Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 14:29:00 11/16/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 1997 at 15:10:58, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On November 16, 1997 at 11:52:33, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>On November 16, 1997 at 05:54:11, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>>In my response to Fernando's question about Rolf's "execution", I stated >>>that Rolf had copied Ed's posts here to rgcc in order to continue >>>ranting about Ed apologizing. Rolf, in rgcc, posted that this was not >>>true, and since Ed's post about Aegon, which was quoted in Rolf's post, >>>still has not shown up on my news server, I was about to post this reply >>>as evidence that he did copy Ed's post to rgcc. Before I did, I checked >>>Deja News and found that Ed had posted the exact same post on rgcc, that >>>he did here. Therefore, I want to correct my statement that he copied >>>Ed's posts to rgcc. My incorrect assumption was based on the fact that >>>Ed had said he would no longer post to rgcc, and my news server's >>>incomplete listing of posts. >>> >>>This brings me to the question: What is the material that Rolf is >>>supposed to have copied to rgcc? I had assumed it was this post, but now >>>I do not know. When I originally saw the notice that Rolf's access had >>>been rescinded, I was going to protest that his expulsion was unfair, >>>since, although he continued his usual style in rgcc, he had been very >>>careful to avoid any such posting in CCC. Even the posts relating to >>>CSTal's miss of the draw here did not contain the insinuations he added >>>in rgcc, and therefore were not inflammatory. In other words, IMO, Rolf >>>had been very careful to follow the rules laid down in the access >>>agreement here. But when I saw the reason given that he had copied CCC >>>posts to rgcc, and I also thought he had, I didn't protest as strongly >>>as I would have otherwise. So, I would like to know what he copied from >>>here to rgcc. >>> >>>Now the request: If he didn't copy any posts from here to rgcc, >> >>He's been copying zillions of posts. He certainly used information that >>was ONLY on CCC, concerning the CSTal-Virtual game in paris, to launch >>suggestions on rgcc that Thorsten had thrown the game and cheated for >>money. These suggestions are now expanded by Herr T to include cheating >>for sexual favours. >> >>BTW I know it was only on CCC, because the only reports from Paris were >>coming from Thorsten's phone, and were being written onto this newsgroup >>only, written either by myself or by Ingo. > >But this is different than copying posts and commenting as if they had >posted on rgcc, which is what I thought he was doing. He did a lot of things. He still does. More so now and with his anonymous friend. Let me ask you a question: if you decided to set up a moderated group for computer chess, would you allow Herr RT access, given what you know of him now ? I certainly wouldn't. In fact, if I knew how to do it, I'ld unplug his telephone and electricity supply on the basis that I was doing the entire human race a favour. >Many people were >copying the game scores from here to web sites and rgcc, so if he got >the info here it would be hard to prove, since there was a lot of >interest in WMCCC at the time. > But not our draw gossip. that came direct off here. > >>> I would >>>request that his access be re-instated for as long as he is willing to >>>follow the rules. >> >>You're serious ? >> >>Just which set of rules is he going to follow ? Is there a set of rules >>on earth he would follow ? > >I don't know. No, and nor does he. That's the problem. > But it seems, up to the point he was expelled, that he was >following the rules that were given him here, albeit to the letter, and >perhaps not the spirit. If you want to expand the rules to include other >behavior, you should do that, warn him, and then if he continues expel >him. It just seems in this case, that the CCC founders weren't following >the rules they had set down. Our reason for this action has already been made clear. If he's warned first, he would still plunge rgcc into the abyss over the warning. When his final, undoubted expulsion finally came, what then ? Another barrage of tantrums and lunacy, all over again, for a second time. > >>And you would expect him to be believed and trusted ? You've been >>reading rgcc recently ? Once it was a news group, and now ? And due to >>whom ? > >You knew what happenend to rgcc when you set out the rules. If the >decision was taken then to exclude Rolf because of his activity on rgcc, >then it should have been so stated, and he should never have been given >access. Before this board came on line, we had a very long discussion (you can imagine) about whether or not to ban him from the start. You may be surprised to know, that at one time, I appeared to be a lone