Author: Will Singleton
Date: 23:51:01 12/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1998 at 01:16:40, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >On December 20, 1998 at 23:18:42, James Robertson wrote: > >>On December 20, 1998 at 20:58:01, Marc Plum wrote: >> >>>Well this is understandable, but I doubt if it was really necessary. I had >>>learned long ago not to bother reading any of his posts. When he was not being >>>offensive, he was usually just inane, and I didn't have the patience to decipher >>>his semi-literate style of writing. >>> >>>For the record, though, I am not interested in seeing anyone banned, even if I >>>find them offensive. It is so simple not to click on posts from someone like >>>Evans once I learn that they have nothing to say. On the other hand, someone >>>may have been interested in his rantings. If he wasn't using up ridiculous >>>amounts of bandwidth, why not let him post and just ignore him? >>> >>>I expect I will continue to see his name in headers on rgcc. As usual, I just >>>won't read these messages. No sweat. >>> >> >>Then why have moderators? > >Good point, on the other hand banning him now creats the problem for the new >moderator's, as they will surely have to decide when and if he can come back. > Never. End of issue. >Also, I believe that a moderator's last recourse should be the banning of >anyone. It creats a lot of new agravations for everyone, such as this spiraling >thread here with his name in it... Ahh, mr. slug, it's easy to change the subject of a thread. As to your assertion that banning a member creates aggravation, may I suggest that the opposite is true. That is, failure to ban a misbehaving member creates aggravation. Do you intend for this forum to become a haven for raconteurs, or rather a place for the serious programmer and enthusiast to discuss computer chess? Will
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.