Why do you guys still crosstalk on CCC?

[mariaclara]

Tru. before he was doing fine.

his posts exuded confidence.

I even wanted to be on the same team with him.

but , something must've happened .

his environment? job? family? finances?

lately, he's been acting "strange".

he seems so insecure, he wants validation thru CCC.

he must get out and breath fresh air.

[quote="kingliveson" "Zarkon""bbauer"]This is a good question.
I will no longer post on a forum where I cannot name engines by name,
where my posts can be edited by a guy like Graham Banks,
and I must be aware of beeing banned for saying something which banks don't like.
Since Banks has come to the CCC he has become a pest to the forum and I hope he will not come here.
I wish this forum the best.
Kind regards
Bernhard

Actually I think Graham was an exemplary moderator to begin with (I believe he got a very clear majority over other candidates for his second term (?!)). Of course his current strong views haven't been useful.

Nope, Matthias Gemuh had the most votes.

Was that the second or the third time? No matter. At one point he did a very good job in my opinion.[/quote][/quote]

[Matthias Gemuh]

This is a good question.
I will no longer post on a forum where I cannot name engines by name,
where my posts can be edited by a guy like Graham Banks,
and I must be aware of beeing banned for saying something which banks don't like.
Since Banks has come to the CCC he has become a pest to the forum and I hope he will not come here.
I wish this forum the best.
Kind regards
Bernhard

Actually I think Graham was an exemplary moderator to begin with (I believe he got a very clear majority over other candidates for his second term (?!)). Of course his current strong views haven't been useful.

I had more votes than Graham, but had to resign because of nasty back-stage warfare, partly personally against me.
I later regretted the resignation. I now feel that the best way to counter at least Graham's moderation would have been to be as rigid as he is, with zero compromise, accepting the deadlock situation and back-stage bullshit.

Matthias.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

This is a good question.
I will no longer post on a forum where I cannot name engines by name,
where my posts can be edited by a guy like Graham Banks,
and I must be aware of beeing banned for saying something which banks don't like.
Since Banks has come to the CCC he has become a pest to the forum and I hope he will not come here.
I wish this forum the best.
Kind regards
Bernhard

Actually I think Graham was an exemplary moderator to begin with (I believe he got a very clear majority over other candidates for his second term (?!)). Of course his current strong views haven't been useful.

I had more votes than Graham, but had to resign because of nasty back-stage warfare, partly personally against me.
I later regretted the resignation. I now feel that the best way to counter at least Graham's moderation would have been to be as rigid as he is, with zero compromise, accepting the deadlock situation and back-stage bullshit.

Matthias.

I can only testify that this road led nowhere. Graham spent the entire term looking for a way to justify breaking our mod team's agreements, after which we'd have to clean up, make new agreements and wait for them to be broken again. Ambiguous statements from the administrator, followed by days of absence (this happened more than once), didn't help the matter much. This was coupled with repeated attempts to use logged IP addresses to verify user identities (naturally, only users that he disagrees with, with the goal of getting them removed from the board), and a general attitude of "legitimate users" v. "trolls". The final round was simply too much for me, in any case.

Jeremy

[thorstenczub]

all these actions are the typical witch hunt paranoia some - i have problem to call them computerchess people because i am ashamed to see HOW FAR they go - people go for.

They could better work in the secret service of corrupt regimes such as russia or GDR with their behaviour.

blackmailing, steeling, mobbing, ... thats how they changed computerchess into a stasi-office.

there are even some people in some forums suggesting that you should send a copy of your passport before you sign in a newsgroup !
IMO all this is a kind of paranoia and a misleaded effort to control people, hunt them and censor free speech . all those efforts to decide WHICH PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE or which people can say what and and and... this is and was the end of a forum.

what is the most interesting thing is to see WHO is doing those efforts, people who blackmail,
who steal emails, impemented adminstrators, who mob out programmers, ban some, not asking mods, people who give away cracked software (hiarcs versions), or ask in public newsgroups for microsoft pirated software because "they are so poor as a student and cannot pay the software". these people enter the scene and behave as computer-police. throw programs out of their "rating"-lists, or mob others out of newsgroups. sorry but this is a disgusting mob ruling the computerchess scene.

i have no clue how bob hyatt has the strength to discuss with them.
you cannot discuss with people about freedom of speech or democracy or software piracy or right behaviour who have shown no clue themselves how to handle this.

[kingliveson]

Good question. What I don't understand is those who go there and post, then come back here complaining. She really is not that into you. Open Chess was created for a reason. Here, you can expect moderators to act in interest of the chess community overall; not some commercial entities. Moderators here will behave themselves, and act toward each member as an adult with respect. The job of the mods is to be a helpful hand rather than dictating or becoming a thought police. Everyone here is an equal.

That said, though I have ceased participation at the other forum, I will definitely be voting in the upcoming election. Others are encouraged to do the same. There are there those who would like to see the place "cleaned" -- and I say lets vote them in so they can really clean the place if you know what I mean.

[Sean Evans]

Good question. What I don't understand is those who go there and post, then come back here complaining. She really is not that into you. Open Chess was created for a reason. Here, you can expect moderators to act in interest of the chess community overall; not some commercial entities. Moderators here will behave themselves, and act toward each member as an adult with respect. The job of the mods is to be a helpful hand rather than dictating or becoming a thought police. Everyone here is an equal.

That said, though I have ceased participation at the other forum, I will definitely be voting in the upcoming election. Others are encouraged to do the same. There are there those who would like to see the place "cleaned" -- and I say lets vote them in so they can really clean the place if you know what I mean.

Hi, I have to agree with you on that one. For me, there is not much point in posting at CCC, they either move my post, lock it or delete it, even though it is well within the CCC Charter!

Cordially,

Sean

[Chris Whittington]

Good question. What I don't understand is those who go there and post, then come back here complaining. She really is not that into you. Open Chess was created for a reason. Here, you can expect moderators to act in interest of the chess community overall; not some commercial entities. Moderators here will behave themselves, and act toward each member as an adult with respect. The job of the mods is to be a helpful hand rather than dictating or becoming a thought police. Everyone here is an equal.

That said, though I have ceased participation at the other forum, I will definitely be voting in the upcoming election. Others are encouraged to do the same. There are there those who would like to see the place "cleaned" -- and I say lets vote them in so they can really clean the place if you know what I mean.

Hi, I have to agree with you on that one. For me, there is not much point in posting at CCC, they either move my post, lock it or delete it, even though it is well within the CCC Charter!

Cordially,

Sean

You need to be in the "in-crowd" there, then you can say anything you want about anybody without concern for any comeback

Apparently the "in-crowd" want to know the difference between OpenChess and Capitalist Controlled Club.

Easy one! Ask anyone in the in-crowd at Capitalists Club a technical question about computer chess and they answer "I don't know, I need to ask an expert". hehehe!! Capitalist Controlled Club is run by the shop for consumers, the "in-crowd"there don't create anything, they just consume end-product. Gradually the creative people move here, to Open Chess, where they are not censored or controlled by people who can't tell the horizon effect from the sun that sets on their world.

[robbolito]

Great comment Chris.
I really wonder why people still go participate in that forum after all the stuff that has happened there.
Now we have a new forum where we can post and discus things without the fear that somebody will ban you or do different things with your posts.
I would like to see what will happen to that forum when there are real experts but clowns left to sell their propaganda.
People can still go there without signing in to check about possible new chess information but that should be the extent of it.
When time comes to vote we can vote to see if change is possible.If not let Bankster, Conkie,Diosi,Rolf and other "experts"enjoy their forum just for themselves.
But those people should not be admitted here to spread their poison on this forum.
What a pleasure to be able to read discussions on this forum without the insults and other nonsense that is normal on CCC forum.
I can only say:Great idea Jeremy for giving us something new where we can all participate and enjoy it.
Just one warning.Few days ago there was discussion with HW that has almost degenerated into something that we normally see on the other forum.

[kingliveson]

If Dr. Hyatt, Steve B, and Dann C (who were pretty good mod team last term), run in the up coming election, they WONT be getting my vote. Seriously, I am voting for the other team and you too need to consider the same. Why? Because we want the other team to win, so they can really clean up that forum.

[kingliveson]

Prof. Hyatt is wasting his time debating the characters over there. If you follow some of the reasoning (if it could be called that), there is just no logic--you can't make sense out of it. It's like arguing with a rock. Perhaps I understand his effort -- trying to save a place in which he was one of the founders. A place now taken hostage by a single individual.

Of course, it all started with coup d'état by TCADMIN after a clear election. During the election, there were two sides, and the main issue was whether or not to allow links to then RobboLito and Ippolit engines. When the results were announced, 3 of the top 4 vote getter were in favor of allowing links. Three moderators were inaugurated with 2 supporting links. The opposition lost, and immediately resorted to Babangida approach. The minority in corporation with TCADMIN said if we can't win through a fair election, we'll shift the goal post and force our way in.

So, a new hidden forum (to censor public discussion) was created despite an election with a clear mandate. The ELECTED MODS are to control what happens with CCC, but TCADMIN with a minority overruled the majority in a hostile takeover; never has this happened before. Because of the overthrow, top vote getter resigned seeing he could not carry out his duties as was elected by the people. As time passes, posts were deleted/censored, people banned, iron-fist approach to moderation became the norm -- mind you, it was carried-out by the minority.

Meanwhile during the election, my communications with TalkChess sponsor had assured they do not interfere with contents on the server. It then happens that the majority who were elected with a clear mandate said enough was enough. So TCADMIN with the minority plotted another scheme to carry out their not-so-hidden agenda. They came up with a carefully crafted vague language giving impression their objective came from higher ups -- that is, the sponsors. Now, seeing the backlash that resorted from a second takeover, the language has now changed to we are only following orders though these orders did not come from above. Three words; Bull ^3#k95g Shit!