voice arguing for not writing him off, and believing in his possible socialisation. Gradually more liberal counsels prevailed, by which time I'ld changed my mind and was arguing to ban him from the start. Such is debate, even though it went on to the point of exhaustion. Look, Keith; this whole business isn't really about whether or not the 'founders' are a group sticking to the western democratic values of free speech at any price or not. We are all members of the computer chess community, for better or worse, we all enjoyed the old rgcc; we all wanted to carry on our discussion, and to do it with anybody who turned up on the net. It was fairly clear to us that rgcc was no longer a place where this could happen. it was also clear that endless vicious stalking campaings were being carried out there. it was clear that, whilst none of us were immune from sayings things that might have been better not said, and that most of us were probably nutters in one way or another; Herr T was in another league. Single-handedly he managed to destroy rgcc. We wanted a place to talk. The rest is history. As is Herr T. He's staying that way. His own choice. > >>I think there is precisely zero chance of Herr Tueschen getting his >>rights to read and/or write to CCC back, unless and until he learns how >>to behave like a member of the human race, and for a sustained period, >>and demonstrates it. > >He was behaving on CCC. If a requirement of his staying on CCC after his >reinstatement is that he behave on rgcc, then make it so, and let him >choose the path he will take. The requirement is that he demonstrates on rgcc that he is sufficiently socialised to join our already dysfunctional family. Unfortunately this is impossible for him and therefore won't happen. > >>>The rules did not state that one could lose access for >>>insults posted in rgcc, and while I admit that it may be hard to ignore >>>his posts there for some of the founders here, I think that it is unwise >>>to expel him if he has followed the rules. >> >>We could, I suppose, have spent 10 years trying to create a set of rules >>to cover all eventualities and possible manic behaviours. But we didn't. >>We created a small rule set, and relied on the democratic intelligence >>of the founding group of ccc to deal with instances of Tueschenesque >>insanity. >> >>What you imply with your question is that we could have written a >>computer program. This program would have as its data all possible >>Tueschenesque insanities. We then publish this program and its data. >>Every time a Tueschenism takes place we feed it to the program. The >>program than delivers its verdict. >> >>But life isn't like this, is it ? Its more complex. And Tueschen's >>objective, anyway, was to skirt on the edge of the ccc declared rule >>system, while running riot on rgcc. He wanted to get himself thrown off >>for some 'marginal' activity. We had a long debate about what we would >>do, if anything. There was disagreement, based on rule sets / >>infringement or otherwise, whether Tueschen was in any way likely to >>ever behave in a human manner, issues of personal freedom and so on. The >>decision, and it was an opposed decision, although reached by a >>substantial majority of the founding group was that Tueschen had >>rendered himself beyond all reasonable human behaviour levels, that he >>was not going to change, and that he was going to continue. The decision >>was that we, the founding group,were no longer prepared to tolerate him >>reading or writing to ccc for a moment longer. >> >>As time passes, and as I occasionally skim-read the zero-content >>disaster zone known as rgcc (made a disaster zone by herr T), I become >>increasingly convinced that the decision was the correct one. > >This is my primary reason for wanting his reinstatement here, until he >breaks the rules set out in a clearer fashion, if he does. I suspect he >will, based on past behavior, but if rules are given, they should be >followed by both sides. We won't have any peace on rgcc, if he is able >to rant with some truth that he was treated "unfairly". You won't have any peace whatever happens. His idea of 'peace' in the past months has been to make endless, vicious, unpleasant, lying attacks on anyone and everyone. He's going to continue. He's a very disturbed person who needs a great deal of help. Its help that we can't give him, and, in the same way, we can't and won't tolerate his particular form of mental disorder you see being played out on rgcc. Chris Whittington BTW Saddam is in the news right now, similar sort of conundrum .... :) >I know that he >can skirt any new rules that you lay down, and I wouldn't object if he >then were thrown out, but I believe he thought that he was following the >rules. I can see how you vote, but what about the remaining 8 (or 7)? > >kp > > >>Chris Whittington
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.