Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Reinstate Thorsten Czub? A plea.

Author: Steve Blatchford

Date: 12:25:02 09/24/98

Go up one level in this thread

On September 24, 1998 at 14:42:07, Don Dailey wrote:

>On September 24, 1998 at 02:03:52, Danniel Corbit wrote:
>>I love Thorsten Czub.  I love his tournaments and his remarks.  I did not read
>>the posts that led to his expulsion.  I only read titles that interest me.  I do
>>not know what he said, but I apologize in his behalf for myself.  As an
>>alternative, can someone be given a read only account?  That seems a good idea.
>>That way, threads could be carried on in r.g.c.c. in a meaningful way.
>>I appeal to the offended parties to offer forgiveness.
>>At any rate, I would like to see his posts here again.
>>Just a single person's opinion.
>>I don't know what he said, but he has always been a gentleman to me via NG posts
>>& private correspondence.
>>OTOH, I will abide by the decisions of the moderators and I am not complaining.
>>I would understand even if I had been given a yellow card for some of my posts.
>To the whole group:
>There are a number of posts based on this subject and I would like
>to clear up some things concerning this.
>Removing Thorsten was incredibly painful for us.  We had to consider
>a lot of things when we did it.  First of all, Thorsten did indeed
>attack many people and those people have complained loud and clear
>to us.  We did not remove him because of these complaints, but we
>do feel an obligation to listen to what people have to say.  Do you
>expect any less of us?
>Another point we considered is that Thorsten did contribute a lot
>to the group.  A lot of people will fault us for considering things
>like this but we are not advocates of robotically following rules
>and regulations.  I think this is a valid consideration myself and
>this prevented us from removing Thorsten much earlier.   But another
>consideration was that we were starting to get very uncomfortable
>with the amount of consideration we were giving Thorsten.  At some
>point it becomes VERY unfair to others, namely the ones who are
>the victims of his attacks and the other one we might be required
>to remove.  For instance Sean was removed for much less than
>Thorsten got away with, but almost everyone thought Sean was
>way overdue but not Thorsten.
>But for some reason everyone now feels that we
>were hasty with Thorsten which to us, sound ridiculous having
>spend an enormous amount of time together involving scores of
>emails and several weeks of negotiating with Thorsten.
>You should all know that each of us suggested NOT removing Thorsten
>each time it was considered.  The conversation always went, "let's
>try one more thing" and so on.   At one point it got private, Amir
>spent time communicating with Thorsten for a few days without us
>knowing the contents of his communication with Thorsten.  The
>idea was to try anything we possibly could to make Thorsten stop
>his attacks and make peace with his victims.  Of course at the
>same time his victims were pressuring us, expressing their
>"disappointment" at how badly we were doing our jobs and trying
>to intimidate us during the whole process to remove Thorsten from
>the group and wanted US to issue a statement that Thorsten was
>doing them wrong.  Why did they do this?  Because they were deeply
>hurt by Thorsten.  Even though we did not allow ourselves to be
>intimidated and did not remove Thorsten, you have to ask yourself
>why their viewpoint should not be considered?

Did you consider the possibility that Thorsten was the victim of a pre-planned,
private email conspiracy which set out to provoke and then zap him based on his
inevitable "off-topic" response ?

Steve Blatchford

This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.