Planning for the Future

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Actually AO, I don't feel comfortable with rules that exclude a particular individual.
I don't have trouble with the 100 posts by midnight 26/2 as the criterion.

For your re-consideration.

regards
MOZ*

Okay Moz,

I will put the Tribal Council idea on ice for a week or so, and consider the matter in the interim.

Best

AO

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Actually AO, I don't feel comfortable with rules that exclude a particular individual.
I don't have trouble with the 100 posts by midnight 26/2 as the criterion.

For your re-consideration.

regards
MOZ*

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference what you propose MOZ as the likes of AO and fg7 will find an excuse to exclude those they want to.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference what you propose MOZ as the likes of AO and fg7 will find an excuse to exclude those they want to.

Thanks for remembering that I, unlike the NSWCA, am not an excluder, either by nature or action.

AO, personally, I am not to sure about having an exclusive Chess Chat Coffee Lounge like forum here at Ozchess. The CCCL is used by back-stabb[ers] [edited/deleted by icono. 3:44pm 27-02-08] for back-stabbing. I would rather maintain the more noble tradition of inviting the maggots to front up to sought it out. As for excluding Bill Gletsos and some other combatives, I would like to, but, in all good conscience, I cannot agree.

Anyone seen Kraven Killer Kevin here? No? He must be trying to ensure the next weekly ACF newsletter comes out in a month, and has up to date info in it.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Thanks for remembering that I, unlike the NSWCA, am not an excluder, either by nature or action.

AO, personally, I am not to sure about having an exclusive Chess Chat Coffee Lounge like forum here at Ozchess.

I didn't twig to AO talking about an exclusive forum. I would be against that.
I thought he was talking about who was franchised to vote on the next development. I presumed it would visible to all; commentable by all; but voted on by regular posters.

The CCCL is used by back-stabbing maggots for back-stabbing. I would rather maintain the more noble tradition of inviting the maggots to front up to sought it out.

How about you consider replacing back-stabbing maggots with back-stabbers?

As for excluding Bill Gletsos and some other combatives, I would like to, but, in all good conscience, I cannot agree.

Clap

Anyone seen Kraven Killer Kevin here? No? He must be trying to ensure the next weekly ACF newsletter comes out in a month, and has up to date info in it.

Not under that sign-on.

[Firegoat7]

Hi,


I am glad these viewpoints are being aired. Exclusion and Inclusion are very important concepts for any forum, especially one that wants to be considered democratic! Discussing this point will have us all iron out our own pre-conceived biases.

First,
I randomly proposed a 50 post entry fee for a couple of reasons, not just one. Activity is important. I qualify this as regular posters who contribute to the forum by posting content. If the forum is going to forge ahead it needs a participating community. So, 50 posts gets rid of spammers, temporary visitors (hydras??) and passive non-members who don't contribute much. It prevents temporary power to influence a democratic vote for all the wrong reasons.

Second,
I agree excluding Bill Gletsos is poor form. I wasn't really completely serious about that point. I just wanted to throw the dog a bone for some cheap laughs. However, I do question Gletsos' motives for wanting to participate in the discussion.

If the issue is democratic participation of one individual, then I think the community ought to be entitled to ask "Why does Bill want a voice on Ozchess?". He is after all a very controlling influence at Chesschat. So, having said that, why should discussion about Ozchess' future be influenced in any way by Gletsos? In fact, why should Gletsos be privy to any information if he is openly hostile to the site? These are difficult questions to answer.

IMO, the answers are not clarified because the questions themselves have not been articulated or discussed in a clear and precise manner. My suggestion to seek clarification, is to simply ask Bill Gletsos to clarify in his own words, his viewpoint on such an issue. What imagined future does Bill Gletsos believe he can create for Ozchess? Why should his viewpoint be taken seriously as a democratic voice? and most importantly, Why should we listen to what you have to say Bill Gletsos?

Now enough with this moral grandstanding about democratic equality. If democracy has any credible power it must be unleashed as civic responsibility towards accountable action for collective opportunity. Responsible to 'the imagined space" is the question that needs articulation and precise definition. Ozchess only exists because an "imagined space" was needed by a small group of Australian chess players. Therefore lets imagine the future together!

Economically speaking Ozchess only survives because of Alex and Matt's good will. Alex has suggested he wants this arrangement to change. Lets move with him, as a community, and articulate in a democratic and respectful way how we want change to occur.

cheers,

[MichaelBaron]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Actually AO, I don't feel comfortable with rules that exclude a particular individual.
I don't have trouble with the 100 posts by midnight 26/2 as the criterion.

For your re-consideration.

regards
MOZ*

I agree. Nobody should be excluded!

[Arrogant-One]

I would like everyone to please put their shirts back on because .....

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I will put the Tribal Council idea on ice for a week or so, and consider the matter in the interim.

Okay, now that everyone has put their shirts back on (thank you all for that) I will address your concerns one by one.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference what you propose MOZ as the likes of AO and fg7 will find an excuse to exclude those they want to.

This is totally incorrect because MOZ, like many other genuine OzChess Members, is royalty here. His word counts for a lot more here than yours does on CC.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

AO, personally, I am not to sure about having an exclusive Chess Chat Coffee Lounge like forum here at Ozchess. The CCCL is used by back-stabbing maggots for back-stabbing. I would rather maintain the more noble tradition of inviting the maggots to front up to sought it out. As for excluding Bill Gletsos and some other combatives, I would like to, but, in all good conscience, I cannot agree.

