Author: jonathon smith
Date: 09:28:15 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 11:42:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 10:41:20, jonathon smith wrote: > >>On January 25, 2000 at 10:14:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>Let's say somebody comes in here and makes 8,000 posts (in one sitting) >>>consisting of Nazi propoganda and advertisements for X-rated sites. Also, just >>>for good measure, this hypothetical person might reply to every thread, saying >>>it's the stupidest thing ever and that the poster is an idiot (or worse). >>> >>>Instead of immediately banning this person, who obviously has no value to CCC >>>and probably very little value in the real world, you would prefer some long and >>>drawn out voting procedure? >>> >>>You have to have some faith in the moderators that you elect. Some faith that >>>they won't run around deleting posts they simply don't like and banning people >>>for political reasons... >>> >>>-Tom >> >>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 >>=========================================================== > >I still subscribe this note. The fact that we all signed it doesn't make it >necessarily right, but it may suggest that our decision was based on grounds >more reasonable than the act of a lynching mob you try to paint. > >I am not in the least interested in discussing for the Nth time all this story. >But since you are posting here I want to make clear a couple of things: ChrisW tells me that you didn't discuss it once. You left that to Messrs Hyatt and Frickenschmidt. He said you were too clever for that. By email you had a tendency to try and cast it to one side on the grounds that you didn't keep your emails, and anyway, you'ld forgotten what happened. A high degree of running with both the fox and the hounds on your part, he told me. So, sorry, there were'nt "N-1" times. Not unless "N-1" == 0. And your collective decision was based on fear, mostly. If you'ld stepped back and realised it was just a silly chess forum, with just a silly bunch of inadequates arguing with each other, rather than treating it all as if your life depended on it, then it is deeply unlikely that you'ld have behaved as you behaved. Or did your life depend on it? > >Your half truths are a systematic and deliberate distortion of truth. > >About my "I hate Americans" that you mention somewhere else, I might have said >it, but in the same way that I can say "I hate August", or Spaniards, or the >cigarette I just smoked. In context, it is nothing but my personal way to talk, >as can be confirmed by anyone that has had frequent contact with me. By the way, >I have a son at UCLA and he is a US citizen. Imagine the hatred... You misunderstood. Your 'I hate Americans' comment didn't mean that you hated Americans. You don't, probably. More to the point was that you thought ChrisW did, and you were trying to make a relationship with him so that he would be amenable to your suggestions of driving the 'two Americans' in question, Hyatt and Moreland into the "let's hijack Usenet" camp. ChrisW says you'll recollect that they were opposed at the time and wanted to maintain rgcc. The comment, for him, was thus nothing to do with your feelings for Americans, but indicative of two-facedness and manipulations. He said he tried to overlook this for a long while, as you know, but was eventually forced to reach the conclusion that he did. > >Hatred is and has been your driving force. Quoting private emails doesn't make >it any better for you. ChrisW said he tried liking you for a very long time. And in the face of much evidence to the contrary. I don't think, although disappointed in you, that he hates you at all. And quoting private emails has been recently permitted by no less than Bob Hyatt, he suggested it was okay if someone said something in email, and then told another story publicly, that the email could be published. This was in the Hsu-Kasparov recent discussions. In your case, if your fellow moderators are telling lies, and you, as a co-moderator have sent the refuation of their lies by email, then your email will be used to refute them. ChrisW is very insistent that the grounds of the ban were entirely political. And had to be, since he hadn't posted on CCC for 4 months before he was banned. "our decision was based on grounds more reasonable than the act of a lynching mob" At least it wasn't a full-on lynch mob then. I am sure ChrisW will be relieved about that. > >Enrique > >>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'.
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.