Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:47:04 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 00:46:36, odell hall wrote: [snip] >>> >>>The problem was not that you responded it was the way in which you responded. >>>Here is the precise notice that I sent to you when suspension was required, >>>mailed 11/29/99 at 5:29 PM: >>> > > Another thing dann, I think We play alot of games, Because sometimes we can >use language that although it may be absent of vulgarities, it can be as offense >and vile as if it was filled with curse words. What is the difference between >calling someone a dumb idiot, and calling someone a dumb ass idiot?? They are >both equally offense and insulting correct? I assume when you say I was >suspended not for defending myself, but the way I defended myself, meaning the >use of bad language? My understanding is that the CCC Charter is against all >insults whatever it is a blatant use of a curse word, or a verbal slight? Why is >one considered more severe than another? They are equally against CCC charter >Correct? I have no problem being disciplined for using inappropriate language, >as long as a double standard is not applied. > Odell, You are making an assumption here. It is not just extreme profanity (although that is unwarranted in and of itself). It is also the type, severity, and quantity of abusive posts; which is often a judgement call on the part of the moderators. For example, see my other message above. One of your profane and abusive responses was to someone asking someone else why they responded to your "looney statement". This is a case of them criticzing what you said and not criticizing you. However, you responded not only with profanity, but with abusiveness directed solely at that person and not at that person's opinion. Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the two. It's usually fairly clear when you are not directly involved. By the way, you were not suspended merely for the profanity. You were mainly suspended since you disregarded multiple warnings by the moderators. You kept posting abusive and profane posts; you and Robert Hyatt had a blow up two days after the first incident and then about a week later, you posted an extremely offensive message that even without the earlier incidents should get anyone suspended for a while. The moderators have no choice but to stop this type of stuff when it continues. That's what we are here for. You have been here for years and should understand that. And one final point: we have only banned or suspended repeat offenders who have created a lot of chaos over a short period of a few weeks or so. We have never banned anyone who makes an occasional slur once every month or two. If you consider this favoritism, then you and I should just agree to disagree. KarinsDad :) PS. And you keep bringing up your unwarranted opinion that Robert Hyatt can get away with anything (not in the post above, but in this thread). This is untrue. He has been warned on multiple occasions by the current moderators to desist when he violates the charter. One difference is that once warned, he stops for a while as opposed to continuing for days and weeks on end. The other major difference is that people rarely send us an Email complaining about him (although it does happen), but we get complaints virtually everytime someone uses major profanity directed at another. So, if you have a problem with his or anybody else's posts, you have nobody but yourself to blame if you do not report violations of the charter to us (and feel we are picking on you, but letting others slide). And to tell you my honest opinion, Robert has a lot more people making jabs at him and Crafty here then have ever made a jab at you and most of the other "victims" combined. He is a much bigger target (i.e. read victim) here. But he has no more right to violate the charter than anyone else, regardless of what is written about him or Crafty.
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.