... I've been hearing both sides of this privacy poll argument ... and I have to say, the objective analysis supports Chico's decision for inaction.

The main thing is the construction of the original poll itself.
viewtopic.php?p=6921#p6921

It was 9-1 in favor of privacy over truth, true enough ... but the poll was designed without satisfying a key validating criterion, e.g. 25% membership participation.

The poll needed a minimum of 11 votes (more than 40 members) ... and possibly 12 votes (more than 44 members).
As we can see, 10 votes make a valid poll for a total membership of 40 (or below).

Ergo, Chico acted properly by the existing criteria. He could not do otherwise or someone could rightly accuse him of making up the rules as the game went along.

Mind you, there are exceptions to every rule (in human affairs) and Chico could have made an exception in GW's case ... however the poll itself was a general poll for all cases, not just GW's specific case. IOW, it did not have a mandate to address GW's case. So again, Chico did not have the authority to do anything wrt GW's case other than to intercede on behalf of the membership against the established rules. But if one such intercession is allowed without sufficient reason, then many such intercessions will be requested (and many without sufficient reason). To date, the only person who has revealed private information about GW (that meets the standard of sufficient reason) ... is GW herself using her own sockpuppet King Art2. But then, the question begs, if GW is willing to play with her own information, then is that information really an Achilles Heel for her? I mean, if I have an Achilles Heel - and hwo knows, maybe we all do - then the last thing I'm going to do is to expose my Achilles Heel to potential bows and arrows. Basic survival instinct. Period. Yet, GW was taunting Chico with her private information. I'm sure she has basic survival instincts, just like the rest of us. So we can only conclude that the information she herself released was not Achillean in nature ... and therefore, the standard of sufficient reason (to make an intercession in GW's case) has not been met. So again, Chico did the only thing he could do.

Now, Canzirka has designed a unique way of gauging the membership's view on the GW case:
viewtopic.php?p=7983#p7983

beginExcerpt
We had a total of 12 votes

The following members voted yes

Stormborn
Sandy
Lee
Canzirka
DSimon 3387
Northern Boy
Lily de Cuir
A Nony Mouse
raggin
Grumplebum
Oh Yeah!
loveand gratitude
end


This is a neatly designed poll that does satisfy the 48-membership requirement for 25% participation (my recent test_sockpuppet creation can be ignored here). However, looking at the list above, we see possible/probable evidence of sockpuppetry in the voters ... but we can not know for sure because Chico had stepped down from the administrative functions by this point. It doesn't matter that he has a placemarker account in place to regain control of this runaway stagecoach - should that be necessitated in the future - but at present, he has stated publicly that he would step down ... so the membership has no legitimate cause to burden Chico with their complaints.

In the end, it is an experiment. An experiment to see whether self-moderation, e.g. without a palpable moderating structure in place, can work.

Well, so far, it is working ... to the benefit of a virtual drunken pub ... from a space that used to function as a meeting place of ideas (when the membership size was small).

Objective observations all around.

There were no Sock puppets that voted Zook. All individuals. That has been confirmed.

The vote stands. The members are happy with it. Not Chico's choice as it is a member's forum.

GW posted that info with the expectation that she could remove it in a sort time. She couldn't remove the nested image. Rules or no rules common sense dictates that the administrator should have removed it when requested to do so by Both David and GW.

Truth pleaded to have his information down, again Chico refused.

Now this is sounding like more of a dictatorship than a member's forum because member requests are not honored.

Chico did nothing except stall the issue, went AWOL, and still refuses to take down the info.

Chico does not make decisions..the member's do. They have spoken. Twice in fact.

Agreed, Canz. And that's what Chico envisioned when he started this forum.

But what is the membership going to do without an administrating function in place to implement its decisions?

IIRC, Chico stepped down long before your unique poll reached 12 member participation. So your poll was conducted without an administrative function in place to implement the poll results. So all you have is a result and no legitimate expectation that the result would be implemented. Might as well raise the mug in the pub and have-a-singalong, wot?

Well he comes off his mental health leave and does what was asked. If not, he will be going through forum withdrawal pain, because if he comes back and tries to participate he will face the wrath of the membership.

Up to him....withdrawal pain or execute the members mandate.

Well, I'm on a holding pattern wrt GW.

FWIW, I requested Chico to step back in as admin (last nite) and check the IP address of a new member C_E_line.

This username is different from Nexus' 'celine' ... and she was ccreating drama. Chico refused my request on the grounds that if the forum fails, then it will do so because the members have chosen not to self-moderate. Be that as it may ... I applaud Chico's conviction even if I don't agree with it.

For I think it is imperative that if we are to oblige GW's request for having her personal info removed ... then it is also imperative that she cease with the creation of drama herself. We are giving her a second chance, as it were. But here, after the olive branch had been extended, e.g. a greater village grant for the well-being of her son (if what she says is in fact true, and here, we only have her word for it) ... if it is proven that she has posted as the false CEline ... then that will speak volumes about her motives (and the veracity of her own personal story).

But the only way to know for sure is if Chico gets back into his administrator's role and researches the IP address of the poster that registered here the other day as the fake Celine ... and who played the game with raggin <-------- a tin pot titwit with ballpoints for testicles. The same raggin who happens to be one of the 12 voters in your uniquely designed poll.

Of course celine2 was a SP. I recognized it from the get go. Raggin is entitled to vote.

At the time of the vote all members that voted were legit. Even if you want to remove raggin....still legit.

GW was NOT the false Celine. She was away the whole day and not on line.

Actually the forum is doing great......no Andy or Mags around lately.

Everyone just wants the vote honored.

That was taken into consideration by the members and a new poll was enacted....imo successfully. We moved on from that 'main thing'.



Agreed, Chico should have no problem doing what the members have successfully voted through. I would consider that working towards the common good.



That's the interesting part really isn't it? Although I would have thought, as there has now been a sufficient poll conducted, he would jump right back in that admin chair to get this democratic process working.



That won't happen until Chico decides it is necessary in the future....correct?



The members are attempting to self moderate, and effectively with the 'neatly designed poll that does satisfy the 25% participation'. Chico is intentionally obstructing the ability for this to be carried out.

Lee

Get off your high horse, Canzirka. Your poll closed without the vote of some of the members you listed. You are cheating just as much as the members that voted using sockpuppets. I haven't suspended your account as I have for the other cheaters, but I will if you don't stop.

I have listed plenty of valid reasons why your poll was flawed from the beginning. Since you and some of the other members don't have a clue about designing a fair, unbiased, and unambiguous poll, I suspect that polls done in the future at UP will have to pass a review before being open to voters.

But, just as I am grateful to GW for so adequately exposing the problems of open registration, I am grateful to you for so adequately exposing the problems of polling.