Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:06:38 09/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 1998 at 15:25:02, Steve Blatchford wrote: >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 Did you forget the smiley on the end? :-) Dave Gomboc
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.