TalkChess.com

Graham Banks wrote: The site sponsor does not want the engines of questionable status being openly promoted in this forum, so a number of threads are going to be moved into the members only Engine Origins subforum for now, pending clarification on just how far the moderators need to go with their actions.
Please don't shoot the messenger!
Graham.

Graham Banks wrote: I have explained why I acted as I did after the message that Sam passed on to us. I believed that I was doing the right thing at the time, but have since apologised to everybody for misunderstanding exactly what was meant.
Cheers,
Graham.

This is not about someone simply "misunderstanding exactly what was meant". It would appear that you either didn't bother to consult the other two moderators before posting or you simply ignored them. The first possibility is more likely, in which case you rushed to a judgment simply because it suited your own prejudice. Any rational person, not completely obsessed by his own agenda, would have consulted the other two moderators before posting such a controversial message.

Any rational team of moderators would have waited until Sam was no longer incommunicado in order to discuss the issue with him before posting. Your actions didn't give the team the opportunity to behave rationally. You fatally undermined the team and the results of that have been disastrous for CCC.

K I Hyams wrote: This is not about someone simply "misunderstanding exactly what was meant". It would appear that you either didn't bother to consult the other two moderators before posting or you simply ignored them. The first possibility is more likely, in which case you rushed to a judgment simply because it suited your own prejudice. Any rational person, not completely obsessed by his own agenda, would have consulted the other two moderators before posting such a controversial message.

Any rational team of moderators would have waited until Sam was no longer incommunicado in order to discuss the issue with him before posting. Your actions didn't give the team the opportunity to behave rationally. You fatally undermined the team and the results of that have been disastrous for CCC.

With all due respect, you were not privy to discussions in the moderators' subforum. Jeremy gave me the go ahead to move some threads as long as I left a message basically saying that we'd been instructed to do so, but he hadn't realised that I'd do it to the extent that I did.
I am not lying about the fact that I acted fully believing that posts that could encourage members to acquire the said engines extended to more than just links. I pride myself on being honest.
And again there's not much more that I can do other than to apologise and try to undo some of the damage.

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham Banks wrote:

K I Hyams wrote: This is not about someone simply "misunderstanding exactly what was meant". It would appear that you either didn't bother to consult the other two moderators before posting or you simply ignored them. The first possibility is more likely, in which case you rushed to a judgment simply because it suited your own prejudice. Any rational person, not completely obsessed by his own agenda, would have consulted the other two moderators before posting such a controversial message.

Any rational team of moderators would have waited until Sam was no longer incommunicado in order to discuss the issue with him before posting. Your actions didn't give the team the opportunity to behave rationally. You fatally undermined the team and the results of that have been disastrous for CCC.

With all due respect, you were not privy to discussions in the moderators' subforum. Jeremy gave me the go ahead to move some threads as long as I left a message basically saying that we'd been instructed to do so, but he hadn't realised that I'd do it to the extent that I did.
I am not lying about the fact that I acted fully believing that posts that could encourage members to acquire the said engines extended to more than just links. I pride myself on being honest.
And again there's not much more that I can do other than to apologise and try to undo some of the damage.

Cheers,
Graham.

Unfortunately the edit that I put into my last post seems to have crossed with your reply. The edit was not made as a consequence of your reply and I would ask you, in the circumstances, to restore the unedited post.

K I Hyams wrote:Unfortunately the edit that I put into my last post seems to have crossed with your reply. The edit was not made as a consequence of your reply and I would ask you, in the circumstances, to restore the unedited post.

Does it look okay now?

OK. Enough is enough.
Please give Graham a break.

Graham Banks wrote:

K I Hyams wrote:Unfortunately the edit that I put into my last post seems to have crossed with your reply. The edit was not made as a consequence of your reply and I would ask you, in the circumstances, to restore the unedited post.

Does it look okay now?

Thank you.

Well perhaps it is only me...

But I was glad when I read the first post, I thought something was finally being done to clean up this place.

I am sad that this has been watered down.

Shaun

EDIT: these are my personal opinions

Zagalo wrote:I must admit that about a week a go I made a Poll about someone, the poll toke me quite sometime to constructed with my poor english. Graham removed the poll and sent me a polite message that sayd exactly
"Sorry, but polls on individual members are not permitted.
Cheers,
Graham."

I was a bit pissedoff but the polite "Sorry.." and the naturaly friendly non-aggressive message made me calm down instantly to the point that I sent him a "Sorry.." message too !

Now sometimes ago I made a poll but was removed by another moderator, which I respect too as all moderators. But I got an aggressive warning message that ended with "..ever again or further action will be required" ! Now just compare both moderators reactions !

Again, I have NOTHING against ANY moderator whatsoever, I am giving this example just to show how I was respectfully and friendly treated by graham which I really appreciate and continue enjoying him as a wise friendly moderator

Well, just my 2 cents I guess

Well, you named Graham, why can't you name the other moderator? Fear? of "further actions"?

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................

sockmonkey wrote:
You are correct there, and I will honor my commitment and continue to moderate until the end of my term. I never intended to run for a second, so nothing has changed there. However, my focus, and my participation, will be on OpenChess

good to hear that Jeremey

i am a firm believer that honoring ones commitment is more important then anything else
the board was served well by you during a very contentious period
i still regret that Matthias ..a highly respected member of our community and significant contributor to Computer Chess felt the need to resign above the wishes of the members who elected him
years from now..when the current controversies of the day are long forgotten..all that you will be remember is that you stayed the course..full filled your obligation.. did not quit .and did not kneel to those very vocal few here who consider themselves some sort of self-appointed "protectors of the flame"

Graham has apologized now multiple times....in public..thats more then you can ask of anyone
takes a big man to do that ..no matter how you slice it...
you have returned his gesture by agreeing to say on for the remaining month until the next elections..

Well Done Regards
Steve