Author: jonathon smith
Date: 01:02:15 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 17:15:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 09:49:09, jonathon smith wrote: > >>2. In March 1998, he received notification of a ban in two ways. >> >>(a) From Enrique Irazoqui by email, using the word 'ban' that Hyatt now denies. >>(b) From Schroeder and co. by rgcc public post with the phrase "no longer >>welcome on CCC". >> >>3. To confirm the ban, ChrisW said he logged in twice that day to CCC using his >>original username and password combination. He said the server came up with an >>invalid password/username message. > >This is my own statement, not necessary Dann's or KD's. > >What I think happened is that there was some discussion amongst the various >people involved, and differences in language, plus differences in perception >about how the server works, caused some of those guys to think that they were >removing the account, which would have allowed Chris to create a new one, and >some of those guys to think that they were changing the password, which was >effectively a ban. > >I think that accounts for some of the confusion you saw from those guys. I >don't think they were together on what they were doing, so you end up hearing a >very dissonant sounding mess from them. One of them says something that is >correct according to his viewpoint, and another with a different viewpoint goes >along with it and adds a bit that doesn't make much sense. So it was all a confused mistake? We have a two year flame war because it was a mistake? Frickenschmidt and Berger quit computer chess because it was a mistake? Enrique and Hyatt continued to deny the 'ban' even though Enrique had emailed that it was a ban direct to ChrisW, and this fact was known all along, because it was a mistake? Schroeder just kept quiet all that time because it was a mistake? rgcc became badly damaged during that time because it was a mistake? Lame. They all knew perfectly well what they were doing. ChrisW said that either one has some democratic, liberal sensibilities, or one doesn't. Either one sticks to a set of principles (sticking to agreements, not going outside the law, believing in freedom of speech, whatever) or one sticks to them for only as long as it suits. Now, when they (ChrisW included) set up CCC, it was done, allegedly, as a liberal democratic place, where everybody was going to be equal, nobody was going to be treated unjustly, there were going to be overseeing wise committee etc. etc. etc. Crucially, Rolf was not going to be treated the same way, he was going to be 'zapped', this was the idea of CCC, right? Some people wanted to wait until 'he did something', some people wanted to just 'zap' him and have done with it. In the event, everybody was so stressed out (the effect of Rolf's very effective psychological terrorism) that the process of banning him was outrageous. Bruce resigned immediately. ChrisW [....... space left here for inevitable counter argument ..........] realised that what had happened, and his part in it, were unacceptable, and began to campaign against the ban. Clearly the democratic sensibilities were already out of the window with the ban on Rolf, but, this was kind-of ok in the Founder's Group, because, well, because Rolf was 'mad' or 'evil', so he didn't really count on the democratic front. Fascism (banned word here, but there is no other to describe it) arises just as soon as you put down a dividing line and say some person(s) on the other side doesn't have the same rights. Campaign against this behaviour and the same people will again throw their democratic sensibilities out of the window. As they did. Remember ChrisW was banned after *not* posting in CCC for five months. Remember the Orwellian language from Frickenschmidt "disgusting Rolf-like behaviour", whatever that is supposed to mean. Did nobody ever question? Then they're in a bind. They can't admit their bad behaviour. They are too ashamed. Campaign against them, and they will lie, they will character assassinate, they will do anything but admit they were wrong. Actually they would leave the person(s) they had banned forever banned, simply so they did not have to face the consequences of looking too closely at themselves in the mirror. Frickenschmidt resolved the consequences by quitting. He could do that, because he had no life-stake in computer chess, for him it was just a hobby. Enrique has resolved nothing because he is still denying the truth. He has a life-stake in computer chess. He was contracted to ICD during this period. Schroeder has resolved nothing because he still remains silent. He has a large life-stake in computer chess. Hyatt's position is just a mess. Unresolved. He has a large life-stake in computer chess. The bigger the life-stake, the harder it is for them. Intervening moderators usually resolve it for themselves on the 'I don't really understand what happened, so I'll do nothing'. Or it isn't really my problem, so I'll do nothing. This was no mistake, Bruce. It is straightforward fascism. You are involved.
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.