Author: Pete Galati
Date: 19:30:46 10/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2000 at 09:10:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 13, 2000 at 05:01:39, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On October 12, 2000 at 20:33:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Simple to answer that one. Andrew Williams sent us a "moderator legacy >>>document" which described prior problems/complaints and the actions they >>>took. The multiple Chris personalities were mentioned more than once. We >>>had at _least_ 3-4 complaints almost back to back when the two "Bobs forum" >>>threads were started by him. >> >>That is a reasonable explanation for keeping an eye on Chris and much more valid >>than the ones you presented in our thread about the subject. A handful of >>complaints still doesn't dazzle me at all. But if the arguments were valid, I >>suppose it could be sufficient. However, I doubt that is true given the nature >>of the threads in question. >> >>I'm not sure I like the idea of continuous observation all year round and >>"legacy documents" passed on from old to new moderator. I don't particularly >>like the idea of sharing my past blunders with any complete stranger that >>happens to be elected. >> >>Is there any expiry date for these records that you mention? >> >>>If you look back through past threads, you will find other pseudonyms he has >>>used (Jonathan Smith was one IIRC) in the past. I consider _all_ of those to >>>be one 'case' here. >> >>I still don't see the exact reason for excluding the PD identity, but he's >>obviously present here despite of that, judging from the information he has >>available. >> >>Mogens. > >I treat this as more of a "police record". IE once you are convincted of >something, it is part of your record. And may be used in the future if you >are guilty of yet another infraction (ie many states in the US have a >"three strikes and you are out" policy). The moderators didn't pass on each >and every complaint, just information about cases they considered to be real >problems in some way. > >ICD adopted a policy of "no anonymous handles", which I consider perfectly >reasonable. That is _one_ reason the PD account is not acceptable, The other >is that his posts in the "bobs forum" threads had little to do with computer >chess, the second thread in particular. I (and other moderators both present >and past) would probably give someone that has posted _real_ posts about >computer chess a lot more leeway than someone that jumps in with a brand new >"handle" and starts posting negative stuff. The thinking is that if someone >starts off negative, they are probably going to _stay_ negative. > >As far as expiration dates... Andrew only mentioned action they took (ie if >they banned a user for multiple infractions) and cases that were "pending". IE >someone posted something negative, they were warned, etc. I really think that >we need a permanent record to keep up with who was banned and why, so that >future moderators will start off knowing what has transpired in the past... >And no, the "world cup" subject wouldn't be in there. :) Chris'll always be back. It's been never-ending ever since I got here. All anyone ever got rid of is his name (you know, until that odd experiment), and he keeps showing up again anyhow, then someone sharper than me points out who the new guy actually is, and it's the same thing all over again. This has to be happening several times a year, and I'm guessing that it's not posible to automatically filter out the membership application process to avoid this, or the problem would have been solved. I wonder how much thought Chris puts into his stuff, he's figured out how to pull everybody's sting. Pete
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.