Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Moderation please Second time (Pordzik)

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 18:41:30 07/28/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 28, 2002 at 21:03:38, Christophe Theron wrote:

>On July 28, 2002 at 12:59:57, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On July 28, 2002 at 10:00:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On July 27, 2002 at 23:14:37, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 27, 2002 at 19:38:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 26, 2002 at 23:14:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On July 26, 2002 at 15:08:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Detlev Pordzik again. After the first complaint the moderators did not even
>>>>>>>answer me. So this is the consequence. Pordzik thinks that he had the right to
>>>>>>>violate the charta of CCC which says that personal attacks are forbidden.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There have been _zero_ complaints.  At least _I_ have received no complaints.
>>>>>>I assume the other two moderators have not either since we _all_ get the
>>>>>>complaints sent to us individually.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>>if you insist, I can well publish the two texts CCC sent me in reaction to the
>>>>>emails I sent to you (the moderators). Because when you send such a message
>>>>>there is automatic message with text and the details of the time and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>>I quoted the numbers of the particular messages from "Pordzik" and simply
>>>>>pointed out why his messages were abusive in the light of the charta of CCC.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take e.g. the second complaint. There he states in his message that he couldn't
>>>>>find any ranking place for me whatsoever. He then concludes that therefore my
>>>>>contributions here are (I sum up his view) worthless. This is only a very short
>>>>>summary. But - since I do not teach chess theory here, there is absolutely no
>>>>>sense in such a message. The only reason for such a message is the personal
>>>>>attack and so the abuse of the charta here that forbids personal attacks.
>>>>
>>>>Fell free to post them or email them to me.  I did not receive them unless
>>>>I was sedated without my knowledge...
>>>
>>>The evidence is right below here in the posting, actually it was already there
>>>_before_ you wrote the little joke above. A joke because - as you described -
>>>all three moderators get copies of such emails. Since I got the affirmation back
>>>from your server it's clear that you should have them too - at least unless you
>>>were sedated, of course without your knowledge... But in my case three
>>>moderators should have been sedated without their knowledge, and this two times
>>>in the last couple of days. Looks spooky somehow. I'm very worried about you
>>>because if it's epidemic, then it's already world-wide since Christophe is miles
>>>away from the USA. Of course there could be a different solution.
>>
>>
>>I have not received _any_ moderator email complaints in the past couple of
>>weeks?  Any other moderator getting these from Rolf?
>>
>>I am getting daily moderator email from ICC about new folks signing up,
>>but the only things I remember recently were a few users asking us to remove
>>things they had posted themselves, or a couple of other complaints that are
>>not Rolf-related...
>>
>>Any moderator recall anything different?
>
>
>
>I confirm that I have not received Rolf's messages.
>
>Rolf, just send them again. It seems that they have been lost in cyberspace,
>together with the dozens emails of mine that get lost each month in the same
>way.
>
>Email is NOT reliable.
>
>
>
>    Christophe

I don't think that is the problem.  I think we have a problem with what
is often called "vapor-email"... Email that was _not_ sent.  I get daily
ICC moderator messages about new sign-ups.  I'm not losing email that I can
detect.  Which only leaves one conclusion...

>
>
>
>
>>>We still have the minor important question if in CCC it should be allowed to
>>>commit character assassination by calling a member (and then if the member is
>>>me) "steered underground assasinate". I agree that for the moment the question
>>>of the where abouts of the emails must have absolute priority for you. Until
>>>then you can't have any informations concerning the content of the two emails -
>>>unfortunately.
>>>
>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>
>>
>>
>>I think it is a testament to the moderators past and present that you are
>>allowed to post here, _period_ after your nonsense in r.g.c.c...  I suggest
>>that you simply stop your nonsense here and post reasonable stuff.  If you
>>start to demand moderation policy changes, it is very possible that _you_
>>will be the first recipient of those changes...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Everybody might have personal opinions about anyone but the intensiously
>>>>>directed personal attack is by definition insultive and forbidden here.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to claim for me the right that also in my case the charta of CCC should
>>>>>be respected.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the mentioned author would have brought forward any reasonable arguments why
>>>>>I was wrong in a message I would surely have responded him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me shortly lead your attention on his first insultive message. There he
>>>>>wrote expressis verbis the following that this chap or whatever, from the
>>>>>_context_ it's absolutely clear that he meant me, that I were a (quote) "steered
>>>>>underground assassinate" in some German newsgroups etc. pp. This is absolute
>>>>>fantasy. Therefore and also because this has nothing to do with computerchess
>>>>>and surely not this forum, it is abusive and character assassination. Because
>>>>>the job of a mole or whatever is not directly what is estimated as honorable
>>>>>profession. But since it is absolutely false in my case, it is character
>>>>>assassination. And this here right in the middle of this forum, where personal
>>>>>attacks already are forbidden.
>>>>>
>>>>>Beyond many differences which we two might have, I think, we do both believe in
>>>>>th freedom of speech. But in the Pordzik case the mentioned author has _not_
>>>>>taken part in the debates here where I was involved. Then suddenly he writes
>>>>>such insults. Alone from that angle it must be clear that he has a personal axe
>>>>>to grind. But, the hype is, that he doesn't want to discuss his insults, but he
>>>>>is proud to write against me that his sole intention is (suddenly! - because
>>>>>earlier this year he invited me repeatedly to write in his own forum and he
>>>>>telephoned with me in hour-long chats) to prevent that I could write my
>>>>>opinions. Beyond all our differences I see no reason at all that you should be
>>>>>interested in such intentions. Because, I might be "lame" in my thought process,
>>>>>I might be a bad English writer, but you wouldn't assume that my opinions had no
>>>>>content, when I based my opinions and more so questions on pure science and
>>>>>logic, in the SSDF or DB2 threads. The mentioned author however has repeatedly
>>>>>informed me that any form of critic is in his view unwanted and simply not
>>>>>clever. And also negative for mutual relationships. Of course such a view is
>>>>>reasonable in business. But here we do not have just business I think. Here we
>>>>>can discuss on the base of science and logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>I learned a lot from POPPER and other scientists of science. Progress is always
>>>>>a consequence of "conjectures" and "refutations". This has no personal nor
>>>>>abusive content whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course friendship is of highest value. But the negative side is when
>>>>>friendship is often misinterpreted as partizanship. I did never belong to a side
>>>>>or certain interests. I'm independant. And therefore such character
>>>>>assassinations are very evil. In truth I did never work for someone against
>>>>>someone else. POPPER described what happens with 'closed' systems of thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>Will you deny me here the right of protection against such unfounded, ugly,
>>>>>personal attacks in the Pordzik-style? "Steered underground assassinative"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are the texts I got from CCC for my complaints I sent to moderators, I made
>>>>>unreadable certain parts because this was email:
>>>>>
>>>>>The following message has been sent to ccc@icdchess.com:
>>>>>From: rtueschen@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
>>>>>Subject: CCC Moderator E-mail
>>>>>
>>>>>Reply-to: rtueschen@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
>>>>>[ name: ] Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>[ email: ] rtueschen@t-online.de
>>>>>[ body: ]
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>in the message 242 711 Detlev Pordzik again wrote completely off-topic only
>>>>>about me. This is called ad hominem. I beg you to do something against such
>>>>>personal attacks because they are forbidden after the charta of CCC.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>[ user: ] xxxxxx
>>>>>---
>>>>>This message was sent to you by xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>on Fri Jul 26 19:04:42 2002 (GMT).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The following message has been sent to ccc@icdchess.com:
>>>>>From: rtueschen@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
>>>>>Subject: CCC Moderator E-mail
>>>>>
>>>>>Reply-to: rtueschen@t-online.de (Rolf Tueschen)
>>>>>[ name: ] Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>[ email: ] rtueschen@t-online.de
>>>>>[ body: ]
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>The posting 242364 from Detlev Pordzik contains clearly put insults and
>>>>>character assassination.  [xxxxxxx snipped two paragraphes for personal reasons
>>>>>since this was email!]
>>>>>
>>>>>I hereby ask you to delete the posting nr. 242364 and tell Detlef to stop the
>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you should have any questions to me please contact me, I'm willing to solve
>>>>>the conflict. I hope that you won't let here in CCC poeple insulted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks to anyone here who reads this as moderator.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>[ user: ] xxxxx
>>>>>---
>>>>>This message was sent to you by xxxxxxxx
>>>>>on Wed Jul 24 18:35:21 2002 (GMT).



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.