Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Factual error

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 08:26:15 04/23/01

Go up one level in this thread


On April 23, 2001 at 10:16:08, Duncan Stanley wrote:

>On April 23, 2001 at 09:42:22, Andrew Williams wrote:
>
>>On April 23, 2001 at 09:10:25, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>On April 23, 2001 at 07:47:09, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 23, 2001 at 07:17:13, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>My personal opinion is that if someone is not abusive in it's language or
>>>>>towards co-posters, and if it's not considered way off topic he's free to post
>>>>>his thoughts here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Repeating the same arguments over and over again is logical, as the same
>>>>>discussions pop up over and over again.
>>>>>Is he supposed to change his opinion with every new thread about the same
>>>>>answer?
>>>>>
>>>>>Good chess,
>>>>>
>>>>>J.
>>>>
>>>>When I was in the process of falling out with all the 'main' people here, I was
>>>>also engaging in long email correspondences with Enrique, who was trying to
>>>>salvage the situation.
>>>>
>>>>One thing he said was that if you're a programmer here, and you become an
>>>>'outsider' then you lose 'protection' against attacks from all the little guys.
>>>>He said they don't dare attack anyone who is 'under the wing of the important
>>>>ones like Ed, Bruce and Bob'; but as soon as they sense that you don't have this
>>>>protection they will mercillessly and personally attack you for anything and
>>>>everything.
>>>>
>>>>I told him I could live with it.
>>>>
>>>>He said they'ld kill me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Chris,
>>>
>>>Welcome back in the first place. It would be nice that one of the moderators
>>>once and for all put an end to the ban of your name. Maybe we then can all
>>>make a fresh new start again.
>>>
>>>Personally I have never seen you as an outsider.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>Dave and Tom and I invited Chris back under his old name
>
>This is factually incorrect.
>
>You did not 'invite me back'.
>
>I spoke *privately* with Tom Kerrigan who informed me that there was no ban.
>
>Actually, I was able to demonstrate to him that there actually was a de facto
>ICD ban in place because my name, or any combination of bits of it, and unknown
>to the moderators who were not imposing any ban, was unable to get past the
>registration robot.
>
>Tom Kerrigan put a temporary fix on this robot-ban, by-passing the system and
>sending a manual password, but as far as I know the robot-ban is still in place.
>
>So, actually, there is a power above the moderators that they don't know about.


Actually, I asked you to return "normally" as well.  But the majority of
people here were against that idea, for whatever reasons.  I don't mind living
in the world of "majority rules" even if I am not happy with all the decisions
that are made.  I do find myself quite happy in a Rolf-less society, which was
the main reason CCC was created.  So in some respects, he caused "good" to
happen.

In your case, your obsession with the ICCA leadership causes you to dropp off
the deep end too often.  I don't agree with everything the ICCA does, nor do
I think much for some of the decisions made by the TD at some of the recent
ICCA events (Mike Valvo was the best TD we ever had, followed by David Levy.
The rest have been pretty much incompetent).  However, I'm not "anti-ICCA"
in any form, since the organization has done much for computer chess over the
years...

As far as ICD goes, you seem to carry your dislike of the ICCA over to this
organization as well.  I've seen nothing to convince me that Steve or Tim take
covert action.  They won't delete accounts without moderator agreement.  If we
ask them to block a specific ISP or domain, they do so if the reason is a good
one.  I personally think they want to interfere just as little as they can get
away with, since they are running a business as well...

I have what appears to be a unique ability to like people and sometimes not like
their actions.  The current "Enrique" situation is an example.  I have always
liked Enrique, but I don't like any part of the current Kramnik-match qualifier
event he is running.  First, none is needed.  Second, if the justification is
to choose from among the "deep" programs then a "deep" machine is needed.  But
that doesn't mean I dislike or distrust Enrique.  Ditto for others.

If you recall, you asked me to go to the gambitsoft forum to discuss parallel
search a year or so back.  I did so.  I can probably get along with _anyone_
so long as they _want_ to get along...

I have made plenty of mistakes over the last 53 years.  I try to learn from them
and move on.  I'm not dwelling on some injustice done 5, 10 or 20 years ago...



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.