Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:48:19 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 10:17:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >What are you talking about? "in advance"? DId he not post (starting) threads >here that were obviously designed only to cause trouble? And you consider that >"OK"? Then why has _every_ group of moderators had trouble with him. Dating >back to _huge_ problems when we first started CCC. Of course it's not okay to stir up trouble, but it takes at least two to argue and make it happen. I didn't find the initial messages by PD particularly interesting and/or provocative. Nothing that warrants the commotion it caused. Besides, if you're convinced that it's no other than CW then stop the account instead of playing along. Either that, or ignore him alltogether. He did have a point in one thread, which is the one I'm interested in. The obligation of moderators to behave appropriately towards other members due to their unique position as judge and jury. That's independent of your person completely, though you happen to be the current example. >Just read the post she quoted. And explain how to interpret the comment >about "He has noplayed half the beta testers already". A statement made >with _no_ data to support it. Then you should have asked her to produce the evidence and ignored her until she did. The other option would be to state the reasons why the noplay list is as it is an leave it at that. You can hardly consider the statement to be a personal insult if it doesn't contain an ounce of truth. Statements without connection to the truth are very ignorable. >Don't you think I _would_ if her questions/comments didn't contain direct or >indirect insults themselves. Well, I'm hot tempered myself when I sense an indirect insult, but I'm beginning to realise that treating it as if it wasn't, works quite well. The most effective weaponry against a perceived rude remark is seriousness or humor, not escalation of insults. >Ask yourself the question "Why would ne not insult me, but would insult someone >else, when he doesn't know _either_ of us personally?" The answer to that >question is easy to figure out, when you think about it. Since I don't think my approach varies significantly from the one used by Sarah, my guess would be personal animosity. Mogens.
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.