Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: Ozchess' No Confidence Mechanism for Elected Moderators

  1. | #16
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    It is a bit like saying in the days of the horse and cart there should have been motor cars.
    That sounds like a confession that an election run by me is much better than the farces that "elected" you!

  2. | #17
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cory feldman View Post
    I am glad you have seen the light Curly.
    Why is this moderator bullying me on Ozchess?
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  3. | #18
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    That sounds like a confession that an election run by me is much better than the farces that "elected" you!
    Errrr...... No.... wrong again
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  4. | #19
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cory feldman View Post
    . I am your benefactor.
    Nope
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  5. | #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corytopia
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Why is this moderator bullying me on Ozchess?
    I have high hopes that you will someday awaken from your miasmic reverie and return to us in a more civil capacity.

    In the meantime i will pray for your soul.

    Sincerely yours,
    Cory.

  6. | #21
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cory feldman View Post
    I have high hopes
    Nope
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  7. | #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corytopia
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Nope
    This is troubling as I fear sleeping beauty may well be confined to her slumber for the rest of eternity.

    Once again, I will pray for your redemption.

  8. | #23
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cory feldman View Post
    I will pray for your redemption.
    Beware of false prophets
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  9. | #24
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    That sounds like a confession that an election run by me is much better than the farces that "elected" you!
    Mark Latham almost became Prime Minister of Australia, and likely would have had the election been taken before his Iraq comments plummeted his popularity. That doesn't mean there was a problem with the democratic process.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  10. | #25
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Cool OzChess Now Has Recalls, Just Like Switzerland!

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Greetings,

    I believe that we ought to have a democratic process on this forum to apply a "no confidence" vote against democratically elected moderators. This chess forum leads the way on democratic elections and to maintain that shining light we ought to be able to hold moderators to their election promises. It strikes me that if the membership has lost confidence in a moderator that they elected, then they ought to be able to generate a democratic process on the forum to remove them from office. Good democratic institutions are able to trigger no confidence votes against people when needed.
    You've persuaded me. After all, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States are all democratic countries, and all have recall legislation so that voters can re-assess their electoral decisions. Now in Switzerland a recall petition needs the signatures of only 4% of all adults citizens. That's not feasible for OzChess as it could mean that only one or two active members may succeed in recalling someone. Keep in mind there are only about 30 to 50 active members on this forum.

    Accordingly, the recall process will work like this.

    1. A member creates a thread entitled Recall Petition For [Name of Elected Moderator].
    2. The first post must have a poll, open for at least a fortnight.
    3. The poll question shall be 'Do you support the named moderator being recalled and returned to regular user status?'. Options will be Yes and No.
    4. To succeed in the petition you take the number of people who voted for that moderator. You need more than 50% of that number voting yes. For instance, if 12 people voted for a moderator, you would need seven votes to recall him or her. If nine people votes for someone, you would need five votes to succeed.
    5. People who vote 'No' are irrelevant to achieving the 50%, but "No" votes can be cast to sway and influence the votes of members who have not yet voted.
    6. Once the petition is up, the moderator named will have his powers suspended so that he cannot use moderator influence to bully people who vote in support of the recall.
    7. If a petition thread is launched, and there are not enough Yes votes for the petition to succeed, that moderator is immune from further recall votes for a period of three (3) months from the date the petition vote ends.

    In my opinion, this process is very fair considering Kevin Rudd was democratically elected to this countries highest office, and got turfed from that role by his own party for no particular reason. So the notion that elected officials are more accountable to their own party than to the electorate as a whole has merit.
    Last edited by Just2Good; 16-06-14 at 12:09 PM. Reason: Edited to Add Item 7.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  11. | #26
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    This is at best poorly explained. I would assume that if there are more No votes than Yes votes then the moderator is not recalled and continues, but you do not even spell that out. You also do not explain what happens if there is a tie between Yes and No - the recall fails?

