Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 15:01:55 02/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2005 at 14:32:35, Christopher Conkie wrote: >On February 09, 2005 at 13:53:35, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On February 09, 2005 at 13:27:31, Christopher Conkie wrote: >> >>>Hello Steven, >>> >>>No problem. I will take your advice and email the moderators about "Pedro Gomez" >>>right away, that way it is kept out of here. Maybe they will do something, maybe >>>they won't. >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Christopher >> >>Christopher, >> >>I received your email and without telling the world what you told us - here is >>my open air response. >>==================================================================== >>Speaking for myself ,I appreciate your comments - but one member saying someone >>is someone else that was banned does not provide proof is it true to me. If and >>when it is proven (asbsolute), I would think the ban would be in effect. But I >>am not a detective and I have no plans to be one. If members want moderators to >>be detective, jury and judge with rspect to this issue - they should not vote >>for me. >> >>My past experience has shown that moderation process is effective as most people >>do not keep coming back under different aliases - and when they do come back as >>I believe some have, they are generally better behave. I see no reason to >>change the moderation process and I would not want to be part of that process if >>it was changed. >>===================================================================== >> >>best regards, Michael >>Just my $.02 >>===================================================================== >> >>Best, >> >>Michael > >Hello Micahel, > >Would you like proof? I am only answering you here because you answered me here. > >In our country when someone is convicted of a terrible crime, say for example a >child molester considering that is the "in topic" in the USA at the moment, they >are banned quite rightly, from working with children......forever.......even if >they change their name. In fact if found to be doing so under a different name >they would find themselves locked up again very quickly. > >The above is just a way to illustrate my point, nothing else. > >Leaders/Moderators/Politicians etc should be beyond reproach otherwise they >should not stand/be allowed to stand for election was my point....only this. > >If you send me a mail we could discuss further. > >Regards > >Christopher Christopher, Please send me "proof" if you have wish to, but that may not mean that we will neccassirly act. It very hard to send me substantive proof in e-mail as there is a always chance that anything one receives via email is fabricated. How will I be able to tell that you did not make up the proof. Presuming you did not make the proof, I believe it will be very difficult for me to ascertain beyond a reasobable doubt that any evidence presented to me is substantive, undoctored and would be independently collaborated by others. The common "he said/I said" carries little substantive weight and one I would not want to act as judge on. Your analogy to equate child molesters with ordinary people banned from a computer chess forum is also a stretch. My objective as a moderator is to maximize the computer chess forum for all people and to keep the process simple and efficient. Anything other than that, and you would not want me to be your moderator and I would not want to be one. This is conputer chess forum, nothing more nothing less. Best, Michael
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.