Author: jonathon smith
Date: 08:59:38 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2000 at 10:44:17, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>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.
The questions were indeed rhetorical. They were posed because you have no answer
to them. Your answer "your usual self-serving rhetoric" is an insult isn't it?
>
>You spent a long time insulting all of us on RGCC *before* we cancelled your CCC
>password.
Hyatt and Frickenschmidt spent a long time 'insulting' ChrisW on rgcc. ChrisW
spent a long time on emails with Enrique looking for ways to solve the problems.
ChrisW can cope with insults, because he says he doesn't see reasoned
argumentative attacks as such. He calls it an argument with strong opinions on
both sides. You choose to call it 'insults' because that suits your attempt to
denigrate the process. You choose to make insults ("your usual self-serving
rhetoric") because you would like this thread to degenerate into nonsense as a
means of neutralising it. I would prefer to keep it on a sensible basis, even
though there is mutual hostility. Although I note in the later section the "This
is the last time I answer to you" neutralisation technique.
>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.
You call it an insult. ChrisW considers he proved the case. Your side went
outside its remit and used its power to try and shut down an opposing critic.
This was an abuse of the power with which you had been entrusted. This is
absolutely the definition of 'little Hitler'. If true, how can it be an insult?
And ChrisW understands entirely that "the "little hitlers" didn't want anything
to do with" him. This, however, was not part of their remit as controllers of
the CCC, a power which was given to them (by ChrisW, partly) on trust and with
rules that they should stick to the general spirit of, to use to silence
criticism. Acting as thought-police on other news groups was not part of that
remit.
>Accepting your demand was the easy way out.
ChrisW says that what he wrote was this: "Since I am not posting on the CCC
board, I am worried that somebody (actually he said Rolf) would discover my
password and start to use it in my name." This he asked way back in November,
and it never happened. He did not stop posting Founder's Group emails, and
stayed active on the Founder's Group. He says he suspects at this time
(November) that you formed a sub-Founder's Group with his name deleted, but that
is another matter.
The password delete request was never honoured, and, he says, he just forgot
about it. The delete request was *not* made as part of an "I resign" drama, it
was simply a sensible reflection of the fact that he was not posting to CCC.
During this period he continued to post to the Founder's Group. Mostly trying to
persuade them to unban Rolf. It was not a "resign", it was a "it is unsafe to
leave an unused password/username lying around". It wasn't a "never give me a
password again" it was "it is unsafe to leave an unused password/username lying
around". It wasn't "block my account" please, it was "it is unsafe to leave an
unused password/username lying around".
>
>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
ChrisW told you he was not posting to the CCC board. This is his freedom. To
post, to not post, to post later and not now and so on. He continued to post to
the Founder's Group.
>and we slammed the door behind you,
And you turned it into a life-time ban.
Please explain which aspect of the CCC Charter was broken to allow you to use
this power.
>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.
Why was ChrisW evicted from the Founder's Group? He didn't ask for that to
happen. And this is an important question, because it brings to the fore the
question of ownership of the CCC-concept.
>
>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.
Jolly good of you. Please forgive ChrisW for being suspicious.
>But not because you have been unfairly victimized.
Oh. ChrisW was fairly victimised. That's alright then.
Although, being fair in defining fair, you should read the Charter and tell
everybody where you got the 'victimisation' rights-to-perform from ........
>
>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.
Well, something happened there to start all of this off. Ask Ed and he won't
tell you. Ask Rolf and he won't tell you either.
Something happened. Maybe they should both apologise to each other. ChrisW
doesn't know because he is not privy to the details.
>It is your self-serving way to put the world upside down.
You should get used to seeing stuff from other people's points of view. You can
avoid mistakes that way. ChrisW tried very hard to see it from Rolf's viewpoint.
To see what it was that was causing him to create so much disturbance. In so
doing he realised that some contentious things Rolf would say had a basis in
fact. He also realised that Rolf was using psychological terrorism, and that, as
far as ChrisW was concerned, this was more than not acceptable.
ChrisW told me that he thinks the "Rolf" saga is still very much alive, and that
you see the consequences of it, hidden or otherwise. ChrisW told me that
reaching a concord with "Rolf" was worth trying two or three years ago.
>
>This is the last time I answer to you. I don't want any part in your inversion
>of truth.
That's fine. ChrisW was worried you might have satisfactory answers to his
rhetorical questions.
>
>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.