Author: KarinsDad
Date: 06:27:51 11/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1999 at 08:07:44, Bella Freud wrote: >On November 16, 1999 at 21:23:08, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On November 16, 1999 at 13:50:48, Bella Freud wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>So I posted only on-topic. I made three on-topic posts and did not do anything >>>else that Bruce could say was an attack. >>> >>> >>>I posted this in reply to Ratko Atomic's post: >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>On November 15, 1999 at 17:36:28, Bella Freud wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>I consider it needs 24 hours to digest the true genius of your post. >>>> >>>>It generated in me an instant crystalisation of thought. Just by your inversion. >>>>Chess programs are playing "negative" chess. They avoid obvious loss by ply N. >>>>For them perfection is in loss avoidance (the not totally obvious opposite of >>>>win seeking). Therefore no style, no plan, no class. Just dumb obstructionism. >>>> >>>> >>>>Bella >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>I thought this post was entorely on-topic and fair thing to say. >>>Then I got a reply to my post from the anonymous moderator "KarinsDad". >>> >>>This is his reply: >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>I posted this same thought a few months back. Of course, my post was not as >>>eloquent or well thought out as Ratko's. You must have missed it. I guess the >>>idea is not that appealing to you anymore since I never contribute anything >>>worthwhile. >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>I think that the last sentence is a provocation. Or a troll. It is designed to >>>get me to react. >> >>Maybe. And maybe it was in response to this comment of yours from the 15th: > >Oh great. Now I have to work out whether you are responding with your moderator >hat on or with your moderator hat off or to the post immediately before or to >some other post from days back. I have to work out if you're having a bad day or >if not. > >Now the current post. Is it moderator post, or not moderator post? Not really that difficult. If you had been paying attention, you'd notice that the moderation posts start with "Moderation:". Whether it is >or it is not there is little doubt that you are "mixing it" with one of the >punters. >First rule of moderator: Stay out of the squabbles. First rule of members: Stick with your agreement to not be abusive and that all moderator decisions are final. Or did you not read the fine print? Rise above it. For if you >start squabbling, with or without your hat, arguing to this post or to a post of >several days ago, suddenly you are without the moral high ground anymore. And >you need that to do your job effectively. Very simple. But something you appear >not to have appreciated. > >Now question again. Why did you come in to my on-topic thread, after you knew >perfectly well I had had a moderator warning and been told to make on-topic >posts, and after I had made three on-topic posts only. Why did you append a >provocation to the end of one of those posts? > >And it is not the first time. Is it? Remember the recent battle, Bob, Amir, >Christophe etc.? You came in that the end of that too, with a quite needless >flame threat on Ban. He responded vigorously and you had to back off. Most folk >here are quite intelligent enough to see that your own credibility and >moderation credibility took a nose-dive. > >Since you don't answer the 'why do it' question, I will hazard some guesses: > >Perhaps you are just incredibly stupid. Now I am stupid and a liar. See you later. I know how I am voting today. > >Perhaps your ego is so wrapped up in it all that you can't fail to get mixing it >with a "nanny knows best", just after you've waited to see which way the wind >was blowing, despite the obvious harm it does to the moderation process. > >Perhaps you have a hidden agenda all of your own which leads you to add a little >stir at the end, just as all is dying away, you liven it up again. > >Either which way, you should consider the job is not for you. > > >> >>"I find your comments patronising and devoid of computer chess content. I mean >>all your comments. I do not believe that you are "writing a chess program >>without alpha-beta". I think you are making that up in a vain attempt to give >>yourself credibility. Reason? Never any computer chess content that shows any >>sign of any understanding at all in any of your posts, ever." >> >>So, when you posted a message about something you hadn't thought about before >>and that you thought was a real interesting idea, I thought I'd point out that I >>mentioned it a couple of months ago in order to indicate that maybe I do post >>some computer content material at times. >> >>And, of course, your response to my message that you quoted above was: >> >>"I already told you. I think you lie. That your "chess program" does not exist." >> >>So, here we have a person that says that she only posts on-topic. Calling me a >>liar is not really on topic > >Now you try to escalate your case to get me banned. I didn't need to do it. You did it to yourself. I also did not reply to that post within it's own thread, but just let it lay where it was. I did not bring it up until you attacked me here in this thread. > >You posted this: >>>I posted this same thought a few months back. Of course, my post was not as >>>eloquent or well thought out as Ratko's. You must have missed it. I guess the >>>idea is not that appealing to you anymore since I never contribute anything >>>worthwhile. >(I think Bruce may consider that one an attack). > >Essentially you are provoking me to reply, subtle sarcasm, and a rhetorical >question as to why I don't respond to your posts. Where is the rhetorical question as to why you don't respond to my posts? I do not see that in that entire paragraph. You are making things up in your own mind. > >Well I'm quite honest, and I say what I think. You wanted to know why I don't >respond to your posts. So I told you. In fact I told you that I had already told >you. Namely that I think that you make stuff up and therefore I don't take what >you say seriously. You knew this answer already. > >So I say "I think you lie" means just that "I think you lie". Therefore I don't >take your claims to be writing a chess program seriously, therefore I don't >respond to your statements. > >Are you trying to tell me that I am not allowed to think that you lie? I can >think it if I want. My opinion. > >Are you trying to tell me that if you post rhetorical questions about my not >responding to your posts, that I can't reply with my honest reason? There was not a question in that post, let alone a rhetorical one. You are imagining things, reading things between the lines, and then making things up. And