Originally posted by SilverstrikerI think he got so badly slaughtered in the forums he gave up. His trolling certificates weren't worth the toilet paper they were written on.
whatever did happen to User 652081
My guess is Skeeter would have generated the most complaints in the forums. In a word he/she was caustic. The internet persona was thoroughly dislikeable. So if you have rules on a website, and someone persistently breaks them, what do you do? Make an exception for this one user, or do you enforce your own TOS?
IMO it's pretty simple. No one user is bigger than this website. The users have to observe the TOS or we pay the penalty. Irrespective of whether or not someone is a good chess player does not excuse them from being a right twat in the forums. If you don't like the site admins enforcing the TOS, then I suggest you either lobby to get the TOS changed or take it to another website.
Originally posted by andrew93she was no more abusive than many who frequent the forums. I once kept a list of all
My guess is Skeeter would have generated the most complaints in the forums. In a word he/she was caustic. The internet persona was thoroughly dislikeable. So if you have rules on a website, and someone persistently breaks them, what do you do? Make an exception for this one user, or do you enforce your own TOS?
IMO it's pretty simple. No one user is the TOS, then I suggest you either lobby to get the TOS changed or take it to another website.
the insulting terms i had received while frequenting spirituality, it grew extremely large
and not one was from skeety.
Originally posted by andrew93The problem is enforcing the TOS with some sort of consistency. Some believe that Skeeter shouldn't have been banned when some blatant cheaters are not being banned and some believe that Skeeter was a cheater as well as a prude.
My guess is Skeeter would have generated the most complaints in the forums. In a word he/she was caustic. The internet persona was thoroughly dislikeable. So if you have rules on a website, and someone persistently breaks them, what do you do? Make an exception for this one user, or do you enforce your own TOS?
IMO it's pretty simple. No one user is ...[text shortened]... the TOS, then I suggest you either lobby to get the TOS changed or take it to another website.
Originally posted by andrew93Someone being "caustic" or "disagreeable" is a pretty lame reason to remove a person who's been here over 8 years from a CHESS SITE. Esp. when a simple Forum ban would have removed her "disagreeableness" from the tender sensibilities of the gals at Metallica and others.
My guess is Skeeter would have generated the most complaints in the forums. In a word he/she was caustic. The internet persona was thoroughly dislikeable. So if you have rules on a website, and someone persistently breaks them, what do you do? Make an exception for this one user, or do you enforce your own TOS?
IMO it's pretty simple. No one user is ...[text shortened]... the TOS, then I suggest you either lobby to get the TOS changed or take it to another website.
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo.. it's just a number. It might even be a result. But it's not a fact. If that number is greater than the threshold then that's a fact. But since we don't see a number there are no facts. And even if we do see a number on it's own it's not an independently verifiable number without game IDs. Then Ziggie may come up with one number and Marauder may come up with a different number. My head is spinning. Why don't we just release the ducks.
I'm not claiming to have them, only that whatever number reached after analysing a player against an engine is a 'fact'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
she was no more abusive than many who frequent the forums.
I disagree. When I first started visiting the forums, the only person that caught my attention was Skeeter (and a couple of religious nut-jobs in the science forum whose names now elude me). And this was based on 80-90% of my forum browsing being in the chess forum - I wasn't even looking at the Clan forums where trash talk is encouraged.
Originally posted by tomtom232
The problem is enforcing the TOS with some sort of consistency. Some believe that Skeeter shouldn't have been banned when some blatant cheaters are not being banned and some believe that Skeeter was a cheater as well as a prude.
Agreed in principle regarding the first half of your sentence, but two wrongs don't make a right. I don't have an opinion on whether or not skeeter used an engine.
Originally posted by no1marauderJust because I quote you doesn't mean I'm in disagreement :-) Just pointing out that narrow repertoire might be another reason for a higher than expected matchup rate. Which is one of the reasons I suppose that Zygalsky says that the games are then looked at by humans of sufficiently high playing ability to be able to recognise engine play.
(Shrug) The statement I made is true. I don't care what "defense" Cludi made.
Originally posted by andrew93she was no more abusive than many who frequent the forums, I disagree??
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]she was no more abusive than many who frequent the forums.
I disagree. When I first started visiting the forums, the only person that caught my attention was Skeeter (and a couple of religious nut-jobs in the science forum whose names now elude me). And this was based on 80-90% of my forum browsing b rongs don't make a right. I don't have an opinion on whether or not skeeter used an engine.[/b]
clearly you have never spent time in spirituality, which skeety never frequented. dont
forget i have also been on the receiving end of her fiesty nature, but it was never
totally abusive, indeed, perhaps you can provide any evidence of her abusive posts
and demonstrate how they are any worse than mikeholm suggesting that my wife had
satisfied all of Clan Metallica, yet he remains active.
Originally posted by andrew93its not about fantasies, its about abuse, why this simple fact has evaded you, who can
Correct. I don't want to waste my time reading about fantasies.
say, you have made the assertion that skeety was more abusive, either put up , or
shut up and retract your statement. and just for the record, a materialistic
explanation for the emergence and diversification of life itself also relies upon certain
unobserved phenomena, but shhh, dont let people know.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what is the point of having rules if you don't want to enforce them? Why have rule if you aren't prepared to enforce it?
Someone being "caustic" or "disagreeable" is a pretty lame reason to remove a person who's been here over 8 years from a CHESS SITE. Esp. when a simple Forum ban would have removed her "disagreeableness" from the tender sensibilities of the gals at Metallica and others.
To think she was banned for being caustic and disagreeable is disingenuous.