Author: Amir Ban
Date: 09:06:09 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 20:35:33, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On October 07, 2000 at 07:20:03, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On October 06, 2000 at 12:48:02, Peter Davison wrote: >> >>>On October 06, 2000 at 11:32:44, Paulo Soares wrote: >>> >>>>On October 06, 2000 at 07:47:14, Peter Davison wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In the extensive thread: "Once again Dr. Hyatt is right on--He is a >>>>>dispassionate observer", Bob Hyatt is asked: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Then why bother replying since you make it clear you are not interested >>>>>>in anything other than _insults_ when anyone questions anything. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sarah. >>>>> >>>>>Bob Hyatt replies in the relevent thread: >>>>> >>>>>"Again, back up to the beginning. I didn't insult _anybody_." >>>>> >>>>>"This shows your ignorance." >>>>> >>>>>"Please don't make statements where you know exactly _nothing_ about the topic >>>>>you are talking about." >>>>> >>>>>"Consider your psychic abilities on a par with the rest of your comments. IE >>>>>worthless." >>>>> >>>>>"thanks for sharing nothing new..." >>>>> >>>>>"Then do you get a kick out of posting "ho hum" non-news?" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In Bob's Forum, can Bob do whatever he wants? >>>> >>>>You seem to be a guerrilla fighter in CCC. When the opportunity appears you >>>>appear and tries to explode bombs in strategic places. The tactics of doing >>>>guerrilla already proved to be inefficient over the world. >>>>An advice: you will reach your objectives in a much more efficient way if you >>>>come back to CCC with your true name and to answer to the posts in the rigth >>>>moment. On this way your bombs won't hurt people that nothing has to do with >>>>your fight, and you will be doing what likes, changing ideas about computer >>>>chess in the best forum in the world about the subject. >>> >>>Interesting points you raise. I am aware that I'm capable of making 'changing >>>ideas' posts on computer chess, but haven't done so for some time. I could >>>argue, arrogantly, that computer chess is still catching up on my 'changing >>>ideas' posts from two or three years ago, but still hasn't got there yet. >>> >>>You are right when you say this could be a very good forum. But, at the moment, >>>and for some time, it has suffered from structural and personality problems >>>which prevent it from so being. At this poing a great cry goes up from the >>>residents who claim it is just fine, but they forget those who left, who raise >>>now no voice. They also forget the people who could be posting at a much higher >>>level, but who don't and just stick to the easy stuff. >>> >>>This board really does not work in the way it was designed to do, could do, or >>>even as well as rgcc in 1995-97. It really is a pale imitation of what it could >>>be. >>> >>>Surpisingly enough, I do have motivation and ideas for improving the forum. >>> >> >>I don't think you have any useful ideas at all. A few months ago you came >>back using your real name, then after a few days you posted your username >>and password, saying that the standard of debate wasn't high enough for >>you, or some such nonsense. >> >>I don't understand how one minute you can decide you don't want to >>participate (as suggested by posting username and password) and the >>next minute you want us to listen to your "ideas for improving the >>forum" because *you* suddenly feel motivated to "help" us. >> >>I don't think you have anything to offer. I believe that you don't like >>CCC because it functions perfectly well without your input. >> >>Andrew > >Hello Andrew, > >I have already posted on the same subject some weeks ago and asked "Peter >Davison" to try to be constructive or else... Now, I believe that the time of >the "else" has arrived... One can get a rather good idea about his (not) having >something to offer by perusing the Oxford Software forum (I keep forgetting the >name of the place) where there were only two or three posters I believe. Had >P.T. had anything to offer, that forum would have flourished, right? > >*** Djordje This has an ominous ring. Can we have an explanation of what this post means ? I hope the moderators are not considering drastic action against yet another poster who has criticized Bob Hyatt. This forum is very sensitive to Dr. Hyatt's honour, and any critic is nailed from several sides. However, for the moderators to join in is really inappropriate. I don't know who Peter Davison is, I'm not aware of his merits or demerits, and I don't care where else he posts. What I do know is that it's not the moderators' business to make public statements about it. Moderating this forum with Bob Hyatt is a pain. First, he often has his unique view of the facts. This tends to drive some people here crazy. For me this issue (from the moderator's viewpoint) is simple: Bob Hyatt is allowed to see the facts any way he likes, and the other person should keep his temper. Second, however, Dr. Hyatt has several times posted in ways that violate the charter. No set of moderators ever took drastic action against him, because of his standing and also because he stays within limits that he thinks are ok (but are not). Now that Bob is a moderator himself, I would expect him to put a lot of restraint on himself. It didn't show in his conversation with Sarah Bird, and what's worse, it didn't seem to be in hot temper, and we saw a conversation in which a moderator calmly and repeatedly insulted a poster as if it's his right and only natural. When a moderator attacks a poster, there is insult added to injury, because the moderator is the one supposed to tell everybody else how to behave. Now when someone, whoever, points this out, it smells really bad if the moderators suddenly notice that he is not constructive or any such sorry excuse to put the gag on. I hope the moderators will remember what their job is, and what it's not. Amir
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.