yes, you are not allowed to express opinions that you think I or anyone else here lies. We had a nightmare of a blowup because someone said that they thought person x was a cheat on ICC and there they had proof. Without proof, you are questioning my integrity which just plain is not allowed. > > >If you ask for an opinion, don't object when you get it. > >If you think you might not like the answer, then don't ask the question. Again, there was no question in that paragraph. You made that up all yourself within your own mind. > >>Telling me that my comments are patronizing and devoid of computer chess content >>may be on-topic, but is rather rude if not abusive. >> >>Knowing about my program that doesn't really use alpha-beta when you only joined >>a month ago and I haven't discussed it in that timeframe indicates that not only >>have you been on this forum before, but that you are also anonymous. Anyone care >>to take bets on who you really are? Hmmmm. Doesn't like other anonymous people. >>Doesn't like me personally. Throws fuel on the fire multiple times. Doesn't >>think I am working on a program. Has on several occasions made mention of the >>lack or morality or intelligence of members here. Hmmmm. I can think of someone >>who has said those particular things more times than I care to remember. >> >>And, of course, here you are again. Jumping on my case, throwing more fuel on >>the fire (even though you already responded to my post above by calling me a >>liar, you just had to throw a few more posts into this separate thread when I >>had not even posted on this thread yet). Hmmmm. >> >>KarinsDad :) >> >>PS. Elsewhere in this thread, you indicated that I told you to get lost in an >>Email. My actual words were "Grow up or leave" but I realize that you were >>posting from memory. I thought I had sent that Email to Bruce and Dann since it >>was in response to an Email of yours complaining about me, but I must have >>mistakenly not. I have since corrected that. They now have copies. >> >>PSS. Although a few people here in this thread have stated that they have not >>had a problem with your posts, I have quite a few Emails from members >>complaining (some to all of the moderators, some to just me). I can only think >>of one other member that people have been complaining about. You're looking >>good. Only one competitor. > > >You are really good at mixing your moderator hat on and moderator hat off in the >same post and various threads. This is all moderation. Check the title. People who don't want to be bothered by this crap with read the title and know not to read the post. > >You get arguing in one paragraph, start making 'subtle' attacks in other >paragraphs, and then start with the 'moderation' threats in another. > >This is the style of a moderator who wants it all ways at once. You argue, but >if you get disagreed with, you start talking about 'moderation complaints', or, >effectively, my right to post. > >And all mixed up with two pages of your very own style of personal attacks. > >> >>PSSS. By the way, although my posts have not been sterling in the last few days, >>I have noticed that you are the only one who complained to the moderators about >>them. Nobody else has yet complained about them (although some people may now >>that I have mentioned it). Moderators are not perfect. > >You are not expected to be perfect. Although I note this is your usual way of >getting out of the self-created trouble each time. > >You are expected to show just a little degree of wisdom and aloofness that would >then allow you to operate from a position of respect. > >Screwing up time and time again (or deliberately being provocative) followed by >weak apologies or statements This is exactly your modus operandi. It is hugely ironic that you are trying to indicate that this is what I do. Anyone who cares to look can find at least a half dozen posts of yours in the archives where you screwed up and then posted an apology that you did not mean to offend someone. This started day one when you called the forum sexist. I have made mistakes here. And, I have posted apologies. However, I think the rational person here can differentiate between an honest mistake or a mistake made within a heated discusion; and an overt subtle attack on another member or on the group which appears to be intentional to create havoc and causes a flare up of angry posts. that the poor moderator makes occasional >non-sterling posts wears a bit thin. Especially when you attack members for >allegedly cyclically making attacks and then apologising meekly themselves. > >Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Pin it up on your PC. It might help >you. > >We are members as well. >>And when someone jumps on our case, we react too. >> >>However, I am quite willing to forget this entire thing > >How terrifically sporting of you. After being called stupid, the offer has been recinded. > >I would prefer you to answer the difficult question first. Why have you >cyclically repeated the behaviour of making provocations just as the little >fights here are dying down. You do it again and again. Folk here are intelligent >enough to see it as a pattern. Please point out the post numbers you are refering to. I have a list of your posts numbers where you have created havoc. > > >and leave it on the >>floor if you are willing to be more reasonable (my definition of reasonable: >>controversial topics ok, > >It has already been stated that this place has a 'society-specific' moderation >rule set. Implicit in this is that 'controversial' becomes also defined >societally. 'Controversial' would be eliminated by claiming either off-topic, or >boring, or pointless, or by winding up the participants so the discussion could >be terminated by making it all too personal. > >subtlely antagonist comments about others or the group >>not ok > >Really? Speak for yourself. Because this is just what you do, and then you run >and hide behind the moderation screen. If I do this (and I am not saying that I do not since everyone can have a different interpretation of a post), then you will also notice a common thread that I only do it to bullies and troublemakers. If I did it to everyone, I doubt I would be a member let alone a moderator for long. > >In any case you have already stated that you are personally driven by the number >of complaints. No complaints equals no action. Lots of complaints means action. >A sort of moderation policy by counting beans. One complaint can cause moderation or the moderator himself can notice a problem. > >I think I would make a much better job of your job than you do. Fine. The next alias you use to get in here, you can run for office. However, I would recommend not screwing up before that happens. > > >Bella > > > >). KarinsDad ;)
This page took 0.01 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.