    But it is also a very bad process. Firstly it means that someone who doesn't like a moderator can, at any time, get that moderator's powers suspended simply by starting a recall petition. That means it would be possible to completely disrupt all the elected mods from moderating simply by one person continually starting recall attempts. Or someone could permanently prevent a given mod from moderating by issuing a new recall vote every fortnight.

    Secondly even if the mods did not have their powers suspended "once the petition is up" it would be possible to continually issue recall requests against a given moderator until one of them just happened to get up by chance based on the members who were online during a given fortnight. Instead if you are going to have this recall thing at all, a moderator against whom a recall motion fails for any reason should be immune to another recall motion for at least three months.

    Thirdly both you and MOZ have an obvious vested interest in the process since one of the elected mods has been attempting to ban you. Therefore who will police that no hydras have voted?

  12. | #27
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I would assume that if there are more No votes than Yes votes then the moderator is not recalled and continues, but you do not even spell that out.
    It is clearly spelled out in number 5. A petition is only signed by people who support it. People who don't support it do not sign it. As this is a petition and not a poll, obviously No votes do not count. If you don't support the petition, you do not have to vote No, but you can if you want others to see that you do not support the petition.

    Any other questions?

    Instead if you are going to have this recall thing at all, a moderator against whom a recall motion fails for any reason should be immune to another recall motion for at least three months.

    Okay. That makes sense. Will be added as item 7.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  13. | #28
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    [FONT=Georgia]It is clearly spelled out in number 5. A petition is only signed by people who support it. People who don't support it do not sign it. As this is a petition and not a poll, obviously No votes do not count. If you don't support the petition, you do not have to vote No, but you can if you want others to see that you do not support the petition.
    So if the number of people voting to recall a moderator is barely above 50% of the number of voters who originally supported them, then they are recalled, even if everyone who originally voted for that moderator wants to keep them? What happens then - fresh election in which they can run as a candidate? Fresh yes/no vote on whether they remain as a moderator accompanied with an election on who (if anyone) can replace them (a la California)?

    If the moderator is recalled but then re-elected, are they also then immune to further recall attempts for a while?

    There is just no need for an online forum to allow a minority of voters on a question to trigger any kind of recall process. Those polities that have recalls allow a minority to do so because it is the only alternative to having a full-scale plebiscite on whether to have a recall process (which is too expensive). Also because the number of signatures required is large, and because the recallers have the burden of convincing the public that the cost of a fresh election is justified, there is not too much risk of minorities abusing the system to create obstruction. Here the risk is blatant and obvious - any aggrieved member can get an elected mod shut down for two weeks just by starting a recall poll.

    In contrast on an online forum you can easily poll everyone who has an interest in the question who is online regularly. So if you are going to have a recall mechanism there is no reason not to require a majority vote.

  14. | #29
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Cool Seat Remains Vacant

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    What happens then - fresh election in which they can run as a candidate?
    What happens is their seat remains vacant until the next annual OzChess election (which usually takes place in January each year). And yes, they can run again at that election if they want to.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  15. | #30
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    What happens is their seat remains vacant until the next annual OzChess election (which usually takes place in January each year). And yes, they can run again at that election if they want to.
    Well that's just potty, absurd, nutso, bonkers, insane. And that's putting it with all due respect in the nicest possible way.

    You are saying that a minority of voters - little over half the number who originally voted for a mod - can sack a mod for the rest of the year even if it is the majority will that that mod continue.

    This is not how recalls work in the real world. Recalls in the real world are democratic - the petition either causes an immediate by-election or else causes a vote to be taken on whether to dismiss the incumbent. No-one gets kicked out for half of their term just because the petition got enough names.

    For instance in Wisconsin in 2012, Scott Walker was recalled by petition, but won the recall election and continued in office immediately.

    If you want to get rid of CF so much just sack him undemocratically and wear the flak for having trashed the result of the only democratic election you ever had. Don't hide behind an anti-democratic gimmick based on your grotesque misunderstanding of how a real-world system works, but really designed to get rid of one moderator who has ruffled a few extremely deserving feathers.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •