Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:24 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 21:43:21, Eelco de Groot wrote: >On October 08, 2000 at 18:18:42, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On October 08, 2000 at 17:17:38, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>Yep, the "yet" crept in somehow, no need for it. >> >>As for Chris, he was suspended indefinitely by the previous moderators after >>posting his username and password. We, the present moderators, never planned to >>invite him back but he used another alias this time, that of Peter Davison, and >>started posting his usual non-constructive stuff (whoever wants a detailed >>explanation of the term can contact me via email)... >> >>Anyway, after giving the guy the benefit of the doubt for a while, I think it is >>time to act now. >> >>With respect to the previous moderators and the info we got from them, Andrew >>Williams was kind enough to provide us, the current moderators, with a detailed >>account of the important issues and accounts they had dealt with for which I am >>thankful. >> >>*** Djordje > >With all due respect for the difficulty of the job of you moderators to me that >does seem like overdoing it a little, if you are acting just on the basis of >recent posts. I would add that I would like to hear what Dann has to say about >it but I don't really want to bother him with this now when he has much more >important matters to attend. Best wishes for your family, Dann! > >I can't see this has much to do with "forgiveness", nor can I really see much of >the "hurt"? If Robert really is very bothered by Peter Davison's posts I will >take this back of course. I am personally not taking much of what Chris wrote >very seriously, but if you and the rest of the moderators feel that you are >being attacked I suppose there isn't much else I can say. I don't think you >should be feeling that way but would that help? > >On the subject of identity, of course Peter Davison is unmistakingly Chris, that >is exactly why I am not so much bothered by it. It isn't as if Chris is going to >great lengths to hide who he really is, wouldn't you agree? But it is up to you. >Thanks anyway for taking up an ungrateful job! > I'm not bothered by him. I "recused" myself from any moderation on the current set of posts since I was the target. That seemed reasonable, as I don't believe it is possible to be a participant (unwilling or not) and a moderator, at the same time. I don't care what happens to him, personally. If he wants to post under his real name, about computer chess, that sounds fine. If the previous moderators kicked him out for posting his account/password, then that should stand, IMHO. If you divide the total posts of a person into the number of off-topic or inflammatory posts, you ought to get a pretty small number. Let's call this the signal-to-noise ratio. In the case of this poster, it is near zero. In the world of RF signaling, that would not be accepted and the transmitter/ receiver would be tossed out. That seems like a reasonable decision here. Noise is easy to produce. "content" is harder. We can get noise by giving a computer to a 2-year-old. >Sincerely, Eelco.
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.