(05-04-2022, 08:24 PM)Andy Howie Wrote: To answer Walters question as to why I have been unusually quiet during the debate. The answer is fairly mundane and simple. I was at the GP3 as Deputy Chief Arbiter. The Chief arbiter took unwell half way through and I had to step up and do all three roles (Including Fair Play Officer). Fair to say I have been a tad busy the last two and a bit weeks!
Hi Andy. I hope you had a good sleep and aren't too jet lagged.
I'd like to ask a couple of things if I may:
1) None of the officials concerned have commented on the false statements I listed (in Post #118) that claim that Motion 1 is just firming up established rules or practice.
I know, I know, I've made my point - it was visible on the front of the forum for 24 hours.
The trouble is, this claim is still on the explanatory material, and was made again yesterday (#134), by the proposer of the motion.
And as none of the CS officials who made this claim have retracted it, it's just in the places members will come to see the justifications for the Motions.
It's also the case that the 'lifelong eligibility to temporary residency' including students is a new proposal - but Motion 1 does not permit a vote on this, just whether to accept it in the rules or embed it even further out of membership reach in the Constitution.
It's mentioned somewhere but isn't up front. Charitable souls say it's poor communication but it being concealed in this manner was my resignation trigger from the EWP.
Earlier you said the justification for one of the Motions was ethics - how would that square with misleading the membership about a vote?
2) A second question is the moderation of the forum during the run-up to the vote.
Management moderators, who obviously can not be independent during a management vote, have been using their powers to attack some dissenting posts. The only insulting language has come from forum officials! One of whom is the seconder of one of the Motions.
Post #124 by another senior official is a beaut, and not just because of the snarling language.
I try to post objectively and civilly. So at one level, I don't presume it will damage me when there is a personal attack in response, because it won't have justification and so will reveal more about the perpetrator than it will about me.
But there is a vote on; is CS management happy to see their own statements 'defended' (lol) by personal attacks from its moderators?
I think some may be a bit surprised that there was no retraction or deletion. I personally hope it is not deleted as it's a wonderful example of the Moderator's modus operandi.
But at the same time, I think management should be taking action about the moderation issues - aka, the behaviour of the moderators, rather than (clearly) hoping to benefit from it.
Even with my neutral hat on, I'd say it's surely not good
One step that could be taken in that regard would be to put out a call for moderators that aren't in CS management?
Cheers
Walter