CCC History ?

[mariaclara]

Hi guys,

for the information of all, can we ask the original founders of CCC to give us some history.
as I know it, CCC was started in 1997. an offshoot of RGCC?

like who were the founders?
What was/is the rationale for CCC?
What is/are t he objectives,goals of CCC?
Charter ( of course we have it here)
What/how was the background of the relations between the ICD and CCC?
what, if any conditions, did ICD impose on CCC for hosting the CCC?
When did CCC start its tournament forum?
etc.

Thanks in advance

Maria Clara

[bob]

Hi guys,

for the information of all, can we ask the original founders of CCC to give us some history.
as I know it, CCC was started in 1997. an offshoot of RGCC?

like who were the founders?

I am not sure I can name them all now. But myself. Ed. Bruce Moreland. Chris W, Thorsten, Enrique. I am not sure about Amir and a couple of others. I might could dig up old emails that listed us all. But most are long gone anyway with respect to computer chess activities.

What was/is the rationale for CCC?

R.G.C.C was unmoderated and changing that was a major amount of work, and required a vote which would have been problematic with all the nut-cases that were present. We chose, instead, to create a moderated forum and Steve (ICD Chess) volunteered to host the thing. We wanted a forum that did not suppress discussion, but did suppress "personal attacks." Unfortunately, back then the definition of "personal attack" was _FAR_ different than what is used today. Calling someone an "idiot" did not rise to the point of requiring moderation. We were concerned with posts that had the sole purpose of attacking someone, no technical content. In R.G.C.C this was quite common.

What is/are t he objectives,goals of CCC?

Today, one objective is obviously to quash any discussion of the IP* family of programs. Not exactly what "we" had in mind when we started CCC.

Charter ( of course we have it here)
What/how was the background of the relations between the ICD and CCC?

See above. Steve owned ICD Chess, was a computer chess enthusiast, and offered to give us a "stable home" for a message board, with no strings attached as to what we could or could not discuss.

what, if any conditions, did ICD impose on CCC for hosting the CCC?

Nothing other than the logo at the top.

When did CCC start its tournament forum?
etc.

Thanks in advance

Maria Clara

We started the tournament forum many years ago, simply to separate all of the "basement tournament reports" (of which there are _many_ from the main topic of discussing computer chess. We then added the programmer's forum a few years back so that technical stuff could go there, and general CC discussions would have their own forum.

The "hidden" engine origins forum was done this moderator term.

[Albert Silver]

Just as an addition, CTF was added during the initial forums, a few years after their inception, at the request of many members and spearheaded (I believe) by Fernando. The idea was to allow members talk about anything they wished that wasn't CC. For at least a couple of years, it was completely unmoderated, but shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the forum environment became so impossible that Steve proposed a second group of moderators specifically for it. I actually ran for moderator for both, was voted in for both, and at Steve's request, chose CTF. The two other mods of this first CTF team were Colin and Pavel.

[mariaclara]

Dr. Hyatt,

Sir,

Isn't what's happening now a complete contradiction of the original conditions CCC had with ICD?

if i get it right, the ICD owners did not attach any strings as to what the CCC can or can not discuss?

or desire to dictate upon CCC?

That, the only condition ICD wanted was its logo on top????

See above. Steve owned ICD Chess, was a computer chess enthusiast, and offered to give us a "stable home" for a message board, with no strings attached as to what we could or could not discuss.

Mariaclara:
quote]
what, if any conditions, did ICD impose on CCC for hosting the CCC?

Dr. Hyatt:
Nothing other than the logo at the top.

[bob]

Dr. Hyatt,

Sir,

Isn't what's happening now a complete contradiction of the original conditions CCC had with ICD?

if i get it right, the ICD owners did not attach any strings as to what the CCC can or can not discuss?

or desire to dictate upon CCC?

That, the only condition ICD wanted was its logo on top????

See above. Steve owned ICD Chess, was a computer chess enthusiast, and offered to give us a "stable home" for a message board, with no strings attached as to what we could or could not discuss.

Mariaclara:
quote]
what, if any conditions, did ICD impose on CCC for hosting the CCC?

Dr. Hyatt:
Nothing other than the logo at the top.

I am beginning to believe that the only "strings" that are attached are in Graham's mind. That's just a belief he wants everyone to have to justify his rather bizarre moderation tendencies.

I suppose it is intended to be a sort of "Nuremberg defense" for poor actions, claiming "a superior made me do it..."

[Graham Banks]

I am beginning to believe that the only "strings" that are attached are in Graham's mind. That's just a belief he wants everyone to have to justify his rather bizarre moderation tendencies.

I suppose it is intended to be a sort of "Nuremberg defense" for poor actions, claiming "a superior made me do it..."

