Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Whittington

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to

Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators
=========================

That Rolf Tueschen's password access to the CCC be restored to him
forthwith.

1. It is now generally accepted that the reasons given for Rolf's initial
exclusion were not valid.

2. It is now generally accepted that Rolf had done precisely nothing on CCC
which could justify his expulsion.

3. In any liberal system, an incorrectly sentenced, or incorrectly judged
individual, is, when the 'judgement error' is accepted, not only 'released',
but compensated as well (although it is hard to see how compensation might
apply in this case).

4. In no liberal system would the argument be used to keep a incorrectly
convicted "criminal" (used as an example and without implying this about
Rolf) in jail because he was unpleasant to the warders whilst he was in
jail. (No terms to be taken as implying illegal activity).

5. It is now almost one year since Rolf was banned from the CCC.

As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of Rolf, I
make this appeal.

Thank you.

Chris Whittington


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators
: =========================

: Thank you.

: Chris Whittington

My only comment is the same one I have had before. CCC is "private". It
is certainly acceptable to ban someone from a "private" forum for actions
elsewhere. IE I see someone act like an idiot at a public gathering, being
obnoxious, appearing to be intoxicated, making insulting remarks to people
and so forth. And I don't have the right to tell them "you can't come into
*my* house, because of the way I saw you acting *somewhere else*?? I have
to disagree. I wouldn't object strongly to a second chance, because I know
it would only be for a fairly short period of time. But I don't see any wrong-
doing in CCC in not allowing him to come in and take the chance on his behaving
there as he has behaved here for a couple of years at least..


--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

Chris Whittington

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to

f...@accountant.com wrote in message <35D6F6D9...@accountant.com>...
>Robert Hyatt wrote:

>
>> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> : As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of
Rolf, I
>> : make this appeal.
>
>> My only comment is the same one I have had before. CCC is "private". It
>> is certainly acceptable to ban someone from a "private" forum for
actions
>> elsewhere. IE I see someone act like an idiot at a public gathering,
being
>> obnoxious, appearing to be intoxicated, making insulting remarks to
people
>> and so forth. And I don't have the right to tell them "you can't come
into
>> *my* house, because of the way I saw you acting *somewhere else*?? I
have
>> to disagree. I wouldn't object strongly to a second chance, because I
know
>> it would only be for a fairly short period of time. But I don't see any
wrong-
>> doing in CCC in not allowing him to come in and take the chance on his
behaving
>> there as he has behaved here for a couple of years at least..
>
>In the immediate, though:
>
>As there is no, and should be no, intention to punish CCC (deemed)
>"transgressors", why not permit "read-only" access to CCC for everyone,
>without asking for a password? The right to read should *not* IMO be
>moderated at all. Effectively it is now, as excluded "transgressors"
>may not enter the CCC site at all ( ;-) ).
>
>So could CCC operation be adjusted so that either:
>(i) Things are rejigged so that the password prompt appears only when
>posting, for the first time in a session.
>or
>(ii) Things appear as they do, but if a wrong password/username combi-
>is
>entered, the user is allowed in but without posting privileges.

I do not find this acceptable. For one thing Rolf can (and almost certainly
does) read CCC at will. Getting a password is not exactly difficult. I sent
him one of mine before they banned me for example. Since this particular
password is still perfectly valid I would guess that Rolf can read whenever
and whatever he wants.

But this is not the point.

He was banned for what are admitted to be ground totally without merit. He
has now been banned for almost one year. Without grounds. The stated reasons
for 'punishing' him are without validity.

This was unacceptable then, as several people pointed out.

It was unacceptable when I thought better of it, and turned against the
decision.

And it is unacceptable now, one year on.

There will be no progress on any front until your people resolve this
injustice.

Chris Whittington

>
>Kind regards
>
>fca

Chris Whittington

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to

I do not wish to be drawn into personality clashes and diversions with you.
Thank you. Hence I repeat the original post of this thread.

Chris Whittington

Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators
=========================

That Rolf Tueschen's password access to the CCC be restored to him
forthwith.

1. It is now generally accepted that the reasons given for Rolf's initial
exclusion were not valid.

2. It is now generally accepted that Rolf had done precisely nothing on CCC
which could justify his expulsion.

3. In any liberal system, an incorrectly sentenced, or incorrectly judged
individual, is, when the 'judgement error' is accepted, not only 'released',
but compensated as well (although it is hard to see how compensation might
apply in this case).

