Author: joe dean
Date: 00:00:50 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 02:37:28, Ed Schröder wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 22:43:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 19:08:44, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2001 at 13:31:15, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>>Chris was allowed to post under his own name during the time of Tom. He was >>>>here for a bit, but it wasn't any fun for him, so he made some derisive comment >>>>about the quality of the posts here, and posted his name and password, which >>>>presumably caused the moderators to have to shut the account down before someone >>>>else got into it. >>> >>>That is something that is still unclear to me. I remember Chris posted his >>>username and password when he in 1996/1997 left CCC in anger. My question is >>>or this happened a second time or not. >> >>This happened a second time, approximately one year ago. You missed him, >>because he didn't post much. Eventually he wrote a post complaining about the >>quality of the membership of CCC and included his password. > >I did not know that Bruce, that makes it indeed more complicated. > >Thanks for informing me. > >Ed Factual Error Correction ======================== When Chris left the CCC in 1996 he did not post any password or username, although, given later events he should have done. Chris left in 1996 and did not post again. As a high-profile poster he asked, politely by email, to the Founder's Group, with copies to ICD, that his username and password be destroyed for security reasons. This request did not receive the courtesy of a reply, nor any action. Two days after, and checking that the account was still existing, he asked again by email. This request did not receive the courtesy of a reply. This process went on another three times, each time not receiving the courtesy of a reply, nor the destruction of the password-username. Chris continued to not post. And would never had done so again. Five months later, during which time Chris had not made any post at all, Ed Schroder, Bob Hyatt, Enrique Irazoqui and various others on the Founder's Group who have totally disappeared, put out a deliberately vindictive and quite unnecessary and humiliatory public posting banning Chris from the CCC. At the same time the old password and username was destroyed from the server. Bruce Moreland is on CCC record with a public posting as having researched what happened, and confirmed (during his first moderation period) that the mechanism of destroying the password-username that took place at that time was by the ICD staff member (Tim?) leaving the account in place but changing the password to something random. Since Chris didn't post any username or password at that time, and since it would be quite impossible that the five-month later ICD password change mechanism could have taken place if Chris actually had posted his password-username combo, *and*, since Bruce Moreland and Ed Schroder are both perfectly well aware of this history, one has to wonder why they should find it necessary to jointly and publicly 'agree' something different. With hindsight, if a high-profile poster wishes to leave the CCC, and requests his password-username combo to be destroyed for security reasons; and there is no agreement from the server owners to do this, let alone even the courtesy of a reply, it seems eminently sensible to do it oneself. Chris wishes that he had actually done this at the time, since it would have removed the ability of the Founder's Group to make their public humilation ban. On returning the CCC after some years, and deciding to leave again (reason given below), Chris decided not to give the 'establishment' the opportunity to attack him again and destroyed his own password by posting it. Reason for not wanting to be a regular poster ============================================= It doesn't take very long to realise that the 'senior' posters here are all on agenda-push. That is to say that there is no real discussion at a high level. The only interest is in pushing one's own agenda. The result is that there is no feedback on new or different ideas, and a form of stagnation takes place. Once one has worked out the agendas of the people concerned, there seems little point in taking part in discussions with them that go round and round the same loops. Hence the only purpose in being a 'member' is to use the group as read/only for the occasional snippet of news, if one so wishes. Occasionally a little drama blows up and the usual suspects repeat their usual agenda, sometimes (often) with factual inaccuracies or obvious attamepts to mislead or allow misleading conclusions to be drawn, as in this case. Chris's role is puncture the bubbles of these people with satirical pins. If he can be bothered he might continue, then again he might not. It will be entirely his decision. Real name posting ================= If Chris were to post with his real name, he would be implicity acepting the Group Charter. Since Chris wrote the Charter this would not be a problem for him. What would be a problem, however, would be to have to accept the *interpretion* of the Charter, which, in Chris's opinion, has been abused in the past, and continues to be abused now. Chris knows perfectly well that *creative interpretation* of the Charter results in his banning, and would result in his banning again for political reasons (Hyatt) and hate reasons (Moreland). Therefore, unless and until, it becomes clear to Chris that the Charter cannot be abused in future, he has no intention at all of posting using his name, and giving the 'establishment' the power of unappealable judge, jury and executioner and hence the opportunity to make unacceptable ban on his name. End of story. Thank you for your time. > > >>>>I don't think he wants to post under his own name. I think he prefers things to >>>>be the way they are now. He gets to behave very naturally (for him) while >>>>telling everyone how oppressed he is. >>> >>> >>>Chris complaints about the ban on his name. When you remove the ban on his >>>name then a) he can not complain about that anymore and b) he is obliged to >>>post under his real name as otherwise why should one complain? >> >>According to Tim, there is no name field restriction. But if he comes back >>under his real name I will immediately suggest that the account be suspended. >> >>>If you think Chris does this on purpose because he likes to keep posting >>>under faked names you even have a 2-win situation: >>> >>>1) Argument of the ban is solved (no more "I am banned" postings). >>> >>>2) The obligation to post under his real name only (like everybosy else). >>> >>>However if it is true Chris has posted his username and password twice that >>>would make things a bit more difficult. >> >>He did it twice. >> >>>>The guy is a malevolent pain in the ass, and if he's allowed to post here within >>>>the next six months, under his own name or under a pseudonym, it will be either >>>>without my knowledge or over my objection. >>>> >>>>I mean you no offense at all, but if you would like to rehabilitate him, I >>>>suggest that you accept my nomination next time, win the election (which you >>>>would do easily), and try this program early in your term, so you are the one >>>>who has to deal with the disaster. >>> >>>Yes I know your opinion I should run the gauntlet once too, but that is not >>>the point now. Chris contributes, so you have to deal with it anyway. >>> >>>In the meantime (and who knows) his anger of the time for the ban is over >>>and he just wants to participate again under the CCC rules and under his >>>own name and not being faced with the ban on his name way back in 1996/1997 >>>as if all these things still exist. >>> >>>I would say give Chris the benefit of the doubt. After all we have clear >>>rules no? >> >>At one point I thought he'd been treated unfairly, and I was willing to get into >>fights with various people in order to advance this contention. But he got his >>second chance in the era of Tom, and got bored and threw it away almost >>immediately. >> >>This should make it very clear to anyone that he places little value on the >>right to post under his own name, in accordance with the charter. >> >>If someone else wants to mess with him, they are welcome to campaign on that >>platform next time. >> >>bruce >> >>> >>>Ed >>> >>> >>> >>>>bruce
This page took 0.01 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.