djbl wrote:a good moderator lets ppl talk about whatever they want to talk about, as long as they do so in a decent and respectful manner. i dont see them as being there to direct the discussions but to merely to set the tone. even if certain things are wrong, or even criminal for that matter it shouldnt make us silent to them, that is simply ridiculous and treating ppl like children. jeez, we should be able to mention a murderer without it meaning we condone murder. sweeping things under the carpet and not talking about them doesnt make them go away anyway, just ask vas. if a moral position is so secure it should be able to withstand a discussion, especially between chess geeks. is this talkchess.com or partialtalkchess.com
your missing the point here and this is now the second time i mention this to you
this is a Club with a CHARTER
a set of posting rules
you have to agree to the terms of the charter to post here
if you do not agree then do not post here
the CHARTER is an announcment at the top of every page
if you want to be able to disucuss anything you want including murder then this is simply not the place to do it
its very simple really
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
djbl wrote:oh, and about the elections, well, what is the point in voting for censorship when u can find that in plenty of other places already. if you dont want to talk about something you can do that absolutely anywhere at anytime. it is a vote for nothing in effect.
See - the timing of your joining plus a search of your posts speaks volumes.
There's a forum that you possibly already belong to that would welcome you with open arms.
Let the established members vote for what they want.
Worker unemploying? Job bad, job centre go must. Needing the this confidentially posting to do must mean something to put in book rouge.
Happy to see worker with morality gone. Target must practise for team of darts. Jon help workers of darts? Smooth Arasan makes this the thing clear. Hermann is the Baron. He is the Micro maximum. Cool global warming of chess toward the proletariat of their this the that adjective or objective.
Chess of the computer multicore fine for the workers reality.
Police, in general, are a good thing and not a bad thing. So a police policy is not necessarily a bad idea. When I go to the beach with my children (or when I used to do that, they're all grown up now), I used to say (when it was time to go) "Let's police the area." -- for which my intention was that we should remove the clutter and refuse that we (or others) may have left in the area we inhabited during our stay. In this sense, I suppose, we are looking for policemen/policewomen.
The entire and unique purpose of the moderators of this board is censorship, plain and simple. The moderators are chosen to remove, punish and censor things posted here that are not wanted by the majority of its membership.
There may be some difficulty in selecting persons whose choices of what is not wanted is in harmony with that of the individual members.
Such is the way of humanity. In short, we'ere a bunch of drooling idiots. Since we are (in general) incapable of behaving ourselves in a civil manner, we chose some parent figures to give us a slap from time to time when we need it. We hope that the parent figures drool a lot less than we do (or at least we like to hope or pretend that this is the case).
djbl wrote:a good moderator lets ppl talk about whatever they want to talk about, as long as they do so in a decent and respectful manner. i dont see them as being there to direct the discussions but to merely to set the tone. even if certain things are wrong, or even criminal for that matter it shouldnt make us silent to them, that is simply ridiculous and treating ppl like children. jeez, we should be able to mention a murderer without it meaning we condone murder. sweeping things under the carpet and not talking about them doesnt make them go away anyway, just ask vas. if a moral position is so secure it should be able to withstand a discussion, especially between chess geeks. is this talkchess.com or partialtalkchess.com
your missing the point here and this is now the second time i mention this to you
this is a Club with a CHARTER
a set of posting rules
It was felt that a group where a full range of computer chess ideas could be discussed, and, if necessary attacked, without also making personal attacks on the deliverer of the ideas, would be productive
is all i could find, along with a line about 'questionable legal status' (which is as ambiguous as it comes), however it makes no mention that we cannot discuss such things. posting a link is different to making mention of something and i fail to see how ignoring something and pretending it away is 'productive'. if i have not complied with this charter i would prefer you to show me where exatly that was instead of repeating that i signed up for it, which i am well aware of.
you have to agree to the terms of the charter to post here
if you do not agree then do not post here
the CHARTER is an announcment at the top of every page
if you want to be able to disucuss anything you want including murder then this is simply not the place to do it
its very simple really
sorry, t5hat got a bit jumblede, it should read like this..
'it was felt that a group where a full range of computer chess ideas could be discussed, and, if necessary attacked, without also making personal attacks on the deliverer of the ideas, would be productive'
is all i could find, along with a line about 'questionable legal status' (which is as ambiguous as it comes), however it makes no mention that we cannot discuss such things. posting a link is different to making mention of something and i fail to see how ignoring something and pretending it away is 'productive'. if i have not complied with this charter i would prefer you to show me where exatly that was instead of repeating that i signed up for it, which i am well aware of.
may i add that i have recieved numeropus personal attacks now, some by various parties who are up for election! i fail to see one place where i did not comply with this charter, if so please enlighten me. and in said charter i see it says this forum should be a place 'where we can discuss a full range of computer chess idea', does not say a limited range of ideas. so as i see it i have done nothing but further the aims of this charter, so please refrain from attacking me with it. and the 'questionable legal status' in this case happens to be no more than what one man (who has an obvious vested financial interest) has said is questionable legal status. so, is it only what chessbase bigshots deem questionable, or are we all allowed to say what is questionable, or is it a general consensus that decides, in which case they will first need to hear the evidence will they not. and as to legal status, which law are we going by, i have always used the innocent until proven guilty law. it appears though that there is another, better law i am unaware of.
this forum has a charter. We must abide by it. If you don't wanna, you gotta go.
Even if I am fighting for freedom of expression/speech, it still has to be within this forum's Charter. Posts must refrain from personal attacks. Insults, cursing, name-calling and the like.
freedom of expression/speech is not absolute.
even on the outside, it is so.
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
Darren,