Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Reinstate Thorsten Czub? A plea.

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 0.06 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.