Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:30:51 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 15:22:20, Roger wrote: [snip] >I think the moderators should handle it...if it's been handled, I'm glad. I >THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! You were there in RGCC when we were dealing with Sean, >Rolf, and Chris. We are still dealing with Chris. Why? Because this situation >has been ALLOWED to get out of control BY THE MODERATORS. Otherwise, this >exchange of messages would not exist. You and I would not be posting to each >other. >> The fault is squarely on the shoulders of the moderators. I apologize for my compilcity and failure to act. Further, I think Chris W. was given one hundred times more leeway than a non programmer would have been given. That is clearly unfair, prejudiced, and in every way deplorable. << >As for voting on fake accounts, I never said we should vote on every fake >account. You ban people, not accounts. Currently we have fake accounts that we >know are someone who is banned (or suspended, if you like), and we tolerate >them. If the moderators could just do their job with regard to ChrisW, this >whole matter would not exist. >> Banning people and not accounts is harder than it seems. Imagine that someone makes a new account named "Quimby." Quimby starts posting stuff that makes you suspect it is someone banned. How do you know? If Quimby does not really cross the line, how can we remove them? << >So, Dann, now that the matter has been handled, would you be good enough to >explain HOW it has been handled? Why is it that it has to get out of control >every so often for it finally to be "handled"? Why can't it just be "handled" >once and for all? >> This will never be explained. If we tell how the dog bites, the terrorists will figure out how to pull out his teeth. <<
This page took 0.01 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.