If you could see the contents of the mods forum (which I can't quote because it's private), you would be the one owing me an apology for what you've just said.
I'll point out again that the other mods interpreted what we were told regarding disallowing links the same way as I did. However, because I've been the only one doing any moderating recently, you use that as a convenient excuse to pounce on me alone.

[bob]

I am beginning to believe that the only "strings" that are attached are in Graham's mind. That's just a belief he wants everyone to have to justify his rather bizarre moderation tendencies.

I suppose it is intended to be a sort of "Nuremberg defense" for poor actions, claiming "a superior made me do it..."

If you could see the contents of the mods forum (which I can't quote because it's private), you would be the one owing me an apology for what you've just said.
I'll point out again that the other mods interpreted what we were told regarding disallowing links the same way as I did. However, because I've been the only one doing any moderating recently, you use that as a convenient excuse to pounce on me alone.

I'll point out. once more, that it is irrelevant. If all 3 of you interpreted wrongly, that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Why did the other mods bail out on you? Apparently they didn't agree with this interpretation after a little discussion. I'll remind you again that you said "I'll let the experts decide" on the issue about reverse-engineering. But you didn't.

[gerold]

I am beginning to believe that the only "strings" that are attached are in Graham's mind. That's just a belief he wants everyone to have to justify his rather bizarre moderation tendencies.

I suppose it is intended to be a sort of "Nuremberg defense" for poor actions, claiming "a superior made me do it..."

If you could see the contents of the mods forum (which I can't quote because it's private), you would be the one owing me an apology for what you've just said.
I'll point out again that the other mods interpreted what we were told regarding disallowing links the same way as I did. However, because I've been the only one doing any moderating recently, you use that as a convenient excuse to pounce on me alone.

I'll point out. once more, that it is irrelevant. If all 3 of you interpreted wrongly, that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Why did the other mods bail out on you? Apparently they didn't agree with this interpretation after a little discussion. I'll remind you again that you said "I'll let the experts decide" on the issue about reverse-engineering. But you didn't.

HI Bob. IMO the other two Mods bailed out because that had
been planned for some time. It just didn't happen overnight.
Seems they just used Graham as a excuse.
That is my opinion.
They are still Mods here and could form a team to run if they
think they can do things different. This is still a free for all
forum.

Best,
Gerold.

[gerold]

Dr. Hyatt,

Sir,

Isn't what's happening now a complete contradiction of the original conditions CCC had with ICD?

if i get it right, the ICD owners did not attach any strings as to what the CCC can or can not discuss?

or desire to dictate upon CCC?

That, the only condition ICD wanted was its logo on top????

See above. Steve owned ICD Chess, was a computer chess enthusiast, and offered to give us a "stable home" for a message board, with no strings attached as to what we could or could not discuss.

Mariaclara:
quote]
what, if any conditions, did ICD impose on CCC for hosting the CCC?

Dr. Hyatt:
Nothing other than the logo at the top.

Sometimes a good thing does not last forever Maria.
ICD is owned by different people now. They have put
pressure on Sam to watch things a little closer when it
comes to some software.

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. Who do you think you will pick to run with you in
this election.
P.S.2. You got my vote.

[bob]

I am beginning to believe that the only "strings" that are attached are in Graham's mind. That's just a belief he wants everyone to have to justify his rather bizarre moderation tendencies.

I suppose it is intended to be a sort of "Nuremberg defense" for poor actions, claiming "a superior made me do it..."

If you could see the contents of the mods forum (which I can't quote because it's private), you would be the one owing me an apology for what you've just said.
I'll point out again that the other mods interpreted what we were told regarding disallowing links the same way as I did. However, because I've been the only one doing any moderating recently, you use that as a convenient excuse to pounce on me alone.

I'll point out. once more, that it is irrelevant. If all 3 of you interpreted wrongly, that doesn't make it any less of a problem. Why did the other mods bail out on you? Apparently they didn't agree with this interpretation after a little discussion. I'll remind you again that you said "I'll let the experts decide" on the issue about reverse-engineering. But you didn't.

HI Bob. IMO the other two Mods bailed out because that had
been planned for some time. It just didn't happen overnight.
Seems they just used Graham as a excuse.
That is my opinion.
They are still Mods here and could form a team to run if they
think they can do things different. This is still a free for all
forum.

Best,
Gerold.

I don't think it was planned "for some time." I had several email communications with Jeremy and he was pretty frustrated with what was going on. It is bad enough to have to deal with the occasional trouble-makers in the forum, but to have to continually battle with a moderator is even more painful. We dealt with it some last term (it was not between the three of us, but enough said). It is not a reasonable way to spend your time...