Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:14:04 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 19:21:38, Will Singleton wrote: > >On May 06, 1999 at 18:48:24, KarinsDad wrote: > >>Why are we here again? >> >>I am torn in that I have seen that the moderation has appeared to work in the >>last few months. >> >>I now see that we are in the same mess again. >> >>Both sides appear to be in the wrong. >> >>I did not see the posts, but I do know something about the personalities of the >>individuals involved. And it appears to be a personality clash. >> >>Robert has posted little in the last few months. However, practically the first >>set of posts he makes suddenly get moderated. Why is that? I respect Robert a >>lot, but I have seen him overreact time and time again. Is it possible that this >>has happened this time? And did the moderators overreact in response? Or is it >>truely an Orwellian situation with respect to the moderators and Robert? >> >>And are there a lot of members overreacting to all of this? It does appear that >>it is the same people who are jumping on the anti-moderator bandwagon over and >>over again. >> >>I am also concerned with the major inference that without Robert and Ed, this >>forum is somehow incomplete. That may be true, but I doubt it. There are a lot >>of people on this forum who have been working on programs for years. There is a >>lot of expertise here. >> >>However, people are trying to make us believe that Robert and Ed are essential. >>I respect both of these individuals a lot, however, I do not think that their >>postings are essential. I have not seen many posts by Ed all year and Robert >>hasn't posted in several months since his last blowup with the moderator(s). >>Useful, yes. Helpful, definitely. Thought provoking, occasionally. Essential, >>no. >> >>So, all in all, I think many people here are making a mountain out of a molehill >>with regard to this. We appear to have a personality conflict between one or >>more moderators and one or more members. That will happen. They themselves >>collectively appear to be at blame for this. However, the rest of us have to >>suffer endless postings and countless arguments because of it. >> >>I wish the entire lot of you who are so concerned with this would just bury the >>hatchet (and not in each other) offline. This includes Will, Robert, Harold, >>Bruce, Ed, and a variety of others too numerous to mention. Apologize to each >>other and get on with life. >> >>Maybe I can sum it up best with two words: >> >>Grow up! >> >>KarinsDad :( > >KD, > >As usual, a thoughtful post. Appreciate the clarity, and the balance. (No, I >am not being sarcastic, I mean it.) > >As to your ending advice, I believe we have tried, in the most humiliating of >ways, to appease Bob and to get him back. We have had dialogue offline, >initiated by us, with time spent researching the issues, going back over months >of posts, and trying to come to an understanding. In fact, he said he was all >set to come back the other day, but he got offended again by another post with >his name attached. > can we stop with the hyperbole for a moment? I received perhaps 2 email messages from the moderators about this issue. I will be more than happy to post them here to make the point. Or I'll put 'em on my ftp machine so that they can't be deleted, if necessary. How about explaining the 'humiliation' you went thru with me? I saw no begging. I saw none asked for by me. I saw no groveling, etc. So as with Harold, I take issue with the above wording... because the implication is that you guys begged and begged and ornery old Bob kept his chip on his shoulder and refused to cave in. That is utter baloney. I believe I gave you guys a clear statement of my feelings about CCC. I have a copy that I'll also be happy to post here if that will clear this up. So let's move on from this horse-crap about being humiliated. I've not humiliated anyone, nor have I asked/suggested that anyone humiliate themselves. I left here of my own free will. I recently posted one comment because someone sent me a copy of a post by Harold that I thought was poorly worded (the one where he said he thought the moderators would have to get on their knees and beg me before I would come back.) He followed up with the "We, or some of us are more interested in computer chess..." and I again responded "I am at least as interested in computer chess as anyone here..." And both of my responses were deleted within an hour or two, while the original Unruh post that I felt was definitely personal lasted here over 24 hours before anyone deemed it time to get rid of it. IE I take issue with the concept that "attack most people and it takes a lot of discussion between the moderators before the attack is removed, but if someone challenges a moderator, 1 hour is a long time for the post to survive. At least one of mine today was deleted within minutes of it being posted. And I don't believe that _any_ of mine were offensive. Simply responses to statements that I don't believe reflect reality. >This isn't between Bob and us, it's between Bob and our method of moderation. >He has said he can't hack it, and that's that. that is part of the problem here. _many_ "can't hack it". And that ought to be a red flag. It seems to be too easy to delete a post. And I feel like I am back in kindergarden where I have to keep checking the blackboard to make sure someone hasn't slipped in and erased what I wrote/drew there. > >One of us, today, did get upset and say some things that shouldn't have been >said. That was in the thread that got deleted. An overreaction, perhaps, but >understandable in context. Of course, no one has the context except us and Bob, >so out it went. But this isn't fundamentally a personality conflict, at least >not from our side. One of 'us' got upset because _I_ responded to a statement made by a moderator, about _me_ to another member here. The "begging on our knees" statement. I found that offensive and suggestive of behavior that I wouldn't request nor condone. But the bottom line is that once again, I find myself embroiled in a dispute that ought not have happened. If only the 'moderators' could leave _my_ name out of their personal comments. Notice that a _moderator_ mentioned me by name after I had been 'quiet' here for a _long_ time. A _moderator_. And you don't see why I'm unhappy about that? And you want to turn that around so that _I_ am being childish or immature about this whole thing? It is now 21:10 CDT. I wonder how long _this_ post will survive? > >We will treat all members of the group equally, and let the chips fall where >they may. Someone mentioned that we must have thin skins, to get into it like >this. Nope. If that were true, ha, we'd have been gone long ago. But we're >not quitters. > >Will equality is all I want. You seem to imply that _I_ want 'special treatment'. The 'special treatment' _I_ want is the same treatment that is given to the moderators, vis a vis deleted posts. Nothing more. Nothing less. However, I think most will agree that (a) CCC is a better place without me being here to incite such nonsense; (b) It would make sense to simply delete "Bob Hyatt" from the moderator's vocabulary if hyperbole is all that can be written; and (c) I am far from 'childish' in my actions. I'm 51 years old. I expected to be treated as such. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unfortunately, here "less" is the order of business it seems...
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.