That's interesting. You think so even now that your claims have been proven wrong on all points?

You accused me of abusing my "powers" by speaking out against Topalov. Mods should be neutral on these things, said you. That was proven wrong by Mig's own directive in World Religions. "[Mods] are fellow posters most of the time and are entitled to their opinions."

Then you implied I'd deleted your posts without cause, and furthermore that I'd delete anything critical that you said about me. Wrong again. Your two missing posts were deleted by Inky with cause, rather than by me without.

Like Topalov himself, you jumped the gun and accused without evidence (a little irony there, don't you think? ) But if your errors were honest ones, it seems you should be doing a little mea culpa about now. Were they? I'll set a good example by reserving judgment on that question until you've answered.

Furthermore, I think the voters would like to know, since you started this whole silly grudge over a partisan issue, will you have a litmus test for any future moderators that may come, that they must support Topalov?

Well, he doesn't know the work you put in the other day. And, like most of Sherlock Holmes' work for the crowned heads of Europe, it's one of those stories that Watson can't write down for public consumption.

I never said that mods should be neutral. As usual, your posts have no factual basis. In fact, I nominated Littlefish who supported Kramnik. I also supported Russianbear who supported Kramnik.

I am not happy with your moderatorship. In fact, it is not just I who am not happy. Russianbear is not happy, Chessfan is not happy, Chessbuff is not happy and so on.

Let Mig make the decision. I have already written to Rondino and to Mig to delete my membership. Let Mig make a decision. If I am right and you are wrong, let him remove you as a moderator. If you are right and I am wrong, let him remove me from my membership.

My exact quote in response to GC's post that none of my last 50 posts were deleted was

This is in no way an implication that you had deleted my posts.

You cannot say that Inky deleted posts with cause because Inky has said :

"Sometimes we have to delete harmless posts when they quote or answer a previous post that has been deleted because it was harmful. If we left these it would be tantamount to leaving the harmful post(s)."

Also, my original statement only pertains to my posts this week. I have had many of my posts deleted in the past.

Being a conservative, I wasn't very liberal in my compliments to you I guess. You can substitute "Nice" with "outstanding", "impeccable", "hilarious", "amazing", "superb", "fantastic", "marvellous", "beautiful", "great" and so many other objectvies that you could choose from. Believe me, I can damn you with praise as to make you faint.

If I may I'll add to Krish's post above and tack on...

Breathtaking, magnificent, peerless, splendiferous, sublime, and zero cool!

- Mal

PS: I expect extra CN 'Brownie points' for that one rondino! :p

I am not happy with your moderatorship. In fact, it is not just I who am not happy. Russianbear is not happy, Chessfan is not happy, Chessbuff is not happy and so on.

Heeeeej! Don't forget that I was on that list too, somehow he stopped deleting my posts and everything was fine. I agree that if you take 5 minutes to write something it's fairly irritating someone deletes the post.

Petrosianic once deleted a post written by Combo_kid threatning my life or to kick the sh!t outta me. He recently let me read the post with the question whether I would have deleted it. I wouldn't have.... just because I know he's a gay sissy boy.

Petrosianic tries to be liberal and let's some posters go pretty far, if then he decides to delete something according to the rules he gets complaints for not being fair. This makes Bear's arguments look fair but there is a case for Petrosianic too......

Let's all be happy he can bend the rules for most people, I wouldn't want this site to turn into strict rules blabla just because Bear wants the same special treatment as the rest of us.

Yes Bear can demand equal rights, but alas, life isn't fair it should be... but it isn't

For whatever it's worth, the four people you've just mentioned are pretty much the only people that other users PM complaints to me about and ask why we aren't tougher on you guys. I think Rondino's experience is similar here.


Yes, CK told me before he left that it was okay to show it to Matt. I never did, I guess because I decided to just let the whole thing lie. But with this whole debate about what should be allowed, I pulled it out again. Because CK had been mad that it was deleted, and had told me before he left that if I showed the post to Matt, that Matt would agree that it was okay.

Sure enough, CK was right. Matt does agree that it's okay. But even if he does, I think most would agree that a moderated board is not a place where one user should be allowed to threaten to drag another user out into the parking lot and beat the fertilizer out of him. Even if the person who makes the threat is well known as being a big bag of wind, you just can't do that here.

Originally posted by Matt:
I am not happy with your moderatorship. In fact, it is not just I who am not happy. Russianbear is not happy, Chessfan is not happy, Chessbuff is not happy and so on.

Should have been a quote..... I'm quite OK with ya Petrosianic.... as long as you dont delete my posts anyway

I've been remorselessly moderating myself for ages now. I delete or decline to post at least 70% of my output. Were it not for me, this thread would be flooded with hundreds of messages accusing the moderators of nepotism, intrigue and frottage.

Regular rotation is essential in my view. The entire point is to decrease the relevance of the job so they don't become an issue. Mods should be minimalists, not activists, and power corrupts!

So skip the current mods and nominate three other people, dammit.