I totally agree with everything you've just said here Matt (with MOZ's suggestion regarding the maggots also agreed) . The more I think about it, the more I become uneasy with the idea. Yet, I also see some benefits from the idea.

Originally Posted by MOZ

I didn't twig to AO talking about an exclusive forum. I would be against that. I thought he was talking about who was franchised to vote on the next development. I presumed it would visible to all; commentable by all; but voted on by regular posters.

I am not sure it ever even reached that stage (ie. what format a Tribal Council would take). But I think an exclusive forum was on the table, and still is as we are just discussing things currently.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I am glad these viewpoints are being aired. Exclusion and Inclusion are very important concepts for any forum, especially one that wants to be considered democratic! Discussing this point will have us all iron out our own pre-conceived biases.

Good Points Firegoat7.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

First, I randomly proposed a 50 post entry fee for a couple of reasons, not just one. Activity is important. I qualify this as regular posters who contribute to the forum by posting content. If the forum is going to forge ahead it needs a participating community.

Fully Agreed!

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Second, I agree excluding Bill Gletsos is poor form. I wasn't really completely serious about that point. I just wanted to throw the dog a bone for some cheap laughs. However, I do question Gletsos' motives for wanting to participate in the discussion.

Well, here lies the #1 problem. If we don't exclude people including Bill, then we cannot have frank, open and meaningful discussions because the subject matter of what needs to be discussed is sensitive and confidential. The CC mods have already demonstrated that they will steal good ideas and employ them on CC (QED - The YouTube Hack).

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

If the issue is democratic participation of one individual, then I think the community ought to be entitled to ask "Why does Bill want a voice on Ozchess?". He is after all a very controlling influence at Chesschat. So, having said that, why should discussion about OzChess' future be influenced in any way by Gletsos? In fact, why should Gletsos be privy to any information if he is openly hostile to the site? These are difficult questions to answer.

Well, the difficulty is how do we treat Bill fairly, but at the same time remain committed to developing this forum interactively and inclusively with all members, without allowing the theft of ideas?

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Economically speaking OzChess only survives because of Alex and Matt's good will. Alex has suggested he wants this arrangement to change. Lets move with him, as a community, and articulate in a democratic and respectful way how we want change to occur.

I would like to see this forum's continued growth, and that in turn is tethered to financial support as well as an investment of time by everyone.

Originally Posted by MichaelBaron

I agree. Nobody should be excluded!

I agree to some extent. Effectively any member who has something to contribute, and who wants to contribute, should be allowed to contribute. This then makes the question this: Does Bill Gletsos want to contribute to this site's growth, prosperity, or well being?

I don't think its enough for people to say, everyone should be invited to the party without making suggestions about how to protect ideas and contributions from theft.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by MOZ

How about you consider replacing back-stabbing maggots with back-stabbers?

OK. 'Tis a tad strong.

[Iconoclast]

With reference to all the posts above:

1. Personally, I fund this site for one reason: So that the site exists. I do not fund it so that I can have moderator powers or a veto.

2. I want the site to exist so that all interested parties to discuss matters without bullying and abuse from the likes of [insert your most unfavorite poster].

3. The forums are currently, and ought to remain open to all - free speech. Even newbies with only a few posts should have a voice.

These are the three points that I will be personally pushing for. I might sound idealistic, but I would rather be "good" than "right."

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

OK. 'Tis a tad strong.

Thanks


---------------

Summary to date.

Finances.......an issue but process defined
Features.......always impossible to 'own'.
Harmony.......a point of difference
Imagine the space.......it is emerging
Who is franchised to vote.....no issue on the table as yet.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by MOZ

T
Finances.......an issue but process defined

Goal is self sufficiency?

Originally Posted by MOZ

Features.......always impossible to 'own'.

Originally Posted by MOZ

Harmony.......a point of difference

Tolerance of difference, based on proven mutual respect for the right to be different?

Originally Posted by MOZ

Imagine the space.......it is emerging

Agreed

Originally Posted by MOZ

Who is franchised to vote.....no issue on the table as yet.

Are Ozchess and Chesschat in competition?

cheers,

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Goal is self sufficiency?

Goal is that the bills are paid.

Tolerance of difference, based on proven mutual respect for the right to be different?

Actually the point of difference on harmony that I was pointing to was the difference between here and there.
Apology if I confused you.

Are Ozchess and Chesschat in competition?

Not for my services.

[Chessic-Adventures]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

With reference to all the posts above:

1. Personally, I fund this site for one reason"

Well, somebodies got to. Its a decent site, work on building membership levels though.

[KiD]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

The CC mods have already demonstrated that they will steal good ideas and employ them on CC (QED - The YouTube Hack).

Well, the difficulty is how do we treat Bill fairly, but at the same time remain committed to developing this forum interactively and inclusively with all members, without allowing the theft of ideas?

I don't think its enough for people to say, everyone should be invited to the party without making suggestions about how to protect ideas and contributions from theft.

I probably won't be too preoccupied with "idea theft".

Whatever ideas/features you decide to implement here would be visible (and most likely formally announced) soon enough, and if the people from over there really want to, they should be able replicate it pretty quickly.

Okay, so it might take them two weeks instead of say, two days, but big deal.

[Euro-Chess]

Originally Posted by KiD

I probably won't be too preoccupied with "idea theft".

Whatever ideas/features you decide to implement here would be visible (and most likely formally announced) soon enough, and if the people from over there really want to, they should be able replicate it pretty quickly.

Okay, so it might take them two weeks instead of say, two days, but big deal.

I agree.