Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:39:19 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 08:47:32, Roger Brown wrote: >> >>It is clear that vas had been treated badly. >> >>Even if his post is against the charter the right action is simply to delete it >>and not to generate a thread about it that is only to insult vasik. >> >>Note that the charter is not clear and there are people who disagree that it is >>against the charter. >> >>If the target is to explain the intention of 4 in the charter then it is >>possible to delete the thread and post something that explain it without >>mentioning rybka and only explaining type of posts that are deleted by the >>moderation. >> >>Uri > > > >Hello Uri, > >No, it is not clear that he has been treated badly in that specific post and >your pronouncing it so does not make it so. > >On the other hand, maybe it does. > >Who am I to disagree with you? > >:-) > >Later. > >Ps. How you can hold Peter responsible for the entire thread is beyond me..... For peter's responsibility It is very simple. Peter prefered to criticize vas in the thread instead of simply deleting his post. Usually it is not the behaviour here and moderators simply delete posts without doing big noise from the post. The charter is not clear and it could be better to explain vasik that his post is against the charter by email. "What about 4 you do not understand" is an insulting question because it sugggest that it is clear from 4 that the post is not allowed when it is not clear. I did not understand it from 4 and I am not the only person who did not understand it from 4. Uri
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.