Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:37:23 09/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1998 at 11:40:22, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>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? > It means that *we* used our position as "founders" to exclude someone we had a *personal* problem with, namely Rolf. Because none of us liked him "personally". Because *all* of us had had 'encounters' with him on r.g.c.c. I believe that is what he meant. It was not an action that was based on a rule Rolf broke, because we had *no* rules at all except no personal attacks. He did not attack anyone on CCC, *in* CCC, so the only rule we had was not broken. Rolf took a piece of data from CCC, about the CSTal game in Paris, and went to r.g.c.c and started a "did the CSTal operator conspire to try to affect the tournament standings" thread. Chris decided that we needed a rule against this, and then convicted rolf of violating that rule, and the rest is history. I didn't take it as a personal insult directed at any one person. It was a statement that was based on quite a bit of fact, in fact. And remember, I was one of the group of nine folks that ultimately agreed to take this action. In my case, reluctantly as you remember, but I went along with the majority and so agreed in an implicit manner. >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 - I wasn't trying to "cover it up"... We still took an action that was justified in principle, but not in policy, because there is *no* rule that Rolf broke that we can point to. He didn't attack a single person in CCC. *personally* I believe that someone that misbehaves in r.g.c.c ought to be excluded from CCC on general principles, because the probability that they misbehave here is pretty high. But I don't feel comfortable with such an action, unless we choose to adopt it as a rule within CCC. That was our mistake before. No rule to support what was actually a reasonable action. We either need to add a rule to cover this, or else treat everyone absolutely equally. Reinstating Rolf is the right thing to do. Then, if everyone wants, create a policy that says misbehaving in r.g.c.c is the same as misbehaving here, and penalize anyone that does so. But do it *after* the rule is in place, not before... I *hate* retroactive laws, retroactive tax increases, etc...
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.