Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:43:57 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 17:34:20, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all: > >Many things has been said about my resignation and the reasons of it. A lot of >posts support Bruce, other support my case, others take an intermediate position >and many just take for granted malevolent interpretations in order to >strengthen his arguments. So I have the right to clarify this not to prolong the >battle -although it deserves to be prolonged because the issue is essential - >but precisely trying to get some consensus about what should be done. And I will >do it here point by point. >a) My resignation is not and cannot be considered an act of immolation in order >to get the upper hand against Bruce, as he thinks and proclaims with not >dissimulated enthusiasm. Or a “dirty suicide” as Christophe putted it. By the >way, Christophe, I never expected such a "double tranchant" interpretation from >you. I was compelled to perform a public resignation due to reasons than even a >child could understand. To be moderator is a public position and so you cannot >go without doing it publicly; people that elected you deserve an explanation and >besides you must warn about what they can expect. Or should I email each of the >3 or 4 thousands members of CCC instead of posting one post? Each day I receive >and I still do posts of people asking this or that, sometimes related with CCC, >sometimes with WCCR, where I am coordinator. So, I had to make public my >resignation. To confound this obvious reason with other resignations that were >dramatic and operatic is a nasty move. >b) To discuss all this problem on the ground of considering as a definite fact >that my post was a “dirty” one and only deserves to be in the bathroom wall is a >logical fallacy. The point is PRECISELY to discern if it was such a lousy dirty >thing that was going to produce a mess. It is a joke circulating in the Jews >circles of NY, with great laugh of all people. Then, why so much concern here >about it? And why NOTHING off topic can be said, including jokes, when even in >the most serious meetings of real scientist of real high level they take his >time for talking of everything to relax a bit? They are human beings, no >pedantic guys talking all the time of his professional equivalent of hash >tables. That simple fact is no understand by Mr Moreland. In fact It amazes me >that so many people with supposedly a scientific education are so an easy prey >to his prejudices and does not know to debate with the sane principles taught in >the elementary school. In every argumentation against me it is considered as >axiomatic that I made a mistake because of the off topic condition of my post, >his dirty quality, etc. And nevertheless we have never had here a serious >discussion about that, being this site all the time in the hands of the >particular morality and prejudices about cleanliness of some people. It is not >necessary to be a psychologist to see how unbalanced is a person that put a cry >in Heaven because of a joke with sexual elements. Almost every joke has them. >The force with which such “unmorality” are discussed and proclaimed here by some >people remember me some preachers seeing sins all around them and ready to >strike the sinners. >c) Moreland has said that he tried to prevent complains, etc. Well, that is a >really awful argument for an intelligent person like him. Trough the path to >prevent things you can go directly to hell. To prevent genocide Nato killed >scores of people. To prevent something it is necessary more caution and >subtlety, or you are going to get more troubles instead. This discussion about >my case is just a long, long example of it. >d) Respect to people that ask me to stay as moderator in order to compensate >Bruce and KD views of the world, I only can say that without consultation before >each candidate post to deletion be actually deleted my position becomes >unusable. Bruce erased my own post without a word before and KD had erased >threads in the same way. Now they argue about time, about the necessity to do >that tak very fast, etc. Robert Hyatt even made a serious and ponderous >astronomical statement with all the weight of his reputation about different >hour axis. Thak you, Bob, I did not know... All of them see the branch and not >the tree. They forget than the real issue is still to discuss whether this or >that post deserve deletion and whether the rules must be considered sacred and >without reflection either. It is not enough just to mention that certain rules >exist. Not even the most stupid judge ignore the necessity to compensate >abstracts rules with a bit of sane reason for each case. That discussion is >neccesary. >e) That discussion has to do with the following point: clearly in this site the >problem goes further than a problem between Bruce and me. There are here two >very different groups of people; one of them is very adhered to some supposed >moral principles and abhors jokes, “dirty” things, bad words, off topic post, >etc. They are the kind of people that, like a guy here said to me in a post, >“are transforming this site in a very insipid place, a kind of pathetic >scientific magazine...” And there is another group, probably with less >pretensions and arrogance and more tolerate views of the world, that see this >place not just a magazine about hash tables, but as a human place where people >gather to talk about computer BETWEEN other things. And clearly the first group, >trough the more abundant chess computer reputation of some people that belong to >it, has won the upper hand long time ago. They have shaped this place at his >will and the result are that funny, entertaining people goes out and bore guys >talking all the time about the same computerish thing remains and even rule. >A great discussion about this should be opened or this site will continue to >clash on the same topic. The second group will continue to be trashed and >overwheelmed and disdained and crucified with the emblematic phrase “off topic”. >That is the perfect tool they use to impose his will once and again. . >Fernand While I don't agree with your opinion on how this place should be, I think that you resigning was not a good end result. You received many votes, which to me means that there are many people who support your attitude towards how this place should be. Many people who selected your name have been disenfranchised of their representative in the moderation committee. Sometimes I take an extremely hard line to try to ensure what is to me an appropriate balance overall. I don't think that doing so makes me less human than you. Dave
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.