Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 03:22:23 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2000 at 03:12:22, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) Thank you for the clarification. Can I remind you of what you posted previously, and which was what I was asking you about: >>>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. >> "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)." "Overall, I found his [Gerber's] arguments non-persuasive, but usually well thought out and >not insulting" "They threw some insults in for good measure .... [this] is against the charter and >>>the moderators stepped in." I must admit to being confused by your posts. And I think it is important to be fair to persons who are unable to defend themselves. Just who exactly was "throwing insults"? Chris Whittington
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.