, we shouldn't let the CCC become the personal play-toy of Dr. Bobo!

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37566

Cordially,

Sean

Do you prefer C. Conkie and T. McCracken ??
I think that R. Hyatt is the correct person on the correct place.

Sentinel wrote:

kingliveson wrote:All that said, I would log in and vote for the following candidates, Graham B., Chris C., Derek J., etc...if they were on the ballot.

There is a guy you didn't mention that is probably the worst of them all - Peter S (who's nothing but a genuine right-wing fascist). The same guy is important part of Bob's team (by his own bragging, never disputed by Bob which means it's true). The same guy, even though is "permanent" mod only on CTF, has strong influence on CCC and can make ppl get banned and kicked off.
How he's performing this is unknown (however only 2 possibilities exist through Bob, or through Steve B, since Fern is there just a coulisse), however it's obvious that things are not clear and that there is quite a bit of dishonorable happenings in the background.
The only bright spot seams to be Roger B, but my fear is that he will have fate of Mathias G. if he tries to oppose the "majority" decisions that are made by Bob and his "team member" (not Fern obviously).
Therefore, this thread is completely legitimate and all the ppl that are in possibility to vote (that are not intentionally banned just to be prevented to vote, and there are quite a few of those) should chose option 2 - None of the above and prevent the charade.

Two different issues. I have known Peter Skinner for years. He has been a member of "Team Crafty" for years. He helps us with testing, compiling, etc. He is not a member of our moderation team. And I do not see the "right-wing fascist". That term makes no sense to me. Maybe "left-wing fascist" since it is generally the "liberal populace" that believes in socialism/communism/fascism ideals. But that aside, I do not begin to uderstand the comment.

CTF moderators have no influence in the regular CCC fora. We have had meddling in the past, since the CCC and CTF moderators are equal in the "eyes" of the forum software. But in CCC, bannings, post removals and moves are the sole responsibility of Steve, Fern and myself. Our new group will be Roger, Fern and myself, if we are elected. If not, I personally won't run in a "open" election because the chances are too great to have a group that have different visions for CCC and we get into the moderator wars we had term before last where Jeremy actually left CCC because of other moderator actions.

As for your implied "team member" referring to Peter, Peter has _never_ made any sort of recommendation, any sort of comment, any sort of suggestion, with respect to our moderator activities. I have no idea where you get that idea, but it is simply nonsense. If he made suggestions, I would listen since in my interactions with him he seems far saner than many people we have to deal with on CCC. But all of our decisions have been team decisions. And for our term, a "majority" has always been three. We do have an occasional vote on something as "do it", "do it" and "doesn't matter to me". But when we get to "yes", "yes", "no" then we discuss it and reach a consensus. Never been a harsh word during the past term with us. We intend to keep it that way. It makes an unpleasant job a little more palatable.

This thread is nonsense. We are talking about governing CCC. Not OpenChess. That should be discussed on CCC. Sean is continually unhappy because he gets the occasional "penalty box" one week time-out because of the complaints he causes. There are 3-4 people that continually generate complaints, and they have been put on our "short leash" list and are dealt with pretty quickly...

If you don't like the current group, feel free to form a team. I'd be more than happy to ask Sam to re-run the election, assuming we are elected. If we are not, it becomes moot. One thing is for sure, the group before us came fairly close to destroying CCC. We do _not_ need that again, and that is the reason I have agreed to run again this term. I have generally followed the practice of running and then skipping a term (or two) to get others involved. But we don't need "those others" involved again, it was _way_ too devisive...

In summary, 90% of your comments above are nonsense. Peter doesn't try, nor could he if he did, to influence our moderation decisions in CCC. The rest is pretty much irrelevant.

hyatt wrote: Sean is continually unhappy because he gets the occasional "penalty box" one week time-out because of the complaints he causes.

This sentence is bogus, I have not been suspended during your current CCC tenure.

hyatt wrote: If you don't like the current group, feel free to form a team.

Bob, the CCC way of running an election is by individual nomination and then the nomination is accepted or declined. These new "one-party" rules over and over again, is not democracy, that is called communism.

Cordially,

Sean

The main thing demonstrated by this thread is how poorly the contributors to it understand the words 'communism', 'socialism' und 'fascism'.

If no one runs, that's no one's fault, certainly not Bob Hyatt's. A better question to ask is why CCC members are so apathetic about these elections.

I have an idea. Maybe I'm too used to what is called "dietrology"... As a famous very clever italian politician said :" A pensar male si fa peccato, pero' spesso s'indovina" (approx. translation: If you think the worst, you will sin, but most of times, you will be right). A very cynic, but realistic statement...

IMHO, the voting regulation is open to an unfair bias: it is a clever minimalistic strategy for a loosing team.

Think of this simplified scenario:
Team A:(a,b,c). Team X: (x,y,z).

Hypothesis: Team X is sure to loose in a direct vote comparison against A.

Vote procedure:
1- A vs X-- result: A wins
2-A vs nobody ??? No: against any hypothetical team that contains one of the A candidates! The opposition to A will sum up votes of people having a grudge against any A member, either a, or b, or c.

Whether A should not get the majority (easy to happen, because Team X will sum up votes of people having a grudge againt a, or b, or c), there will be a second vote, for individuals this time, where team X will be able to concentrate votes on a single candidate, that will play a conflicting role against the remaining members of the original A team: this means a schyzofrenic team behaviour, as we already saw.
Unfortunately.
ef