Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:44:17 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 10:11:14, jonathon smith wrote: >On January 27, 2000 at 07:39:52, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>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". > >Therefore what you did was a banning. As also confirmed by your email on the >same day 17/March stating: > >"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" > >and also by the public humilation rgcc posting: > >>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. > >ChrisW says he assumes 'not welcome' = banned. > > >Now, here is the CCC Charter, taken from the FAQ on the CCC site: > >CCC Charter: >What types of posts will be allowed on these message boards? >Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >messages: > >Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >Are not abusive in nature >Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >Are not of questionable legal status. > >A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the >spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club, and to take, if necessary, >suitable sanctions against offenders." > >End of Charter. > > > >Please explain how it was that ChrisW broke this charter and was banned when he >hade not posted anything to the CCC newsgroup for the previous five months? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "within reason, on the >topic of computer chess"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this >Charter point? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "abusive in nature"? >Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter point? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "containing personal >and/or libelous attacks on others"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW >violate this Charter point? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "flagrant commercial >exhortations"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter >point? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "of questionable legal >status"? Since he didn't post anything, did ChrisW violate this Charter point? > >Were ChrisW's posts to the CCC board during that period "violating the spirit of >the charter of the Computer-Chess Club"? Since he didn't post anything, did >ChrisW violate this Charter point? > >Did the Panel of Moderators / Founder's Group have "the power to erase >messages... to take, if necessary, suitable sanctions against offenders" against >someone who did not post into the CCC for five months? > >Please explain how you write this on 17 March 1998: > >"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" > >and then spent almost two years months denying it was a ban. > > >Please explain how you signed the rgcc humiliation document: "[ChrisW] not >welcome there [CCC]" > >and then spent almost two years denying it was a ban. > > >Will any of these phrases help? > >"Those were the Rolf times and another Rolf seemed too much for all of us" > >"... but I admit it was messy" > >"It was not that we went witch hunting" > >"Nothing kafkaiesque about it" All this is your usual self-serving rhetoric. You spent a long time insulting all of us on RGCC *before* we cancelled your CCC password. You demanded the removal of your password. After all the insults to your "little hitlers, the "little hitlers" didn't want anything to do with you. Accepting your demand was the easy way out. Was it a ban? In practice it had the same effect. I am not denying it, I am not accepting it. What happens is that I fail to see why this matters. You wanted out and we slammed the door behind you, as Bob graphically put it once. Was this case foreseen in the charter? No, and neither was your demand to have your password cancelled. It did not happen in CCC but in the email group of the founders of CCC. Because of the confusion of deciding to slam the door for reasons other than your posts on CCC, I have been asking for a long time to readmit you and Rolf in here. But not because you have been unfairly victimized. You are rewriting history by putting yourself as the victim. In fact, you are doing exactly the same now that you did when you demanded Ed to apologize to Rolf. It is your self-serving way to put the world upside down. This is the last time I answer to you. I don't want any part in your inversion of truth. Enrique
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.