Author: KarinsDad
Date: 00:12:22 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 15:31:25, Chris Whittington wrote: [snip] >>> >>>But clearly there is little shared agreement on how to 'fix' problems, such as >>>those exampled by the Gerber-Hyatt threads. Are they 'unfixable'? >> >> >>I think you first have to determine if there is a problem before you should fix >>it. From what I have read, there are 3 or 4 people who tend to complain about >>the moderators and during any given flap, it tends to be the same 3 or 4 people. >> >>Examples such as the Gerber-Hyatt threads indicate a few people who appear to be >>discussing an on topic subject. The perceived problem was that they beat the >>topic into the ground (I'm right. No, I'm right) without adding a whole lot of >>new information and they threw some insults in for good measure. The first is >>not against the charter, just annoying. The second is against the charter and >>the moderators stepped in. > > >Sorry, I don't understand this. I thought the moderator said that Gerber was >banned (temporarily) because he resisted proving his identity. I thought from >this that if he did show his identity his posting status would be restored. I >further took it that if he 'admitted' to being "Rolf", then he would also be >allowed to post. > >Also I didn't note any insults from Gerber. he seemed to be going out of his way >to be as un-insulting as possible. Perhaps he was insulting and I missed it. I >understand that if he personally insulted a member then according to the charter >he could be banned. > >Was he insulting? Can you direct me to the particular post? > >Chris Whittington I cannot direct you to a particular post since for the most part, Gerber posted fine (with the exception of the few times he rambled to the point that I could not understand what he was saying at all). He did have a few posts early on where he indicated that people here on the forum have no problem with attacks against chess players, but get quite annoyed when chess programmers are attacked. He considered it a double standard. I found that particular line of reasoning mildly insulting since he generalized that the majority of people here find this acceptable behavior based on a few scattered examples. In fact, I posted a response where I quoted from several of his posts, but my post was deleted by the moderators since I posted it after a moderator asked that everyone stop posting to that thread. Since his posts on that topic were about two weeks ago, I'm sure it is in the June archives, but I am not taking out the time to search for them. Overall, I found his arguments non-persuasive, but usually well thought out and not insulting (although he was good at baiting people, but that is part of the process of debate, some might call it trolling in his case). It did sort of bother me that instead of going to the moderators with his complaints about Robert (which I considered basically justified), he started a big flap here on the forum. That was not insulting, but rather a type of public counterattack against Robert (attempting to have the entire forum perform the job of moderator without going to the moderators first) which accomplished it's goal of pulling out the pro/con moderator people and creating a big mess. Kind of like the FBI took out Al Capone on an unrelated charge, I was not surprised that he was temporarily suspended. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.