Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 16:13:23 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 14:17:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 16, 2002 at 05:41:35, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On January 15, 2002 at 16:18:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:46:29, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:15:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 15, 2002 at 03:57:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 14, 2002 at 19:17:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hello , >>>>>>> >>>>>>>i see bookbuilder in cct4. that is an interface made by >>>>>>>Bas Hamstra sold to J.E.F. Kaan (who can't program at all) >>>>>>>and with crafty added sold as 'bookbuilder'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Now i see Jan Kaan join CCT4 with bookbuilder under the name 'djenghis 0.05'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He is mentioned as 'author' from Djenghis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is not correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Vincent, >>>>>> >>>>>>You impossibly can provide the evidence of your accusation, I suggest you move >>>>>>your suspect to the Tournament Director of CCT4, that is where it belongs. >>>>>> >>>>>>The moderators of CCC are not going to allow you to discredit the name of Mr. >>>>>>Kaan based on wild speculations. So it's either provide the evidence or stop >>>>>>now. >>>>>> >>>>>>Kindest regards, >>>>>> >>>>>>Ed Schroder >>>>>>CCC moderator >>>>> >>>>>With respect, I disagree with this. The factual accuracy of what someone is >>>>>saying shouldn't be an issue. The moderators should not be a court of law that >>>>>determined whether what someone says is true or false. >>>>> >>>>>"Put up or shut up" should be something the members say, not something the >>>>>moderators say. The club that the moderators wield is too heavy in this case. >>>>> >>>>>As a group, we need to be able to speak freely about issues that are important >>>>>to us. Sometimes, this might involve very contentious speech, which Vincent >>>>>seems to specialize in. >>>>> >>>>>I think that the charter is designed to protect us from stalkers and people who >>>>>can't stay within the bounds of civility. It's not designed to prevent us from >>>>>getting into arguments, disagreeing, or even accusing each other of things. >>>>> >>>>>I suggest that if Vincent makes a campaign out of this, it should go. If >>>>>someone is going to post the same thing every few days, they are obviously using >>>>>the forum as a vehicle for personal attack -- that's what a campaign is. I >>>>>don't see that happening here. >>>>> >>>>>If someone wants to say something nasty, I think they should go for it. I think >>>>>that the charter protects us from people would would follow us around sniping at >>>>>us, like the stuff that is happening in the other forum, but if someone is >>>>>displeased with someone, that's a valid topic. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>I disagree >>>>We got a moderator email that asked to delete all the thread >>>> >>>>I thought to do it but it was not a clear case that I was sure to do it so >>>>I decided to discuss it with Ed and the decision was not to delete it. >>>>but to give Vincent a warning. >>>> >>>>My opinion is that people should not accuse each other by "facts" that they >>>>cannot prove and the question if the "facts" are right or wrong >>>>is not important. >>> >>> >>>I am with Bruce here. Discussions can be frank at times. But there is a >>>difference between someone stating a concern and giving reasons for it, and >>>for someone doing the same thing 20 times in a row. IE the previous group >>>of moderators tolerated quite a bit of this stuff from (say) chessbits or >>>whatever. But only to a point. Once a did to, did not discussion goes on >>>a while, it is time to end it. >>> >>>But discussing particularly sensitive issues here should be considered as >>>acceptable so long as it doesn't resort to name-calling/insults. Being >>>concerned about a brand new program from an unknown author is certainly quite >>>reasonable in light of past happenings related to my program. I think it has >>>already died down nicely of its own accord without needing any moderator >>>intervention at all. >>> >>>If we only allow provable "facts" here, it will become quite useless, quite >>>quickly, for quite a lot of folks... >> >>Vincent simple has something personal against Jan Kaan (I know this for a fact) >>and tries to discredit him. This is not the first time he tries to discredit him >>in public, you know. I am surprised you have this opinion. When I was once >>pissed at Vincent and wrote *one* poinsonous mail (without any direct insults) >>it was instantly deleted by Uri Blass, because he labelled it a "personal >>attack". And these smearing campaigns are allowed??? >> >>Come on, a little consistency... >> >> >> >>Bas Hamstra. > > >I do not see this as a "smearing campaign". I see it as a tournament >participant wanting to be sure that we once again don't have yet another >crafty clone playing in a public event. It has happened in the past. It >will happen again. Asking is not "smearing"... Nothing wrong with asking. Had Vincent only done that the matter would have been cleared up discretely with a few mails. But no: "he cannot write a program". Some people can't see, or make insuline. Others can't write a program. Well, THEN he must defend in public! Best regards, Bas.
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.