Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:20:40 11/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 1998 at 19:37:12, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>I did not attack you guys, as a group, I disagree with two decisions you made,
>>as a group. I bring up these two disagreements when I am unable to avoid doing
>>so. This is not, contrary to your opinion, the same thing as an attack.
>
>On 20-09-98 you as a moderator here in CCC translated the above in a total
>different way.
>
> [ begin quote]
>
> "I do not believe that moderation should be used to settle personal scores,
> which is what I believe happened last year. I think that was an awful
>decision, and even worse, an awful precedent. It should not be possible
> for a moderator to restrict someone's CCC account as a means of settling
> a personal dispute."
>
> [ end of quote]
>
>Here you accuse some members of the "founder group" (the people who took
>the initiative for CCC) for having kicked out a member of CCC based on as you
>call it "settle personal scores" and "personal dispute".
>
>Quite different what you are trying to explain to us now. You seem to do your
>utmost to put the blame on Enrique, Dirk and Moritz. But the reality is you
>have accused them for hidden motives such as "settle personal scores" and
>"personal disputes" while these guys do not have such intentions at all!
I think that part of the problem here might be misunderstanding about what I
mean about personal scores.
I regard as "personal" any moderation action that isn't related to something
someone posted, and which isn't done in order to improve the security of the
group.
The case with Chris, as near as I can tell, is that he abused some or all of the
founders via email over a period of time. This is a nasty thing to do, but
banning him from CCC wasn't in response to anything he did here. I assume that
you guys did it for your own reasons, meaning personal reasons. The guy hadn't
posted here for months.
But this isn't really what is going on now, what is going on now has to do with
what happened after the ban. When Chris complains about being banned, the
answer he gets is that he is actually not banned, that instead he left CCC
voluntarily.
A recent example is from September 28 (28218.txt), where Moritz states in CCC:
Chris W. was never banned from CCC. He demanded
that we remove his password, which we did after a
couple of weeks, and then he started complaining that
we had blacklisted him.
There are other examples from more recent posts, notably an instance in r.g.c.c.
in late October where Enrique, during the course of an argument with Chris,
asks:
Tell me, boy: did you or didn't you demand to have
removed your access to CCC? Simple: yes or not?
I am sure there are several others scattered about, but I don't want to invest
the Deja News time at this point.
My most recent r.g.c.c. post, the one that is getting me in trouble here,
involved not the personal aspect of this ban on Chris, but rather the continued
denial that such a ban ever took place, and use of this denial as a weapon in
arguments between Chris and some of the founders.
When I saw one of the founders imply once again that Chris left CCC voluntarily
(the r.g.c.c quote above, actually), and I saw Chris respond that he was in fact
banned, I responded, in part because Chris is right. He is banned.
I inquired with ICD about what has been done with Chris' account. Chris
requested that his account be removed, much the way that Moritz, Dirk, and
Enrique did today. But Chris' account was not removed, instead the password was
changed.
When we've had to ban abusers from CCC, this is exactly how Tim does it. He
changes their password so they can't get into CCC. So from the point of view of
the mechanics of CCC, there is nothing different about what has been done to
Chris than was done to Rolf or Sean Evans, etc.
Perhaps there is still a way to legitimately avoid calling this a ban, but I
can't see how. To me it is very clear what Chris' status is, and I do not for
the life of me understand why I have seen repeated denials from members of the
CCC founders group since this ban was imposed.
It is hard to discuss this without mentioning the people who did it, and it's
not pleasant stuff. But I don't think that merely mentioning the stuff
constitutes a personal attack.
It's not like I bring this stuff up every day, or I bring it up for fun, either.
When I brought it up in CCC in September, it was because Moritz made the
following statement (28210.txt), describing Chris as a person who "quits CCC
voluntarily short of being banned because he declares himself incompatible with
it". I thought that was an intriguing statement, so I asked him some questions
about this, and got involved in a brief discussion of Chris' status. I was
trying to get to the bottom of things in order that I could have an opinion
about Chris' situation here. I mean, if he left voluntarily, then why can't he
just create a new account?
And I brought it up in r.g.c.c. because there was an exchange happening, where a
founder's group member was bludgeoning Chris with this again. In that case I
wanted to do two things: I wanted to express that Chris is right, because he
is, and I wanted to explain that I wasn't going to try to get his ban lifted,
because I think he's done other nasty things here recently under a different
name. This is the post that got me in big trouble most recently.
bruce
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.