<FS>'s screed is basically laughable, and would only be accurate if every assertion were negated.

I'll report this series of multi-posts (a typical <bippy> tactic) either tonight or tomorrow. It's pure libelous abuse.

FWIW- this will be my first contact with the new management through "back"-channels(+). Hopefully the posts will be scrubbed before I need to do so.

* * * * *

(*) I suppose it's <bippy>, though <focus> did mention Hogg in one of his recent posts. Given the level of hysteria:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...

it's possible they both caught it from the same source. Reminds me of this kind of "information" sharing:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...

The warning post in <OCF's> forum was misdirected. The reference to WWII law enforcers named for inclement weather did not originate with <OCF> and the warning to <OCF> was unwarranted. If the <Admins> made a mistake by warning the wrong user, then a simple apology would have resolved the issue. That didn't happen. If the <Admins> posted there knowing it wasn't <OCF>, then the <Admins> showed a serious lack of judgment. The <Admin's> follow up comments show a significant lack of respect and certainly will not foster a reasonable conversation, the stated goals of the posting guidelines.

The <Admin's> callous approach to <OCF's> responses demonstrate arrogance and a lack of respect. While a heavy-handed approach may have been appropriate in the immediate aftermath of Daniel's death, its time has certainly passed. Civility goes both ways. While respect should be a default starting point between people, continued respect is based on subsequent interactions. In short, if one doesn't want to be referenced as an inclement-weather law enforcer, then one shouldn't act as an inclement-weather law enforcer.

You're backing the wrong team - <OCF> and his crew doesn't represent the "good" guys.

Just check out <thegoodneega/thegoodneeger> episode,

Search Kibitzing

And consider the flack an otherwise uninvolved <CG> member took just for helping me find those old posts.

I read the pertinent posts and saw the <Admin’s> response. I have kept relatively current on other <Admin> postings and the tone used in those situations. As I stated earlier, while a firm tone may have been necessary then, it was not in <OCF’s> case. Indeed, I would argue that the “emergency transition” period is over and it is time to set a tone for how users are to be treated.

Of course, that is entirely up to management (as I have said repeatedly), but user input is useful. Everyone here is free to disagree with me, but please do not try to pull me into your war as I do not have a dog in the fight.

All this time and you still haven't figured it out.

If only you knew who is the biggest sockpuppetmaster in site history, and then who is the second biggest sockpuppetmaster in site history, everything falls into place.

Good thing someone here has read the Wesley So page from the top.

Nope. Daniel tried to be fair to all parties.

Great! You've had your 16 years. Now it should be our turn.>

Well, you picked the time and place(s) to weigh in. It looked partisan to me, to tell the truth.

<Chessgames> adopted a similar harsh tone several times earlier, and I don't remember you voicing a concern then (unlike, say <Tiggler>).

But let me review this - fair and balanced and all that.

My interest isn't in defending <OCF>, it is preserving the rights of all users regardless of "sides." If it makes you feel better, you can use my language in any other fight where you feel a user is being treated unfairly by an <Admin>.

If you disagree that the tone and content of the <Admin's> posts in question are not harsh, that's okay. You can just say so. We don't have to agree. But if you're only saying so because the posts were made to <OCF> in particular, then that's a different reason altogether. I did not and will not address that.

At least <one> member of this Admin, specifically Chessgames.com member <Sargon>—recovering from major surgery, and with 10 pins and a plate in his right ankle and 2 pins in his right knee—passionately <canvassed> for Donald J. Trump in the days leading up to the November 2016 elections, doing his small part in ensuring that candidate's eventual inauguration as America's 45th President. Additionally, <Sargon> positively <loves> to "make the liberals mad".

Consequently, the factually incorrect assertions regarding Sargon's ideology—claims which are either laughably presumptive or profoundly misinformed—convincingly illustrate the abject hysteria which can be triggered when transparent and deliberate trolling is met with a markedly uncontroversial rebuke. Chessgames.com member <Sargon>—like <most> reasonable individuals (regardless of political persuasion)—recognizes trolling when he encounters it. Ronald Reagan once said "Don't be afraid to see what you see"—and choosing the handle "Free Speech" does not in any way mitigate clear violations of the posting guidelines of this community.

<Sargon> happens to be a staunch libertarian—with beliefs that are very much in harmony with those of the late Daniel Freeman—and he, for one, will <always> endeavor to be fair-minded when acting as Moderator.

Looks like that's not happening now.>

If it does look like that, then it's assuredly due only to coincidence—not intent. Violations of posting guidelines are being reviewed and processed in no particular order for the time being, and presumptions regarding unfairness to any specific party are decidedly premature.

<But let's take a wait-and-see attitude.>