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 0.01 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.