Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 08:40:22 09/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>I do not believe that moderation should be used to settle personal scores, >>>which is what I believe happened last year. I think that was an awful >>decision, and >>>even worse, an awful precedent. It should not be possible for a moderator to >>>restrict someone's CCC account as a means of settling a personal dispute. >>That's a huge accusation Bruce. >>You are entitled to have that opinion. Putting your (this) opinion in public >>(without proof) is a personal attack on a x number of people of the >>founder group. CCC was created to escape from personal attacks and >>now you (NB being a moderator) without any reason start a personal >>attack on a x number of people. >>Wish you take it back. >>- Ed - >>>bruce >I personally believe he is correct. Chris started the bandwagon rolling by >making incessant demands that Rolf be excised *now*. Nothing wrong with his >doing so. Others agreed (I did originally, but changed my mind after seeing >comments by Bruce and Steve). I originally agreed because I, too, had been >involved in far too many battles with Rolf and did not want to see them >propogate to CCC which they most certainly would have. So I believe that *all* >of us had personal reasons for the decision. Bruce was against it from day 1. >And never changed. Steve was against it from day 1 too, but didn't really have >a vote as one of the "founders". I was for it for a few days, then against it, >but eventually posted my "I am still against this but will go along with the >democratic majority...". >However, the one thing I *hate* about the decision is that we did it at a sort >of "kangaroo court" proceeding. For those that don't know, these "courts" work >like this, in general: You find something you don't like that someone does, >*then* you make a rule (law) that makes act illegal, then you convict the >person >of breaking that law and punish him for it. Ignore the fact that when the >person performed this "act" there was no law forbiding it. This was clearly >done in the case of Rolf. Probably quite justified based on how he had behaved >in r.g.c.c, but it was done nonetheless, without any sort of rule to base the >decision on. We can all say that this was still a reasonable decision. But >how would we feel if this happened to *us*?? >That is *the*point here... Nope, the point is mud-throwing. Bruce said (see also quote above) "I do not believe that moderation should be used to settle personal scores, which is what I believe happened last year. I think that was an awful decision, and even worse, an awful precedent. It should not be possible for a moderator to restrict someone's CCC account as a means of settling a personal dispute." [ end of quote ] "to settle personal scores" What does this mean? When I see an insult I recognize it. However I respect your try to cover it with the cloak of charity. Bruce fully has the right to disagree with last year decision but he has certainly no right to imply hidden intentions which a) he can't proof and b) are not true. - Ed -
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.