Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:17:38 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 16:27:48, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>This has an ominous ring. Can we have an explanation of what this post means ? > > >I must admit that you (and Mogens above) have a point here: on rereading my >message, I must say that it does sound rather ominous. I worded it wrong, but I >guess I could say it again in plain English and try to set things right. Here >goes: Peter Davison is only an alias for Chris Whittington, who has lately been >posting largely on topics that are "not, within reason, on computer chess" (cf. >Charter). Rather, most of his postings pertained to different variations of one >and the same idea about how moderators and the whole forum were being dumbed >down by excessive moderation and/or dumb messages on bean counting. All of >these postings had a thorn or two in them, often denigrating the content of >"plain" and non-philosophical messages ( still remains to be seen what the deep >and philosophical messages are according to Mr. Whittington's criteria). As >such, C.W.'s postings could easily provoke extended and unnecessary off-topic >threads. > >My "else" stipulation refers to Mr. Whitington's account and our (moderators') >right to delete it. One of the reasons why I think this account ought to be >deleted I already presented in the above paragraph, and the other reason is >that, of course, he doesn't have the right to post under a pseudonym. And, >before I forget, the third reason is that Mr. Whittington was suspended and >hasn't been unsuspended yet. Therefore, if Peter Davison is, as I am convinced, >Chris Whittington, he does not have the right to post on CCC yet. > >*** Djordje I think that Chris has been up to little more than destructive efforts for a long time, and it seems very obvious to me that the positions he advocates are meant to provide him with more leverage that he can use to hurt people. I don't have any information from the moderators from the previous term, but we saw some posts that Chris posted under his own name, for a while, so I presume that any suspension was lifted. After a while though, we saw him post his username and password in here, along with what was a big "fuck you" for all of us. I think that it is becoming very evident that he's not here to discuss computer chess, he's here because he wants to cause trouble where he can. I don't see why there is any need for you to say "yet" at the end of your last sentence. We have groups of moderators who for the most part make decisions in private, then don't say very much to the next group of moderators. So there isn't much sense of moderation history that is passed along from group to group. I've done the job twice, and Chris was a major problem both times. It seems obvious that the previous bunch had at least one problem with him, and here you go now, too. Doesn't this seem to suggest a pattern? Chris has been the a persistent "fake account" attacker for the past two years, and he always emerges in times of stress, as part of an effort to make things worse. Why is there any thought of allowing him back? I can understand the concept of forgiveness, but if everyone takes it upon themselves to forgive him in turn, we are going to have to deal with this guy for many more years. bruce
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.