Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:37:28 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2001 at 22:43:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 19:08:44, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 13:31:15, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>>Chris was allowed to post under his own name during the time of Tom. He was >>>here for a bit, but it wasn't any fun for him, so he made some derisive comment >>>about the quality of the posts here, and posted his name and password, which >>>presumably caused the moderators to have to shut the account down before someone >>>else got into it. >> >>That is something that is still unclear to me. I remember Chris posted his >>username and password when he in 1996/1997 left CCC in anger. My question is >>or this happened a second time or not. > >This happened a second time, approximately one year ago. You missed him, >because he didn't post much. Eventually he wrote a post complaining about the >quality of the membership of CCC and included his password. I did not know that Bruce, that makes it indeed more complicated. Thanks for informing me. Ed >>>I don't think he wants to post under his own name. I think he prefers things to >>>be the way they are now. He gets to behave very naturally (for him) while >>>telling everyone how oppressed he is. >> >> >>Chris complaints about the ban on his name. When you remove the ban on his >>name then a) he can not complain about that anymore and b) he is obliged to >>post under his real name as otherwise why should one complain? > >According to Tim, there is no name field restriction. But if he comes back >under his real name I will immediately suggest that the account be suspended. > >>If you think Chris does this on purpose because he likes to keep posting >>under faked names you even have a 2-win situation: >> >>1) Argument of the ban is solved (no more "I am banned" postings). >> >>2) The obligation to post under his real name only (like everybosy else). >> >>However if it is true Chris has posted his username and password twice that >>would make things a bit more difficult. > >He did it twice. > >>>The guy is a malevolent pain in the ass, and if he's allowed to post here within >>>the next six months, under his own name or under a pseudonym, it will be either >>>without my knowledge or over my objection. >>> >>>I mean you no offense at all, but if you would like to rehabilitate him, I >>>suggest that you accept my nomination next time, win the election (which you >>>would do easily), and try this program early in your term, so you are the one >>>who has to deal with the disaster. >> >>Yes I know your opinion I should run the gauntlet once too, but that is not >>the point now. Chris contributes, so you have to deal with it anyway. >> >>In the meantime (and who knows) his anger of the time for the ban is over >>and he just wants to participate again under the CCC rules and under his >>own name and not being faced with the ban on his name way back in 1996/1997 >>as if all these things still exist. >> >>I would say give Chris the benefit of the doubt. After all we have clear >>rules no? > >At one point I thought he'd been treated unfairly, and I was willing to get into >fights with various people in order to advance this contention. But he got his >second chance in the era of Tom, and got bored and threw it away almost >immediately. > >This should make it very clear to anyone that he places little value on the >right to post under his own name, in accordance with the charter. > >If someone else wants to mess with him, they are welcome to campaign on that >platform next time. > >bruce > >> >>Ed >> >> >> >>>bruce
This page took 0.01 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.