Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:20:49 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 10:41:20, jonathon smith wrote: [snip] > >Moderators certainly do ban people for 'political reasons'. > >Take the case of Chris Whittington: > >ChrisW ceased all posting to the CCC board in start of November 1997. He did not >post one word there, November 1997, December 1997, January 1998, February 1998, >March 1998. > >On 17 March 1998 Chris received an email from Enrique Irazoqui (CCC moderator at >that time) stating: > >"I was told to ban you two days ago, but I refused. But then I saw your post in >rgcc and I ran back to them [the Founder's Group] as fast as my legs would carry >me. Now I have to do it." > >On the same say the following attempt at a public humilation and ban was >published into rgcc, emanating from the email account of Ed Schroder: > >=============================================================== >Subject: Rebuttal to Chris Whittington >Date: 03/17/1998 >Author: Ed Schroder <info@rebel.nl> > >We have long ago learned that r.g.c.c. can not be influenced in whatever way to >ensure civilized behavior, this was one of the reasons we have founded CCC. > >We assure all members of the CCC community that Chris Whittington will be given >no possibility to compromise or influence in any way the content and policies of >the CCC board. > >Since we are not interested to answer Chris' statements here on r.g.c.c. which >we believe to be mostly untrue, slanderous and self-serving, we leave it up to >you (the r.g.c.c. community) to deal with those issues yourselves. After all, >this is the common ground on which this public newsgroup operates. We might add >that Chris Whittington himself chose to terminate a private email discussion on >the matter he now chooses to bring some months later in public on r.g.c.c. > >Rolf Tueschen and Chris Whittington might be on the other hand just two >contributors to r.g.c.c., which makes the concept of the CCC board seem even >more attractive, since both of them are not welcome there. > >Respectfully > >Moritz Berger >Ed Schroder >Enrique Irazoqui >Bob Hyatt >Thorsten Czub >Dirk Frickenschmidt >Peter Schreiner >Andreas Mader >=========================================================== > >There ensued a year long (or so) flame fest between ChrisW, Hyatt and >Frickenschmidt, with the latter two trying to pretend that ChrisW was not >'banned', but had quit. > >Obviously they liked this cover story, since any other explanation didn't look >too good for people pretending democracy and fair dealing, etc. etc. > >There certainly is no doubt ChrisW was banned. And for the following reasons: > >1. Accusing Ed Schroeder of running a campaign to discredit the program Mchess. > >2. Posting on rgcc that ChrisW considered some of the accusations made by Rolf >Teuschen on Ed Schroeder to be accurate. > >3. Posting on rgcc that ChrisW considered that the original moderators on CCC >acted like 'little Hitlers'. > >So, when the chips are down, anybody contentious can be banned for political >reasons, or on any grounds that the powers-that-be decide. That is the nature of >a 'club' as opposed to a 'forum'. Several things "jonathon": As far as I am concerned, "Chris" can come back any time he wants to as long as he behaves. The problem has been that he cannot behave for more than a week or so before he blows up in one fashion or another. His contributing posts are excellent. His abusive posts are pitiful. And yes, I know that he has accounts here that he behaves with. It's just that he also creates accounts here that he misbehaves with. It's fairly simple. Politics has NOTHING to do with it. I joined this forum WAY after the earlier problems with Chris and he continued to come back during my tenure as moderator in the HH and BF alias'. Why was that? Because he genuinely wanted to contribute or because he genuinely wanted to create havoc. You cannot have it both ways. Misbehaved, shunned, and banned. Or behaved, welcomed, and contributing. We all have choices. So far, Chris' have not been appropriate, so his alias' repeatedly get banned. Bottom Line. Have him do something positive about it for a refreshing change. Come back under his real name, contribute, and do not be abusive. Or is that beyond his capabilities? Probably so from what I have seen. Of course, I wouldn't expect him to accept my challenge since I haven't seen anything within his character to illustrate that he can go above and beyond. He is more stuck in his rut than all of the posters who he claims is stuck in theirs. I think it is a task that is impossible for him to do. KarinsDad :)
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.