Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 12:17:28 12/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1998 at 12:55:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On December 21, 1998 at 04:19:51, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: > >>Ahh, without 'bouncing', back onto the subject of whether this individual should >>have been banned at this particular time so close to the holliday's, and so >>close to this election, I must ask this question in reply to your post; >>Why can't this be a forum (=haven), for raconteurs, (: a person who excels in >>telling anecdotes, quoted from the Merriam Webster dictionary on AOL), and also >>the rest as stated above? >> >>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! > >Larry, I don't understand why you take issue with this guy being thrown out of >here. Because he is a human being. Even though I hate human beings, I do feel compasion for them, even if they deserve what they get. >First, his agenda is obviously destruction of this place. You can get evidence >for that conclusion by looking at the guy's own posts over the last year or so >in r.g.c.c. I did not see that as his agenda. I'm not sure what his agenda is, but it has been pointed out by a number of other's that he is likely unaware that the wording of his post is a big problem. This may not be reason to throw him out, but I don't think it's >reason to waste much effort supporting him, either. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I'm not excactly a supporter of him, but I'm not, 'out to get' him either. As a candidate I'm very reluctent about the use of Banning as a solution to these problems. I am reluctently coming to the conclusion (because of the huge anti-Sean sentiment), that it is sometimes a necessary solution. But it does make me sad, if that is the only way. > >Second, he was caught red-handed trying to destroy the place. He had nominated >a moderator candidate, predicted his candidate would win in a landslide, and >when there was a problem with this nomination, he used four different accounts >(at least) to try to create an apparent ground swell of public support for his >candidate, so the nomination would go forward. This raised some suspicions, and >upon investigation it was found that he had at least 91 accounts, which >certainly sounds like a potential landslide in the making. If this is a 'Fact', I have no problem with the direction taken. How can I varify this information for myself? I'm moving back to Long Island, NY in January. Perhaps it will help to visit Steve, at ICD? > >What can possibly be worse than this? It took around a hundred votes to be >elected moderator last time. If someone hadn't caught this, it's possible that >Sean could have essentially chosen his own personal moderator, and possibly more >than one. Are you saying it was easy to, 'catch him out' in this, or not? If it was easy to catch him, then it would have been an illegal election, and could not happen. But I see what you mean, if catching irregularities like that is difficult & time consumming. > >What does the guy have to do before you'll admit that he is something of a >disruption, Larry? Apparently, I'm a lot more tollorent than most (if not all), of the people who have to put up with, 'something of a disruption' Perhaps that is a terrible flaw, especially if people are thinking they would vote for me as a moderator. I really hope and believe that people can defend themselve's well with words, and that people who are making what may be interpited as offensive post, can be reasoned with, before you have to go & bann them. But as I mentioned above, I'm seeing some new realities now to. Heck, I'm not even sure I want to win. You moderators do not have an easy life at all:) So I would like to join those who have thanked you, Amir & Don, for the great job you have done all these past months. > >You are on the moderator candidate list. What would you have done here? Good question, and please don't take my answer as a big critism of the way the moderators did handle it. I think I would have waited till after the Holidays.(to Ban him). Perhaps I would have prepared the issue for the new moderators to deal with if that were necessary. Perhaps then banning him would have less controversy about it, as there wouldn't be the appearence (from the current group), of 'getting him', just before leaving office. mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! >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.