Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:27:38 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 12:06:09, Amir Ban wrote: >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. This poster was Chris Whittington. He has potentially a lot to offer in computer chess discussions. But in general, he offers hand grenades rather than lillies. Over and over. This doesn't have a thing to do with me. He has been warned more than once about completely unrelated topics. CCC also has a distinct policy about users with fake handles. This case obviously violates that as well. 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. You know who he is now. > >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. If you will check again, I did _not_ post the _first_ insult. And yes, I consider being called a liar an insult. I belive you also did the same thing a while back and I responded the same way. I don't make up lies. You were quite capable of taking a single game, observing a bizarre behavior by my program, and then extrapolated that I programmed it to behave that way on purpose, to be abusive. I explained what happened. Did you retract your statement? not a chance. And when I get angry about such nonsense, _I_ am at fault it seems. strange things in the world of Oliver Twist. > >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 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.