Forum Moderation

[Mike Scott]

I mean Nigel isn't a user on our forum, and so it was very unlikely there would be a big argument over posting something about him. Andy's intention was not to directly use his post to offend Nigel Short, and I imagine Nigel would have probably just shrugged it off even if he had read it; as, given his celebrity-like status in the Chess world, he must be used to reading that sort of comment

Do I understand correctly that it is ok to make offensive comments about non-users of this forum? Or at least non-users who are used to being insulted?? This is just nonsense. If language is used that if directed at you would be objectionable then it is objectionable.

Not sure how you can possible know if Mr Short - or his friends/family - would be used to such comments and whether or not he is I certainly think it far more damaging to CS reputation to allow such insults than the post that you pulled. It not only did not name any individual but simply referred to a group of people -

"...yet are proudly professed non members"

The operative word being 'are' - if it referred to an individual it would be 'is'.

[Andrew McHarg]

Do I understand correctly that it is ok to make offensive comments about non-users of this forum? Or at least non-users who are used to being insulted?? This is just nonsense. If language is used that if directed at you would be objectionable then it is objectionable.

Not sure how you can possible know if Mr Short - or his friends/family - would be used to such comments and whether or not he is I certainly think it far more damaging to CS reputation to allow such insults than the post that you pulled.

I think there is a difference between a comment which is superficially considered "offensive", and one which has actually offended (i.e. someone has complained about it). You may be right that such a comment is more damaging, but perhaps not. I mean it's quite clearly the opinion of Andy B (alone?), whereas many of the other vitriolic disputes are between prominent CS figures (past or present), bringing the core of the organisation into disrepute as far as outsiders might be concerned. Are they likely to want to be part of such an organisation? Wheras Andy's comment was more likely just to be viewed in isolation, much like if someone had made a comment about David Cameron.

It not only did not name any individual but simply referred to a group of people -

"...yet are proudly professed non members"

The operative word being 'are' - if it referred to an individual it would be 'is'.

Not in the context it was stated. The gist of it was along the lines of: guys like Mr X are "proudly professed non members". I think it was quite clearly a post which was trying to pretend like it was being generic, but was in fact very deliberately worded in such a way where anyone of even the slightest knowledge of the politics of the situation would know exactly who it was talking about. This is supported by several emails I have since received from various people who all - by their words - clearly knew who it was targetting. So sorry Mike, I don't agree, and I think it's quite naive to not read between the lines.

[Andrew McHarg]

However given Andrew's known friendships it is likely that the complainer to a reasonable post ;

I was surprised to see that the post had been removed - it was not offensive in anyway

(not my words) narrows down the list.

By "Andrew's known friendships", I assume Pat isn't referring to me.

This post, if nothing else Mike, suggests that Pat knows who complained - I wonder why? It wouldn't be because he might know who the intended target of the post was, and therefore who is most likely to complain about it, by any chance? I mean, if it had no such target, and wasn't intended to be provocative, surely Pat would be somewhat confused as to who complained and why, don't you think?

[David Deary]

This is supported by several emails I have since received from various people who all - by their words - clearly knew who it was targeting.

I refer you to my previous post:

...what I will say is that a certain group of individuals who wish to influence policy seem to be able to have any post removed that they do not agree with. This is concerning..."

I was right? =o =o :U

[Andrew McHarg]

This is supported by several emails I have since received from various people who all - by their words - clearly knew who it was targeting.

I refer you to my previous post:

...what I will say is that a certain group of individuals who wish to influence policy seem to be able to have any post removed that they do not agree with. This is concerning..."

I was right? =o =o :U

No, the emails were from people who supported both sides of the argument and were sent to me after the post was pulled. 8)

[Andy Howie]

However given Andrew's known friendships it is likely that the complainer to a reasonable post ;

I was surprised to see that the post had been removed - it was not offensive in anyway

(not my words) narrows down the list.

By "Andrew's known friendships", I assume Pat isn't referring to me.

This post, if nothing else Mike, suggests that Pat knows who complained - I wonder why? It wouldn't be because he might know who the intended target of the post was, and therefore who is most likely to complain about it, by any chance? I mean, if it had no such target, and wasn't intended to be provocative, surely Pat would be somewhat confused as to who complained and why, don't you think?

Can't be me as I am known as Andy, was away at the pi with very limited reception and have little idea about what this is about!

[Mike Scott]

However given Andrew's known friendships it is likely that the complainer to a reasonable post

Got to add that I find this sort of remark/jibe crass.

Andrew
Sorry but I think there is a big difference between you, I or anyone else thinking that they know who a post was aimed at and that actually being the case. Even if you and A.N. Other were correct I am still far from convinced as to the reason it was pulled - but I can not remember the exact wording so perhaps I missed something.

[David Deary]

No, the emails were from people who supported both sides of the argument and were sent to me after the post was pulled. 8)

Glad to hear it. ;P

My view on the reason it was pulled is that the perpetual complainant seems to be able to force the moderators into removing posts. Not sure why this is there could be several reasons but I’ll leave it for others to surmise. I’m not going to talk anymore about this particular post as it no doubt gives the complainant some sort of validation or recognition.

I know who complained, most frequent forum posters know who complained and I’m surprised the complainant didn’t have the guts to justify their complaint here. Their combative nature is evident elsewhere on this forum and on other forums.

No more from me on this subject and I am loathe to post further on the board whilst the inconsistent moderation remains prevalent. I’m out.

[andyburnett]

Apologies to Mike, Craig P. and anyone else who found my comments about Nigel Short offensive.

I still stand by my statement regarding Short, but am perfectly happy for it to be removed - I don't want the CS forum to become a common place for such hostility/negativity (however well-founded IMO) so I will try to choose my wording more carefully in future.

Andy Burnett

[Patrick McGovern]

I do not know the name of the complainer.