Author: Moritz Berger
Date: 13:03:46 09/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1998 at 17:22:49, Don Dailey wrote:
>On September 17, 1998 at 16:10:44, Moritz Berger wrote:
>
>>On September 17, 1998 at 16:01:22, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>Feel free, although I changed the subject header, since this has absolutely
>>>nothing to do with Rolf.
>>
>>You are perfectly right that this is drifting away from the Rolf Tueschen issue,
>>I just picked up some other things you stated, namely that my point of view was
>>"too inflexible". I wrote:
>>
>>-----------------------
>>I don't subscribe to the equation that if somebody posts *also* on topic, he has
>>any more rights to attack others than somebody who posts *nothing* on topic.
>>
>>The general rule on CCC ought to be: No abusive attacks whatsoever.
>>No exception to the rule, no matter if person x posts gazillion of on topic
>>posts, too.
>>
>>Reason: Protecting the victims of personal attacks, legitimation of any kind of
>>moderation efforts.
>>-----------------------
>>
>>Too inflexible (Bruce) or a self-understood necessity (Moritz), does anybody
>>else care to comment?
>>
>>Moritz
>
>Moritz,
>
>I hope you can bear with us a little on this. In the last several
>posts you have (probably not meaning to) questioned almost everything
>we have been doing. I take no offense, but it doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to understand why Bruce or any moderator might.
My very dear friend,
it was not my intention to offend anybody. I hope that this has not been the
case, since I have tried in this very thread to plead for a less offensive CCC
(by means of moderation). I will try to explain the reason for my questions you
quote below and I hope they will be even less offensive to you (or anybody else
for that matter) after some further interpretation.
> I think
>you probably did not mean any of this, but looking over them I see
>you asking questions like
>"did we question the other
>moderators decisions"
Please have patience with my special interest in this case - I feel involved
since I was responsible for that decision, which now has been called the result
of a "Kangaroo court" by Bob and was back then the reason why Bruce left CCC for
good. I simply wanted to know why you suddenly announced your decision to invite
back somebody who has likened *me* with SS Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann
(who was responsible for the death of more than 3 million Yews in Europe and
sentenced to death by an Israeli court) in the past. I know that this has
happend on r.g.c.c., not CCC, so it is not relevant to you, but it illustrates
(hopefully) my sentiments in this case.
Please also note that I agreed with Enrique's proposal to reinstate even this
very Rolf Tueschen by the means of a standard "recovery" procedure for penalized
former CCC participants. You see, I even supported your decision, although on
different grounds.
I don't see why it should be offensive for you to elaborate your reasons for
having Tueschen back, I hope you will now understand a little bit better why I
asked you about it.
>, "when will our term be up"
I did not only ask "when will our term be up" but surrounded this question by
statements that I really didn't imply that your term should end *now*. Nobody
seemed to know and both Bruce and Steven answered my question in a very polite
way, concluding that we simply forgot to talk about this aspect when we elected
you as moderators. No big deal to me. BTW: I voted for Don, Amir and Christophe,
if I had been given 4 votes instead of 3, Bruce would have been a likely
candidate. So you certainly have my mandate to moderate this group, I also
didn't claim that you weren't spending enough time on this job, on the contrary.
I have also acknowledged your diligent efforts in several emails, just in case
you missed it: THANK YOU FOR SPENDING YOUR TIME ON THIS DUTY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR
CCC COMMUNITY.
>, "why are we making
>decisions instead of having the whole newsgrop vote on everthing"
There has been a debate about the topic of reinstatement on the newsgroup. I
conceded that the Tueschen issue might or might not be treated as a special case
of reinstatement, although I certainly advocate it to be on general rules and
principles instead of mere "flexible" by-case decisions.
<self-defense mode on>
I think you are misquoting me, by the way. I never said anything remotely
similar to "why are we making decisions instead of having the whole newsgrop
vote on everthing". I don't know why you have to attack me this way. I would
prefer if you would stick to what I actually wrote, if it was as offensive to
you as you claim, there ought to have been a straight quote from what I wrote.
<self-defense mode off>
>and so on.
pretty hard for me to refute an "and so on", don't you think? Please try to be
fair and argue on factual grounds.
> We would have to be pretty thick skinned not to notice
>all these things. Can you see how this might be interpreted as
>criticism?
What's wrong with criticism? I am confident to defend myself against any charges
of unjust criticism, in case you are implying my questions and suggestions were
not legitimate ones.
> You also implied that we would simply punish you if
>you spoke up.
Again, it would be helpful if you quoted what I wrote. I guess (?) you're
referring to my following statement:
>Maybe time to talk about this here in public, even if a possible consequence
>could be that there would be "huge numbers" of "yellow cards" (something which >I question, by the way)?
[message 26907]
I did not suggest that you would punish me if I spoke up.
I argued that rules that were made to get rid of abusive attackers on CCC should
be applied, even if the implication would be that there really might be some
people who would have to be asked to leave. I questioned that a "huge number" of
people would be affected by applying the rules.
> So what is up with this? Is there something on
>your mind? The thing that is incredibly annoying to me is the
>whole tone of parnoid mistrust.
I see that you are incredibly annoyed. That's why you talk about "the whole tone
of par[a]noid mistrust". Sorry, I'm too polite to reply on your insult.
>I cannot understand why anyone
>would not trust any of us. I find the other 2 very intelligent
>and very reasonable.
I'm glad to hear that you like Amir and Bruce that much, but how does this
statement relate to me?
>
>Also, I am wondering about this exchange which I can make no
>sense out of:
>
>Bob Hyatt:
>>He can be
>>interesting when he wants to be (and maddening when he wants to be also,
>>of course). Hopefully more of the former than the latter now...
>
>YOU:
>I don't subscribe to the equation that if somebody posts *also* on topic, he has
>any more rights to attack others than somebody who posts *nothing* on topic. I
>hope that this is not what you intended to say.
>
>What does Bob's statement have to do with your reply?
Please read Bob's reply to my statement, maybe this helps to clarify my question
(please allow for my limited abilities of understanding ambiguous statements
that are not written in my native language, which is German).
Kind regards,
Moritz
P.S.: This reply just cost me another hour, after your statements ("paranoid
mistrust") I felt obliged to write this, I sincerely hope it was worth it for
you.
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.