chrisw wrote:Please respect Zach's request to be allowed to work up his case here.
Chris?
Ater reading your request, i'm surprised to see you involving yourself here...and (apparently) trying to influence Zach's work.
if you wish to remain impartial, perhaps you should do as you requested others to do.
you demanded side by side code, we provided that, and now you are qualifying the request...i.e the code provided is not what i'm interested in?
i want something different?
i'm sorry, i think (as a moderator) you should excuse yourself from the discussion, it appears that you're trying to influence the outcome.
Last edited by kranium on Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
my post above used to be part of the Questions for Vas thread.
it was direct response to something Chris said.
now his statement can't be seen...
it's completely out of context isolated here like this...
I was not around the time when this thread was split into 4 sub threads.
I'd guess other moderators saw that there was some insulting post in the original thread, so in an attempt to delete that particular post, he had to use split function, so the subsequent replies (which are acceptable) get deleted as well, he had to move replies in form of sub threads (such as this one) from deleted posts archives to this general forum.
Forum moderation tool is really awful and doesn't come in handy.
my post above used to be part of the Questions for Vas thread.
it was direct response to something Chris said.
now his statement can't be seen...
it's completely out of context isolated here like this...
Zach complained about posts in his technical thread. The tools for splitting threads are not terribly sophisticated and resulted in these new threads. If I was more experienced at this splitting and deleting process I might have done it a bit better, but I didn't and what's done can't be undone. Apologies if not satisfactory to you.
my post above used to be part of the Questions for Vas thread.
it was direct response to something Chris said.
now his statement can't be seen...
it's completely out of context isolated here like this...
Zach complained about posts in his technical thread. The tools for splitting threads are not terribly sophisticated and resulted in these new threads. If I was more experienced at this splitting and deleting process I might have done it a bit better, but I didn't and what's done can't be undone. Apologies if not satisfactory to you.
Actually, I think there is no better way than what you have done. I would have done the same thing.
Moderation tool for this forum is poor, thats what mods in the past have been saying.
chrisw wrote:Please respect Zach's request to be allowed to work up his case here.
Chris?
Ater reading your request, i'm surprised to see you involving yourself here...and (apparently) trying to influence Zach's work.
if you wish to remain impartial, perhaps you should do as you requested others to do.
you demanded side by side code, we provided that, and now you are qualifying the request...i.e the code provided is not what i'm interested in?
i want something different?
i'm sorry, i think (as a moderator) you should excuse yourself from the discussion, it appears that you're trying to influence the outcome.
Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
Graham Banks wrote:Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
This is true, but when he starts moving threads around, supposedly at my request, and leaves his own post (which was the basis of my protest), and is allowed to edit his own post which others have already responded to, to me that's trying to influence these discussions. His posts have an overall tone of saying what is and isn't admissible evidence, and he seems to be the judge on all matters (evidence provided on request). I don't care if he expresses an opinion, but he could do it like most other programmers here and not assume anything.
Graham Banks wrote:Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
This is true, but when he starts moving threads around, supposedly at my request, and leaves his own post (which was the basis of my protest), and is allowed to edit his own post which others have already responded to, to me that's trying to influence these discussions. His posts have an overall tone of saying what is and isn't admissible evidence, and he seems to be the judge on all matters (evidence provided on request). I don't care if he expresses an opinion, but he could do it like most other programmers here and not assume anything.
Why don't you just go the FSF if your case is that good?
Graham Banks wrote:Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
This is true, but when he starts moving threads around, supposedly at my request, and leaves his own post (which was the basis of my protest), and is allowed to edit his own post which others have already responded to, to me that's trying to influence these discussions. His posts have an overall tone of saying what is and isn't admissible evidence, and he seems to be the judge on all matters (evidence provided on request). I don't care if he expresses an opinion, but he could do it like most other programmers here and not assume anything.
Zach,
Hey, being is suspicion-of-motive getting contagious?
I split the thread the best way I thought out of good intention to try and get your thread back to the way I thought you wanted it.
Sure I edited my post, but I edited it to leave in the positive suggestion and get rid of anything that seemed to conflict with your desire to keep that thread on topic. Again, good intentions for your thread status.
What is and what isn't admissable evidence is up to you. Whatever you present. Those on the innocent-until-proven-guilty side will probably challenge your evidence, but to suggest that anyone would censor you, or somehow prevent you from making your case is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get.
Since when am I judge on all matters? The forum ultimately will judge the case against Rybka/Vas. Won't it?
chrisw wrote:Please respect Zach's request to be allowed to work up his case here.
Chris?
Ater reading your request, i'm surprised to see you involving yourself here...and (apparently) trying to influence Zach's work.
if you wish to remain impartial, perhaps you should do as you requested others to do.
you demanded side by side code, we provided that, and now you are qualifying the request...i.e the code provided is not what i'm interested in?
i want something different?
i'm sorry, i think (as a moderator) you should excuse yourself from the discussion, it appears that you're trying to influence the outcome.
Chris is a programmer and well qualified to comment. Being a moderator shouldn't stop one from having the same posting rights as other members.
yes, i agree he has a right to post...
moderators have a lot of power, influence, but power/influence can be easily misused...(perhaps even innocently)
remaining impartial is very important
Chris has made his position abundantly clear, and come out stringly on one side...
and as moderator, he has a lot of control about what happens...
i'm sure it's a very difficult task...but moderators need to work hard to remain 'moderate'.
perhaps it's simply his style...i see his moderation style as a bit 'heavy handed', maybe even 'arrogant'.
note i'm referring to 'moderation style'. it's not personal...i don't know Chris...and i can't see which hat he is wearing at any given moment.
Last edited by kranium on Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
