Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 09:10:19 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 11:19:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 05, 2004 at 10:14:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 05, 2004 at 08:23:45, Mogens Larsen wrote: >> >>>Hey! >> >>>There's has been a disturbance in the force. Mainly in terms of numerous aliases >>>controlled by dubious characters. I think the time for action has come. To do >>>away with the evildoers, sooner rather than later. Therefore I propose this >>>contingency plan as electory platform for the upcoming moderator elections. >> >>Having been in politics some time i must admit that i am starting to dislike >>those who just are busy making more and more rules. The only result is that no >>one will use those rules unless someone can use such a rule to his own >>advantage. That's the classical problem in european politics nowadays. >> >>Especially when the state has to follow its own rules they really go to far. >>After speaking for 1 year with 2nd chamber (comparable with congress in USA), >>and province members (comparable with state politics) it still will take years >>to correct something where all political parties agree now more or less that it >>is wrong, except of course national health care. They are just counting bodies >>and are not convinced unless a major amount of bodies shows up. >> >>Now you propose to make for a small forum more and more rules, just meant to >>control 1 person, who is very recognizable right now which i prefer. It will be >>real bad when he starts to spell better, which he sure will do when you force >>him. >> >>Take Rolf Tueschen, the CCC was supported by Hyatt to get created in order to >>get rid of Rolf Tueschen. Just do some search on google on tueschen + hyatt. > >Better do your homework better. _I_ had _nothing_ to do with the creation of >CCC. I started posting here weeks _after_ it was created. I don't like this >format, usenet news is _far_ better. But I came because others came. I didn't >come first, regardless of your rambling suggestion. > >Rolf was _not_ the main reason for CCC. There were _several_ reasons, as in >people that were abusive on r.g.c.c. > >> >>Now you want to create new rules for a single member which i *can* very easily >>recognize now thanks to his spelling of english, even worse than mine. >> >>If you accept new rules and stick to them, this person will like Rolf Tueschen >>learn how to fall within the rules meanwhile still writing the same crazy >>nonsense. >> >>Yet others will be a victim of it when some moderator person X dislikes a person >>Y. No way to escape then. >> >>I find this a bad idea. >> >>Note that most here somehow recognize easier a person than some engine playing >>under a different name. I'm amazed by that. >> > > >It is still necessary. Otherwise you end up with moderators that are >incompetent or have some agenda of their own, and they use their cadre of >aliases to force their choices on the rest of us, if the "clones" are not caught >and weeded out as they come in. > >One simple idea is "you can not vote if you don't average five posts a week in >the 6 months prior to the election." I can't imagine our "canadian friend" >creating 300 fake IDs and then posting something sensible from each, doing 3000 >posts a week. :) Bob I don't care for this one too much. You might have folks just increase posting to meet voting requirement. I am not that active in posting so I would not be able to vote. Then again perhaps your intension is to eliminate my class of participant as well....Wayne p.s. I check in here at least 3-4 times each day and read the posts that interest me..... > >If you don't have rules, you have anarchy. Anarchy is _bad_. > > > >>>1) Punishment of the inability to capitalize correctly, ie. to write or print in >>>capital letters appropriately. >>> >>>Examples: >>>a) i'm incapable of remembering passwords, so now i have a few hundred aliases >> >>passwords,so :) >> >>>(Here "i" should be "I"). >>> >>>b) what? that wasn't me! really, it wasn't! (Here there should be capitalization >>>after question and exclamation marks) >>> >>>Both violations will result in a warning and then expulsion if repeated. >>> >>>2) Excessive use of question and exclamation marks, ie. more than one in >>>succession. Misuse of ldots (...) will not be accepted either. >>> >>>Failure to comply with those guidelines will have consequences similar to 1). >>> >>>3) Free accounts from yahoo, hotmail, aol and maybe others will not be allowed >>>without a plausible profile. This determination is subjective and without >>>appeal. Only a written testimony from a reliable member in triplicate will be >>>accepted. >>> >>>No profile equals termination of membership. >>> >>>4) Last, but not least, good conduct. From good manners to correct quoting >>>techniques. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mogens
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.