Author: Graham Banks
Date: 23:20:21 02/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 01:28:27, Peter Kappler wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 01:12:04, Graham Banks wrote: > >>On February 13, 2006 at 01:02:27, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On February 13, 2006 at 00:57:24, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>On February 13, 2006 at 00:26:12, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 12, 2006 at 13:32:33, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt in polling users about possible >>>>>>commercial payment possibilities for your program, and as such I am removing the >>>>>>thread. >>>>>> >>>>>>As per the charter: >>>>>> >>>>>>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>>>>>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>>>>>messages: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>>>>> 2. Are not abusive in nature >>>>>> 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>>>>> 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>>>>> 5. Are not of questionable legal status. >>>>>> >>>>>>What about rule #4 do you not understand? >>>>>> >>>>>>Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So, this insulting post is your best attempt to handle the situation? Are you >>>>>kidding me? You could have emailed Vasik directly, but I guess that would have >>>>>robbed you of too much glory, huh? >>>>> >>>>>And please spare me the disingenuous crap that you've posted in other threads >>>>>where you claim you're "just asking a question". That just makes you look worse >>>>>than you already do. >>>>> >>>>>Did you consult with the other moderators before writing this post? >>>>> >>>>>-Peter >>>> >>>>Did I need to consult with the other moderators before asking whether or not he >>>>understood rule #4? >>>> >>>>Do I need to consult them before making any post here? >>>> >>>>Are you asking me this seriously? >>> >>> >>>Yes. I want to know if you acted alone. >>> >>>-Peter >> >> >>I've stayed out of this up till now, but after much thought I must say that I >>think Peter was right to remove the post. > > >I just found the tone of the post too aggressive and insulting, and I don't >understand why the issue wasn't addressed privately, via email. > >Vasik is a nice guy and has made great contributions to this forum and to >computer chess. He deserves more respect than Peter showed him in that post. > >-Peter > I get on well with Vas and I honestly believe that he was trying to find out the views of the CCC community as to what preferences were regarding the way his engine was released in future. Where else would he be able to ascertain opinion amongst such a large group of computer chess diehards? However the charter is the charter and the moderators are expected to enforce it. Regards, Graham. > > >> >>Sometimes a mod feels compelled to take swift action without the luxury of >>waiting 12 hours or so to hear back from the other mods. >>I have acted in such a manner at times also and I have similarly come under >>fire. >> >>The mods receive unfotunately, very little thanks for their efforts, mainly >>jibes and criticism. >>Like I have always said, it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you >>don't. >> >>Regards, Graham.
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.