4. In no liberal system would the argument be used to keep a incorrectly
convicted "criminal" (used as an example and without implying this about
Rolf) in jail because he was unpleasant to the warders whilst he was in
jail. (No terms to be taken as implying illegal activity).

5. It is now almost one year since Rolf was banned from the CCC.

As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of Rolf, I
make this appeal.

Thank you.

Chris Whittington

Chris Whittington

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to

f...@accountant.com wrote in message <35D7049B...@accountant.com>...

>Chris Whittington wrote:
>>
>> f...@accountant.com wrote in message <35D6F6D9...@accountant.com>...


I do not intend to be drawn into personality clashes with you. Thank you.

Chris Whittington


Keith Ian Price

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 09:31:18, "Chris Whittington"
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators
> =========================
>
> That Rolf Tueschen's password access to the CCC be restored to him
> forthwith.
>
> 1. It is now generally accepted that the reasons given for Rolf's initial
> exclusion were not valid.
>
> 2. It is now generally accepted that Rolf had done precisely nothing on CCC
> which could justify his expulsion.
>
> 3. In any liberal system, an incorrectly sentenced, or incorrectly judged
> individual, is, when the 'judgement error' is accepted, not only 'released',
> but compensated as well (although it is hard to see how compensation might
> apply in this case).
>
> 4. In no liberal system would the argument be used to keep a incorrectly
> convicted "criminal" (used as an example and without implying this about
> Rolf) in jail because he was unpleasant to the warders whilst he was in
> jail. (No terms to be taken as implying illegal activity).
>
> 5. It is now almost one year since Rolf was banned from the CCC.
>
> As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of Rolf, I
> make this appeal.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Chris Whittington
>
>
>

I support this idea. I think if (and it may be a big "if") Rolf can
remain on topic, and civil, it would be interesting to hear what he
has to say on the subject of computer chess. If he cannot refrain from
insulting members there, then kick him off. At least, give him the
chance to behave.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
kp


Robert Hyatt

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
f...@accountant.com wrote:

: Robert Hyatt wrote:
:
:> Chris Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:

:> : As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of Rolf, I
:> : make this appeal.

:> My only comment is the same one I have had before. CCC is "private". It


:> is certainly acceptable to ban someone from a "private" forum for actions
:> elsewhere. IE I see someone act like an idiot at a public gathering, being
:> obnoxious, appearing to be intoxicated, making insulting remarks to people
:> and so forth. And I don't have the right to tell them "you can't come into
:> *my* house, because of the way I saw you acting *somewhere else*?? I have
:> to disagree. I wouldn't object strongly to a second chance, because I know
:> it would only be for a fairly short period of time. But I don't see any wrong-
:> doing in CCC in not allowing him to come in and take the chance on his behaving
:> there as he has behaved here for a couple of years at least..

: In the immediate, though:

: As there is no, and should be no, intention to punish CCC (deemed)
: "transgressors", why not permit "read-only" access to CCC for everyone,
: without asking for a password? The right to read should *not* IMO be
: moderated at all. Effectively it is now, as excluded "transgressors"
: may not enter the CCC site at all ( ;-) ).

: So could CCC operation be adjusted so that either:
: (i) Things are rejigged so that the password prompt appears only when
: posting, for the first time in a session.
: or
: (ii) Things appear as they do, but if a wrong password/username combi-
: is
: entered, the user is allowed in but without posting privileges.

: Kind regards

: fca

This has been suggested before. And wouldn't bother me at all. It wouldn't
solve the current situation, however, because folks like Rolf don't want to
"read" about computer chess. They want to agitate others with off-topic
posts. So offering Rolf an account with no posting privileges would be like
offering someone a job in journalism, with no chance of anything they ever
write making it into public print...

bruce moreland

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
On 16 Aug 1998 14:46:17 GMT, Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu>
wrote:

>My only comment is the same one I have had before. CCC is "private". It
>is certainly acceptable to ban someone from a "private" forum for actions
>elsewhere. IE I see someone act like an idiot at a public gathering, being
>obnoxious, appearing to be intoxicated, making insulting remarks to people
>and so forth. And I don't have the right to tell them "you can't come into
>*my* house, because of the way I saw you acting *somewhere else*?? I have
>to disagree. I wouldn't object strongly to a second chance, because I know
>it would only be for a fairly short period of time. But I don't see any wrong-
>doing in CCC in not allowing him to come in and take the chance on his behaving
>there as he has behaved here for a couple of years at least..

