Author: Michael Neish
Date: 05:21:26 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 03:41:50, robert michelena wrote: >Since it seems that you have access to an extensive database of threads, why >dont you reproduce the ones where I received support for my positions ? Just a few little points before I stop posting about this. I don't have a database. I looked back through the archives (actually I downloaded all the files for December and then ran a file search for certain key words. I searched for "HA HA HA" and "flying pig" which were phrases that I remembered you used several times in your defence. :)) If you want to put forward any evidence in favour of your contention, i.e., that the moderators were one- sided, the archives are the place to look for hard evidence, if you're willing to make the small effort. If you can give me an example of a thread where you received support, please let me know the rough date so I can look for it. You can't be referring to the thread I quoted in an earlier post, because I don't think anyone supported you there. And anyway, threads where you received support are not relevant, because by definition they were benign, and so the moderators will not have intervened. I'm not doubting whether you're a decent member of this forum. I'm sure you've participated in some good discussions. I'm not saying you're a bad person. So there's no need to tell me "why dont you reproduce the ones where I received support for my positions?". >What you offer as proof, I contend is nothing more then hearsay and >unsubstantiated evidence. This comment I simply don't understand. Surely the place to look for evidence on whether people wrongly insulted you or whether the moderators were unfair to you are the posts themselves, right? If the moderators decided to warn you or whatever, they would have read the posts and decided from that. Yet you say that the posts (which I copied and pasted in exactly as they are in the archives) are mere heresay! Then what would you consider evidence? >And I am not complaining about people critizing me or >insulting me. You really should pay attention. >My complaint was with the blatant (hopefully it will be a thing of the past) >double standard displayed by the moderators. Where my comments brought >down upon me swift retribution, often in public, while those who attacked >me were not mention. Okay, I got that. Unfortunately as soon as you try to decide whether they were unfair or not you get embroiled in the actual posts themselves. You cannot separate the two. Were they unfair? Well, let's read the posts and decide. What started the ball rolling? The whole business about non-GMs beating commercial programs, etc. So, I copied and pasted in the first few posts which set off the entire thread. You say its irrelevant, and I say it's the key to determining whether the moderator's actions were justified. And now I must counter: if you think they were unjustified, why don't you go back through the archives and gather evidence yourself? It's very easy to do. The posts which I think offended you came a lot later. One would have to examine those, as well as the ones leading up to them, to decide. I suppose that's what the moderators did. I really think they are doing their best to pass fair judgement. If they err (and I'm not saying whether they did or didn't in your case) it can only have been an accident. >GO NIMZO !!!! Good luck on CCC. Mike.
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.