Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:39:52 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 19:52:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 10:45:32, jonathon smith wrote: > >>On January 26, 2000 at 10:07:30, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>>Tell your alter ego that he demanded the deletion of his password/username. We >>>kindly obliged. > >>Enrique Irazoqui, on 17/March/1998, by email: "They told me to ban you, but I >>refused, then I saw your post on rgcc and I ran back to them [Founder's Group] >>as fast as my legs would carry me. Now I have to do it". >> >>Ed Schroeder etc., on 17/March/1998, by public post in rgcc: "Chris Whittington >>is not welcome in the CCC" >> >>Password/username combination was changed 17/March/1998. >> >>Bruce Moreland during his first moderation period: "Chris was banned". >> >>The ban is a relatively trivial matter. It's the endless lies afterwards that >>ChrisW says he despises. > >I think that I would stipulate the facts you present. I don't see any reason to >doubt them. > >I have never understood why Enrique keep trying to justify Chris' current ban by >suggesting that he asked to be banned. We had a case of the same thing today, >where Chris Carson asked to have his account deleted. What that means to him is >that he expects to get "no such account" when he tries to log on. Of course, he >would be free to create a new one, at a time of his own choosing. Five minutes >from now, next year, never, it's *his* choice. This is a lot different from >changing someone's password, which is how a ban is executed. > >I don't have anything personal against Enrique, I start wondering, Bruce. > but I think that his argument is >Kafkaesque, and having to endure a Kafkaesque situation by yourself is torture, >and I don't wish that on anyone. > >I tried to give those guys the opportunity to admit that this had been done by >mistake, and that what had been done was not what had been intended, that what >they had intended to do was delete the account, but that Tim had misinterpreted >what he had been told, and banned it instead. This would resolve this whole >thing immediately, as nothing more than an honest mistake, compounded by a >little bit of hatred. > >I got Bob to admit at one point that he never realized that Chris had been >banned, he thought that his account had been removed, as he had asked. So Bob >bought into my thesis and I thought everything would be fine. > >But Enrique wouldn't admit that it was a mistake. I don't know what his motive >is for repeating what is in effect a "Chris asked to be banned" argument, but >regardless of how poor the relationship is between Chris and I, I will not allow >him to repeat this without denouncing this use of what amounts to rhetorical >torture. > >bruce This "rhetorical torture" has been recently expressed accurately by Bob Hyatt too: _________________________________________________________ Posted by Robert Hyatt on January 25, 2000 at 14:23:10: This was no cover story. You (excuse me, I meant Chris) specifically said "please delete my CCC handle as I won't be back." We debated this for a good while, taking no action. Later we finally asked for this to be done. We didn't have a 'ban' policy in effect with Steve, so he simply changed the password, which effectively did what you (I mean Chris) asked. Of course, it did mean that you (I mean Chris) could never use this handle again. We were not aware of this until Bruce researched it last year. Of course you (I mean Chris) can (and does) come back under a different handle. I have no problem with deleting the old ID and letting the 'group' rejoin under one handle. Never did. But we took the 'action' based on a 'demand'. Not because we wanted to, particularly. The "CW group" wanted to ban Rolf. We finally relented. Then the "CW group" wanted him back, and made some pretty outrageous statements in r.g.c.c about _who_ initiated the "ban rolf" party. That got everyone pretty riled up, enough to honor your (I mean his) request. ___________________________________________________________ It just happens that this is exactly how it went and why we, all the founders by unanimous decision, decided to "honor his request." Nothing kafkaiesque about it, but I admit it was messy. Chris didn't do anything special in CCC, except once that he got a yellow card, I believe. "Honoring his "request", as Bob well puts it, or his banning, which in practice amounts to be the same, was based on the "outrageous (quoting Bob again) statements in rgcc". Remember that in those times, with a newly created CCC, we, the founders, had as only policy the preservation of the new forum as a quiet, peaceful place to talk computer chess. Those were the Rolf times and another Rolf seemed too much for all of us. It was not that we went witch hunting, but the other way round, as described by the "outrageous statements" mentioned by Bob. We didn't want to take that and we "honored his request". As simple as that. Bruce: I don't quite understand why you keep asking questions that have been answered to you in group emails by all of us, or why you single out my "Chris asked to be banned" argument as if I were the only one to use it, when you see it posted by Bob in the same way only 2 days ago, and by other founders in other occasions. I am not adding anything new here, and neither does Bob. It is not that I keep repeating all this for mysterious reasons, but because it is just how things went. I am saying it, Bob does too, and all the founders signed the notice I post again below. Enrique ____________________________________ 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
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.