Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 03:00:45 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 05:41:35, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 15, 2002 at 16:18:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 15, 2002 at 15:46:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:15:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2002 at 03:57:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 14, 2002 at 19:17:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hello , >>>>>> >>>>>>i see bookbuilder in cct4. that is an interface made by >>>>>>Bas Hamstra sold to J.E.F. Kaan (who can't program at all) >>>>>>and with crafty added sold as 'bookbuilder'. >>>>>> >>>>>>Now i see Jan Kaan join CCT4 with bookbuilder under the name 'djenghis 0.05'. >>>>>> >>>>>>He is mentioned as 'author' from Djenghis. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is not correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Vincent, >>>>> >>>>>You impossibly can provide the evidence of your accusation, I suggest you move >>>>>your suspect to the Tournament Director of CCT4, that is where it belongs. >>>>> >>>>>The moderators of CCC are not going to allow you to discredit the name of Mr. >>>>>Kaan based on wild speculations. So it's either provide the evidence or stop >>>>>now. >>>>> >>>>>Kindest regards, >>>>> >>>>>Ed Schroder >>>>>CCC moderator >>>> >>>>With respect, I disagree with this. The factual accuracy of what someone is >>>>saying shouldn't be an issue. The moderators should not be a court of law that >>>>determined whether what someone says is true or false. >>>> >>>>"Put up or shut up" should be something the members say, not something the >>>>moderators say. The club that the moderators wield is too heavy in this case. >>>> >>>>As a group, we need to be able to speak freely about issues that are important >>>>to us. Sometimes, this might involve very contentious speech, which Vincent >>>>seems to specialize in. >>>> >>>>I think that the charter is designed to protect us from stalkers and people who >>>>can't stay within the bounds of civility. It's not designed to prevent us from >>>>getting into arguments, disagreeing, or even accusing each other of things. >>>> >>>>I suggest that if Vincent makes a campaign out of this, it should go. If >>>>someone is going to post the same thing every few days, they are obviously using >>>>the forum as a vehicle for personal attack -- that's what a campaign is. I >>>>don't see that happening here. >>>> >>>>If someone wants to say something nasty, I think they should go for it. I think >>>>that the charter protects us from people would would follow us around sniping at >>>>us, like the stuff that is happening in the other forum, but if someone is >>>>displeased with someone, that's a valid topic. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>I disagree >>>We got a moderator email that asked to delete all the thread >>> >>>I thought to do it but it was not a clear case that I was sure to do it so >>>I decided to discuss it with Ed and the decision was not to delete it. >>>but to give Vincent a warning. >>> >>>My opinion is that people should not accuse each other by "facts" that they >>>cannot prove and the question if the "facts" are right or wrong >>>is not important. >> >> >>I am with Bruce here. Discussions can be frank at times. But there is a >>difference between someone stating a concern and giving reasons for it, and >>for someone doing the same thing 20 times in a row. IE the previous group >>of moderators tolerated quite a bit of this stuff from (say) chessbits or >>whatever. But only to a point. Once a did to, did not discussion goes on >>a while, it is time to end it. >> >>But discussing particularly sensitive issues here should be considered as >>acceptable so long as it doesn't resort to name-calling/insults. Being >>concerned about a brand new program from an unknown author is certainly quite >>reasonable in light of past happenings related to my program. I think it has >>already died down nicely of its own accord without needing any moderator >>intervention at all. >> >>If we only allow provable "facts" here, it will become quite useless, quite >>quickly, for quite a lot of folks... > >Vincent simple has something personal against Jan Kaan (I know this for a fact) >and tries to discredit him. This is not the first time he tries to discredit him >in public, you know. I am surprised you have this opinion. When I was once >pissed at Vincent and wrote *one* poinsonous mail (without any direct insults) >it was instantly deleted by Uri Blass, because he labelled it a "personal >attack". And these smearing campaigns are allowed??? > >Come on, a little consistency... > > > >Bas Hamstra. There is no way a person who just reads CCC every day would know that it's a campaign. So there is bad blood between the two guys. Fine. You just let us all know, so now people can consider what Vincent says more carefully. The last time this kind of thing happened, it also involved Vincent. He posted something about the MChess killer book, and the moderators decided he was factually incorrect, and decided to delete his post. This is a bad place to go. Moderation is for moderating the board, not for moderating the whole field. bruce
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.