Author: Don Prohaska
Date: 11:50:07 04/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
I don't think you mean it is alright for me to call you a cheater and a liar as long as I stop after 5 or 6 times? I think if I called you that at a "private" club or maybe even a "public" club I'd better have some evidence or I'd be booted out by the members. Or punched out by you! But then Europe might have different standards. On April 05, 1998 at 04:04:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >Here are my 2 cents concerning the raised problem Bruce introduced. I >am speaking for myself and not on behalf of the founder group. > >#1. CCC was created to escape from personal attacks in RGCC. > >#2. CCC was NOT created because we couldn't stand the heat of >occasional flame wars. Occasional flame wars do happen (like we are >having now) and are unavoidable in heated discussions. Is that so >bad? I don't think so. But IMO there is one GOLDEN rule, flame wars >after a few rounds do simply STOP. Common sense in the end decides. > >#3. No, CCC was created to escape from hate campaigns in RGCC who >NEVER will stop, just read RGCC now. > >#4. So CCC was created by the initiative of a small number of people >known as the Founder Group (FG). In group email the FG decided that >CCC = RGCC - personal attacks. The FG operates in a democratic way. >We vote and the majority decides. > >#5. The FG is meant to watch over CCC and to ensure that we keep CCC >a place where we can talk about computer chess in the WIDEST sense of >the word. In my view this means if someone thinks Rebel is a lousy >program because of .............. he is allowed to say that. However >he is NOT allowed to post that 100 times. This would be a campaign. >If someone thinks Deep Blue cheated on Kasparov, we discuss it but >campaigns are not allowed. > >#6. You are entitled to post your opinion and defend it. The big >question in such cases (as we are having now) what is the threshold? >Pick 1000 people, you will have 1000 different opinions about that. > >#7. The FG is not perfect. If you expect the FG to make 100% perfect >decisions then your view of the FG is wrong. There are 9 people, 9 >different opinions, we vote and majority decides. This is not perfect >but you can't catch life and opinions in rules. Two hurrahs for >democracy, not three, as three is too much. > >To Bruce, I dislike to read that you think that there are double >standards in the FG. There aren't. We only disagree about THE MOMENT >when the FG should raise his voice against the current TOO heated >discussion about playing strength. > >Bruce, we are not the police here. We simply hope and rely that people >will stop by themselves. > >To Thorsten and others, you both have made your point loud and clear. >You both have had your six rounds. > >Bottom line, isn't it time to stop? > >- Ed -
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.