CCC is supposed to be a place where people can talk about computer
chess. Steve can define the entrance situation however he wants, and
he can use the residence-model if he wishes.

I haven't heard a lot from Steve about this, so I think that others
are welcome to propose their own models.

I don't like the residence model, not because it puts too much control
in the hands of the home owner, but rather because it puts too much
emphasis on the home owner's opinion about individual visitors.

You can make the same sort of analogy by using a small-time grocery
store instead of a home, and I think that you have done this in the
past. Same sort of deal, I think.

I would rather use the model of a larger grocery store such as
Safeway. I can't imagine someone being preemptively excluded from
Safeway because they got too drunk at the ball game the previous day.
They would just watch you, if they recognized you.

I don't think the CCC moderators should have to go out of their way to
monitor behavior in other places. I think that if someone makes a
complaint against a member based upon a post in r.g.c.c., there is
nothing that the moderators should do about this. People aren't held
to the same standard everywhere, and it's not the moderators' job to
police, or worse, to selectively police, other places.

bruce


bruce moreland

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:12:25 +0100, f...@accountant.com wrote:

>As there is no, and should be no, intention to punish CCC (deemed)
>"transgressors", why not permit "read-only" access to CCC for everyone,
>without asking for a password? The right to read should *not* IMO be
>moderated at all. Effectively it is now, as excluded "transgressors"
>may not enter the CCC site at all ( ;-) ).
>
>So could CCC operation be adjusted so that either:
>(i) Things are rejigged so that the password prompt appears only when
>posting, for the first time in a session.
>or
>(ii) Things appear as they do, but if a wrong password/username combi-
>is
>entered, the user is allowed in but without posting privileges.

The argument against this is that it currently doesn't work that way.
In order to give everyone read-only access, someone would have to go
mess with the code. This would take some amount of time to do.

If the only reason to do this is so that people who have been kicked
out can continue to read, that's not a very compelling reason to ask
for this change.

Although if it already worked that way, no problem, in my opinion.

bruce


Chris Whittington

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to

bruce moreland wrote in message <35d70b21...@news.seanet.com>...

I'ld like to extend this model.

The home, grocery store, Safeway model implies some kind of ownership model.
I think this is flawed. For sure the lawyers could have a field day on the
question of who owns CCC. The initial founders group ? The founders group
minus resignations ? ICD ?

Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
that ICD owns it.

I know the founders never discussed this ownership question. They (including
you and I) should have clarified it.

I'ld model it as a forum. It's nominally democratic. Elected group of
moderators. It could, with the necessary will, be transferred to another
willing server and where the names went, others would follow. It's in
cyberspace, a virtual thing.

My model, therefore would be of a Greek Forum, or a market square or some
place where people met and talked. Owned by nobody other than the
participants. If they want to go elsewhere with their computer chess club
discussions, they will.

Chris Whittington

Sean Evans

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
Hello Chris,

<Chris snip>

>I'ld like to extend this model.

>The home, grocery store, Safeway model implies some kind of ownership model.
>I think this is flawed. For sure the lawyers could have a field day on the
>question of who owns CCC. The initial founders group ? The founders group
>minus resignations ? ICD ?
<Chris snip>
 
Agreed Chris, Steve Schwartz and ICD are influencing the Censor board no doubt about it.  Amir Ban said he would not consider reinstating me until he spoke to the owner of CCC.  Steve Schwartz *may* also be selling the email list he has in his possession, he is an Americano business man.

<Chris snip>

>Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
>that ICD owns it.
<Chris snip>
 
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, therefore ICD controls the server and feels they own it.  No doubt about it!
 
<Chris snip>

>I'ld model it as a forum. It's nominally democratic. Elected group of
>moderators. It could, with the necessary will, be transferred to another
>willing server and where the names went, others would follow. It's in
>cyberspace, a virtual thing.
<Chris snip>
 
Agreed, finding another server in the World now is easy.  I could set one up on my personal computer with web server software no problem.  My connection to the Internet is perpetual.
 
