View Single Post
Old 07-17-2008, 06:21 PM   #15 (permalink)
Virgil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 291
Default

Originally Posted by lotlizard View Post
well here we have a problem right away
whether the complaint is made by a "valued poster" should not be relevant
what should be relevant is the merits of the complaint
and the way similar complaints have been responded to in the past
otherwise it's all just in-scenery and double standards

i've complained to to ao and moz about many clearly hostile and often defamatory posts on here with only rare success in getting anything modded



but flaming and so on was all over this site anyway
there was constant bagging of chesschatters, more often encouraged than toned down
the only difference is that now the chesschatters are responding
chesschatters were promised they would receive a level playing field and "civility" if they came over here
by iconoclast, no less
where is he now?
instead we get arbitrary bannings and confused, ad hoc generation of new mod policies to restrict us
because there is no fair basis on which to do so, given the abuse we have already been subjected to on here



the best way to make it like that is to get rid of all the anti-chesschat defo, abuse, baiting and nonsense

then chesschat regulars will have no reason to come here and argue

but if you allow people to defame and bait then you must expect the subjects to respond
perhaps angrily from time to time
and if you ban them for not mincing their words in their replies, your actions will be clearly seen as arbitrary
Complaints to MOZ were made under the assumption on your part that MOZ had accepted a contract with the owner of the board to do moderation. A reasonable assumption on your part, given the signage on the bb. However, it is an incorrect assumption as I have advised recently.
I have taken steps to clarify by using this vanilla NICK since the point was raised by Bill.
Virgil is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote