Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:17:33 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 10:31:17, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 10, 2000 at 09:33:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I refer to the part about personal attacks and the like. It is pretty obvious >>when someone is here only to attack others, and that isn't so "subjective". In >>the case of the thread I was involved in, it was sometimes direct, sometimes >>subjective... > >The thread involving you contained a valid question IMO. Whether the intention >was to raise a question for discussion or to cause havoc is unclear. Probably >the latter as you say, but the subject of the initial message was valid >nonetheless. If it was to ask questions about my posting, the most likely place would be either in the original thread, or to the moderators? What about his second post about the idea that I might convince chessbits to drop the price of their software? Do you think _that_ served any useful purpose at all??? > >>You miss the point _big time_. Chris doesn't frequently attack me. This last >>time, yes. But that time didn't generate nearly as much moderator email as >>previous examples. He often just picks up on whatever is going on at the >>moment and flays away. > >So it was an accumulation of offences that resulted in your decision? If that is >so, then moderator participation in his threads was an attempt to provoke him to >continue? Nope. Again please don't judge me based on your experiences with others. Chris and I have had knock-down/drag-out arguments. We have also had long and cordial discussions. He asked me to come to the Gambitsoft site a year or two ago and discuss my parallel search. IE I do _not_ carry grudges. If he talks reasonable to me, I can respond with- out trying. Maybe that is rare. Maybe it isn't. But it certainly happens in my case. > >>I disagree as did many others. Threatened law suits. arguments about pirated >>versions of beta software. None of it belonged here. More suitable for >>"the National Enquirer" or something similar. > >The lawsuit was already a reality and the question about what you call "pirated >versions of beta software" was explained in a decent way. The same applies to >the allogations of using "beta knowledge" to help an adversary, but we obviously >disagree on this. Not "we". I didn't take any action until _several_ members emailed the moderators asking for action. When we deleted a few objectionable posts, then the complaints were "you deleted X, but left Y, which is unfair." More discussion led to deleting _everything_. > >>Bruce gave one that _exactly_ matched my take on the post. But it doesn't >>really matter (to me) how _others_ took it. It was obviously written to me, >>and when you read each point carefully, it was intended as a jibe, not as a >>friendly discussion. > >I believe Bruce was the only one with that opinion and not surprisingly so. > >Reading each point of the allegedly insulting initial post carefully, doesn't >reveal anything in particular. The tone could have been better, but resorting to >direct insults because of tone would wreck havoc here, if it were to become a >general rule of conduct. Did you read her comments carefully? Did you read _my_ response carefully? There was no direct insult in my response _either_. I tried to reply "in kind" as best I could. > >>I didn't see anything to comment on. I am a _volunteer_. As such, no, I don't >>hold myself to some higher standard than everyone else. If I were getting >>paid, and members paid to be here, it might be different... > >So you don't see any problems when moderators engage in heated discussions as >members without taking their behaviour into account? You can't honestly mean >that, can you? Is proper conduct for sale? No. I simply volunteer my time to do the moderator duty. It takes little time for the most part. If you or anyone gets unhappy with my performance of moderator duties, start a thread about it. If enough agree, I'll be more than happy to turn over the duties to the alternate that was elected. If I get out of line, I expect the other two to pull me back in. Ditto for one of them. I didn't sign up to be a "role model" for the polite poster of the year contest. I simply agreed to try to help keep the obviously personal stuff out of CCC, just like every group of moderators since this thing was started has tried to do. > >>I have no idea what you mean by "explanation after the fact". I don't see how >>you could interpret "I have seen ..." to be anything other than _exactly_ what >>I explained it to mean. So I remain puzzled about that... > >It looks to me as if you invented the so-called initial insult by Sarah when you >discovered that some found your behaviour in the thread questionable after CW >had compiled the list of insults. That why I used the term "explanation after >the fact". I'm not specifically talking about how you changed or didn't change >the definition of "I have seen" in the initial thread. In fact, I'm not too >concerned about the thread as such, but mostly the behaviour. > >If you feel uncomfortable about issuing an apology here in public, there's >always e-mail. > >Mogens. I usually apologize when it is the right thing to do. Slap me in the face and I am not going to apologize for having my face in the way of your hand. I might send you a get-well card, however. :) Bob
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.