<Chris snip>

>My model, therefore would be of a Greek Forum, or a market square or some
>place where people met and talked. Owned by nobody other than the
>participants. If they want to go elsewhere with their computer chess club
>discussions, they will.
>
>Chris Whittington
<Chris snip>
 
Good job, I agree!  I have been arguing this for weeks.  Bruce's response was go away and screw up somebody else's Newsgroup.  It is unlikely someone with a closed mind like that would consider it, how unfortunate for Computer Chess lovers.
 
Regards, Sean
 

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
Sean Evans <spe...@home.com> wrote:
: Hello Chris,

: <Chris snip>
:>I'ld like to extend this model.

:>The home, grocery store, Safeway model implies some kind of ownership model.
:>I think this is flawed. For sure the lawyers could have a field day on the
:>question of who owns CCC. The initial founders group ? The founders group
:>minus resignations ? ICD ?
: <Chris snip>

: Agreed Chris, Steve Schwartz and ICD are influencing the Censor board no doubt
:about it. Amir Ban said he would not consider reinstating me until he spoke to
:the owner of CCC. Steve Schwartz *may* also be selling the email list he has
:in his possession, he is an Americano business man.

This point was addressed directly to you before. It is *not* being done. Ed
pointed out that *you* signed up on his web site to be sent information about
future version of Rebel. IE *you* "requested" information. And then you
accused ICD of selling the CCC list when you got what you requested. This is
*exactly* the reason why I would never vote to reinstate you... you keep
making false statements over and over, even after being corrected.

: <Chris snip>


:>Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
:>that ICD owns it.

: <Chris snip>

: Possession is 9/10ths of the law, therefore ICD controls the server and feels they own it. No doubt about it!

Nothing wrong with that. It is their machine, it is their reputation that
could get tarnished with drivel posts.. etc...

bruce moreland

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 19:18:55 +0100, "Chris Whittington"
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>The home, grocery store, Safeway model implies some kind of ownership model.
>I think this is flawed. For sure the lawyers could have a field day on the
>question of who owns CCC. The initial founders group ? The founders group
>minus resignations ? ICD ?
>

>Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
>that ICD owns it.
>

>I know the founders never discussed this ownership question. They (including
>you and I) should have clarified it.

I would like to agree with Don then. Steve got the programmer to
build it, it's on his web site, it's on his machine, I think it is his
thing, and I think he has final head-whacking authority. Fine with
me.

>I'ld model it as a forum. It's nominally democratic. Elected group of
>moderators. It could, with the necessary will, be transferred to another
>willing server and where the names went, others would follow. It's in
>cyberspace, a virtual thing.

Steve would probably let it go, sure.

>My model, therefore would be of a Greek Forum, or a market square or some
>place where people met and talked. Owned by nobody other than the
>participants. If they want to go elsewhere with their computer chess club
>discussions, they will.

Sure, that sounds fine, too, but to be clear, it is not anarchic, it
is governed, if someone starts shouting obscenities or ads for online
gambling, they'll get tossed out of the square.

bruce


bruce moreland

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 19:13:55 GMT, "Sean Evans" <spe...@home.com>
wrote:

>Agreed Chris, Steve Schwartz and ICD are influencing the Censor board no doubt about it. Amir Ban said he would not consider reinstating me until he spoke to the owner of CCC. Steve Schwartz *may* also be selling the email list he has in his possession, he is an Americano business man.

He said he wasn't, and that he has no plans to. It would make no
sense. It would enrage everyone.

bruce


Sean Evans

unread,
Aug 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/16/98
to
Hello Bob,

<Chris snip>
>:>Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
>:>that ICD owns it.
<Chris snip>
 
<Sean snip>

>: Possession is 9/10ths of the law, therefore ICD controls the server and feels they own it.  No doubt about it!
<Sean snip>
 
<Bob snip>

>Nothing  wrong with that.  It is their machine, it is their reputation that
>could get tarnished with drivel posts..  etc...
<Bob snip>
 
Sorry Bob but I think you *may* regret that statement.  What you have just stated is CCC has the final word on what postings get destroyed and who gets to post at *their* newsgroup.  I would hardly call that a neutral Newsgroup that is being Censored fairly.
 
