Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:DrStraw, ID is insufficient. One needs encyption combined with certification and keys for that independent of particular PCs. I am no expert for that, but such would be a basic approach.

(And of course, live disucussion must be followed.)

You are really paranoid. Is the Go scene in Europe really that crooked?

PS>
As for following live discussion, it cannot be followed anyways if the representative is not sent, is it? In any case - I think it would be great Idea for the EGF (or any ?GF) to videotape the proceeding and then publish them somewhere where people have access to. It should not be that hard to accomplish, a Video Camera and a Hosting Site is all that is needed. Great transparency, great idear, no?

Bantari wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:DrStraw, ID is insufficient. One needs encyption combined with certification and keys for that independent of particular PCs. I am no expert for that, but such would be a basic approach.

(And of course, live disucussion must be followed.)

You are really paranoid. Is the Go scene in Europe really that crooked?

PS>
As for following live discussion, it cannot be followed anyways if the representative is not sent, is it? In any case - I think it would be great Idea for the EGF (or any ?GF) to videotape the proceeding and then publish them somewhere where people have access to. It should not be that hard to accomplish, a Video Camera and a Hosting Site is all that is needed. Great transparency, great idear, no?

Just have EuroGoTV cover the sessions.

ez4u wrote:Just have EuroGoTV cover the sessions.

RJ would probably want verification that the video had not been tampered with.

Voters in EGF context are national federations not individuals. If you get the actual votes by member federations this may be preferable / more representative than delegates representing by proxy half a dozen countries. Still checks required (second independent channel, no ambiguity), special occasion, keeping a place for AGM, bad weather proof?

Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.

RobertJasiek wrote:Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.

We are talking about a GAME here, not national government responsible for well-being and safety of millions of people.
Just send a password to each member ?GF and ensure each has one vote, and let them figure out locally how to police itself, if at all.

Bantari wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.

We are talking about a GAME here, not national government responsible for well-being and safety of millions of people.
Just send a password to each member ?GF and ensure each has one vote, and let them figure out locally how to police itself, if at all.

Bantari, you must never forget that if RJ does not have a strict set of rules to live by then he cannot function.

DrStraw wrote:

Bantari wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.

We are talking about a GAME here, not national government responsible for well-being and safety of millions of people.
Just send a password to each member ?GF and ensure each has one vote, and let them figure out locally how to police itself, if at all.

Bantari, you must never forget that if RJ does not have a strict set of rules to live by then he cannot function.

Very true. He can "move so lifelike that I forget he is not a real boy."
But the rules I present are very strict. One password, one vote! No more, no less. Simple but strict!

DrStraw wrote:...if RJ does not have a strict set of rules to live by then he cannot function.

We all have them to one degree or another. Some are loose, some stricter. But we all have some expectation of how the world behaves, and we are stymied if we find ourselves outside of those expectations.
I know that if I get up and find that the constant of gravity is 9×10^-11, I'm going back to bed.

Yeah, off topic ranting about paranoia. But wait, who told us just in the other thread to be careful with "communist sponsors", huh? They may even want to change the rules of the game! (Doesn't matter for the US, they use area scoring already.)

RobertJasiek wrote:Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)!

Then, there is lot of scope for improvement in the EGF.

tapir wrote:Yeah, off topic ranting about paranoia. But wait, who told us just in the other thread to be careful with "communist sponsors", huh? They may even want to change the rules of the game! (Doesn't matter for the US, they use area scoring already.)

Assume you talking about me, kid. So let me correct you:
1. I did not tell you or anybody else to be "careful" (can you point a quote?)
2. I even said it was good for Europe (I can point a quote)
3. Never said nothing about "changing the rules of the game" (can you point a quote?)
And that pretty much takes care of every word you wrote in this post.
So please do not put words in my mouth.

Unless this is directed at somebody else, in which case you should really learn to be more clear.

PS>
You try to accuse me of seeing "conspiracies" but you use nothing but lies and misdirections to discredit me - even on other topics, like here. This is really low, even from you. In the meantime, you don't seem to be able to point out a single incorrect or non-factual statement in my post(s). Once you do, we have something to discuss. I might well be wrong on everything I say, and would seriously welcome some meaningful discussion. But as long as you seem to take it personally and spew such BS, I don't see much to talk about.

Bantari wrote:kid. ... put words in my mouth. ... nothing but lies and misdirections to discredit me

I just wish I could read EGF subforum threads staying approximately on topic, here both drstraw and bantari seem to have fun doing sth. else. The same issue in the other thread, where my point wasn't really about communism, but communicating that I do not want to go further into that weird direction you brought into the conversation. Thanks.

Bantari wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Careful verification of voting integrity is not "paranoia" but is a basic, essential aspect of democracy (here: that of the EGF)! Compare a judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court about rejecting voting machines.

We are talking about a GAME here, not national government responsible for well-being and safety of millions of people.
Just send a password to each member ?GF and ensure each has one vote, and let them figure out locally how to police itself, if at all.

I think that the EGF already asks for the identity of national delegates by email? Maybe I do not remember correctly though.

Javaness2 wrote:I think that the EGF already asks for the identity of national delegates by email? Maybe I do not remember correctly though.

The EGF ask to nominate and give authorisation to representatives in case they are not a board members from the member federations they represent.

I have attended many AGMs, and the discussion on the proposals are sometimes lengthy, but invaluable and indispensable for voting. For instance, how can you possibly make a sound selection for an upcoming EGC host if you have not seen their presentation?