Regards,
 
Sean

 

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Aug 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/17/98
to
Sean Evans <spe...@home.com> wrote:
: Hello Bob,

: <Chris snip>


:>:>Because the Dailey assumption, translated into the Hyattian house model, is
:>:>that ICD owns it.
: <Chris snip>


: <Sean snip>


:>: Possession is 9/10ths of the law, therefore ICD controls the server and feels they own it. No doubt about it!

: <Sean snip>

: <Bob snip>
:>Nothing wrong with that. It is their machine, it is their reputation that
:>could get tarnished with drivel posts.. etc...
: <Bob snip>

: Sorry Bob but I think you *may* regret that statement. What you have just stated is CCC has the final word on what postings get destroyed and who gets to post at *their* newsgroup. I would hardly call that a neutral Newsgroup that is being Censored fairly.

: Regards,

: Sean


That's where we are different. I try to watch what I write in CCC, and
as a result, don't give a lot of thought to the moderators and what they
may or may not do. If they feel I wrote something objectionable, they can
remove it. I have the right to stick around and do a better job of writing,
or I can fold my tent and go home and not post there..... Nothing forces me
to stay in CCC... it is voluntary...

Sean Evans

unread,
Aug 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/17/98
to
Hello Bob,
 
<Bob snip>

>That's where we are different.  I try to watch what I write in CCC, and
>as a result, don't give a lot of thought to the moderators and what they
>may or may not do.  If they feel I wrote something objectionable, they can
>remove it.  I have the right to stick around and do a better job of  writing,
>or I can fold my tent and go home and not post there.....  Nothing forces me
>to stay in CCC... it is voluntary...
<Bob snip>
 
I stated "They must be giving away Ph.D's cheap" and my post was deleted!
 
You stated "Moron, Moronship, Twelve Year Old Child, Crackpot" and your posts were not deleted.
 
My passkeys have been deleted, I have not voluntarily left CCC.
 
The evidence is skewed to confirm a Double Standard at CCC. 
 
Best regards,
 
Sean

Robert Hyatt

unread,
Aug 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/17/98
to
Sean Evans <spe...@home.com> wrote:
: Hello Bob,

: <Bob snip>
:>That's where we are different. I try to watch what I write in CCC, and
:>as a result, don't give a lot of thought to the moderators and what they
:>may or may not do. If they feel I wrote something objectionable, they can
:>remove it. I have the right to stick around and do a better job of writing,
:>or I can fold my tent and go home and not post there..... Nothing forces me
:>to stay in CCC... it is voluntary...
: <Bob snip>

: I stated "They must be giving away Ph.D's cheap" and my post was deleted!

: You stated "Moron, Moronship, Twelve Year Old Child, Crackpot" and your posts were not deleted.


You, like Rolf and a couple of others, would "like" to rewrite history.
My "moron, moronship, etc *followed* abusive posts by you. Not *started*,
but *followed*. there *is* a difference. If you want to go back to the
beginning, find your stupid post to CCC, then your claim here that the
moderators used a "death-ray" on it, my gentle and accurate response pointing
out that this didn't happen and that your post was still sitting there on CCC,
like something a dog left in someone's front yard, and had *not* been cleaned
up.

I responded to your claim *twice* with no "moron" or anything, just a polite
reminder that you were *wrong*.

If you'd like, I'll go back to Deja and show you the posts. You never
corrected your statement, and have made it several times since then. So
if the term "moron" fits, feel free to wear it. Or else stop making statements
that are provably false...

Bernhard Bauer

unread,
Aug 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/21/98
to

Chris Whittington wrote:

> I do not wish to be drawn into personality clashes and diversions with you.
> Thank you. Hence I repeat the original post of this thread.
>
> Chris Whittington
>

> Formal Appeal to CCC Moderators
> =========================
>
>

> As one of the individuals who played a large part in the banning of Rolf, I
> make this appeal.
>

> Thank you.
>
> Chris Whittington

Thank you very much for playing a large part in the banning of Rolf.
Would you be so kind and play a similar role in the mclane case?

Thank you.
B. Bauer


mclane

unread,
Aug 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/22/98
to
Bernhard Bauer <bba...@iag.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:

> Thank you very much for playing a large part in the banning of Rolf.
>Would you be so kind and play a similar role in the mclane case?

>Thank you.
>B. Bauer


Um was geht es denn ? Habe ich etwas verpaßt ?!?

Whats up ?!?

Whats going on here ?! :-)
best wishes

mclane


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages