I was responding to a post by <big pawn> claiming <winston> writes obscene posts. It was about vulgarity/obscenity>

Everyone familiar with you knows this is a lie.

You don't go around the website looking for conversations about vulgarity.

No, you go around the website CYBERSTALKING <BP> and other "enemies", to criticize them and stick your nose into everything.

I actually agree with you on that. But <saffuna> wants to leverage the story to justify inserting something he knows is inflammatory - that S Polgar was the coach there.

Here is what he proposed:

<saffuna: <ocf> Seems to me only a sentence or two need to be added to the Wesley So bio, along these lines: "In 2012 So moved to the United States to play on the top-rated SPICE team at Webster University. Coached by GM Susan Polgar and with So playing the top board, Webster won national championships in --- and ---, as well as numerous other tournaments. So left the team in 2015.">

I suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable to put in

<In 2012 So moved to the United States and played on the top-rated SPICE team at Webster University. So left the team in 2015.>

But that won't satisfy <Bartle>. He wants to stick it to So by highlighting the part about Polgar being the coach.

Just like he likes to cyberstalk <BP>, to try to stick it to <BP>.

You aren't very familiar with <Bartle> and his vendetta tactics. I am.

He works to establish plausible deniability, so he can claim he was just innocently doing this, or innocently doing that...

For example, he makes claims such as "Oh, it was a discussion about vulgarity, that's all I was talking about."

I posted an example of what I thought would be acceptable above:

"In 2012 So moved to the United States to play on the top-rated SPICE team at Webster University. Coached by GM Susan Polgar and with So playing the top board, Webster won national championships in --- and ---, as well as numerous other tournaments. So left the team in 2015."

Just like he likes to cyberstalk <BP>, to try to stick it to <BP>.>

Spot on!

You've brought <tuna's> ulterior motive to light.

The <tuna> needs to find something better to do than to make trouble for GM So. But then again, he is an outspoken Christian GM, which explains the explanation for the ulterior motive in the first place!

I don't believe <Jim> has any ulterior motive on this, and even if he did he would still be right.

<Zuza Polgar> is an historical part of the <So> story and it should not be written out of history.

This is iconoclasm and we have enough of that these days. I am not in favor of <Stalinist> rewritings of history.

Sure you have to maintain an even hand on controversial parts of biographies- you need a balance.

Wikipedia is pretty good at following this rule. As <Daniel> pointed out, the cg.com bio on <Ray Keene> should not omit mention of plagiarism, but discussion of that plagiarism shouldn't be longer than a third of that biography. This is the proportion that the Wikipedia bio on Ray roughly follows. But, and even <Daniel> agreed on this, you don't just "write out" controversial parts of a biography.

That would be OK. Weak, but acceptable.

It should at least mention the championships the SPICE team won.

EZ, <tga>. Caps off dude.

I don't write for you or your ilk. I don't help make <CG> for you or your ilk.

If you benefit from my work, it's a cost I accept for the benefit of others. Not you or your ilk.

Your reply perfectly demonstrates why I don't want you to readily access my writings.

I'd be happy to not interact with you at all, and have the same courtesy in return.

A pretty civil exchange.

(I know it isn't necessarily practical, but I definitely have the right to right for a more perfect world, if only incrementally).

If you benefit from my work, it's a cost I accept for the benefit of others. Not you or your ilk. >

She's mad.

I wonder if <Zanzibar> puts toilet paper on the toilet seat before he sits down to pee?

<Zuza Polgar> is an historical part of the <So> story and it should not be written out of history.>

Then ask yourself this - why is that one particular name so important to <JB>?

After all, no other names are posited for inclusion. Why not include the AD? Why not include the other team mates?

On the surface, a case can be made that he doesn't have an ulterior motive. But once you dig into the history, and find out what happened (including what happened with <JB>) then you can start to connect the dots.

<This is iconoclasm and we have enough of that these days. I am not in favor of <Stalinist> rewritings of history.>

This is a red herring - no one is proposing rewriting history. In fact, I even changed my stance on including his time at the university, because the argument was convincing (So was on the chess team there).

<...you don't just "write out" controversial parts of a biography.>

There are many scanty bios of famous players on this website. But for some reason, So's must both be lengthy and exhaustive FIRST, before any of these other (and arguably more significant) bios are fleshed out?

It seems a person would have to be purposely avoiding understanding the situation for them to ignore this and not ask why?

<Allowing <GM So> or any other person to have public relations control over his bio is anathema to scholarship, historical accuracy, and academic freedom.>

Yet Daniel did just that, and not only for So. <tpsupernova> controls his, and he doesn't even have a title AFAIK.

Maybe I should take the other side, that Webster absolutely should NOT be mentioned in the bio. Then <big pawn> and <tga> would be saying the Webster/Polgar years definitely just be included.>

I can't speak for <BP>, but as for me, this is <Wrong!>

I don't write for you or your ilk. I don't help make <CG> for you or your ilk.>

My ilk? This is laughable, dude. THERE IS NO ONE ELSE LIKE ME ON CG.COM

Now, perhaps we should give over control of <your> ignore list to someone like, oh, I don't know.... <Big Pawn>, maybe?

A pretty civil exchange. >

Then stop trying to control other cg.com users.

If you stop trying to control everyone, I will stop using freedom of speech to decry it.

So far you have been PURPOSEFULLY going to forums that I read, to post your ideas for dictatorial control.

After all, no other names are posited for inclusion. Why not include the AD? Why not include the other team mates?>

Because that is the name of the team's coach.

Does anyone talk about Michael Jordan's years at North Carolina without mentioning Dean Smith? No.

Delusional #1 - but yes, I agree, there is no one else on <CG> who wants to discuss the physics of Godzilla seriously.

<So far you have been PURPOSEFULLY going to forums that I read, to post your ideas for dictatorial control.>

Delusion #2 - You think I follow you around from forum to forum?!

You got it bloody backwards.

We need a feature that allows cloning other user's ignore-lists.

Then ask yourself this - why is that one particular name so important to <JB>?>

Exactly!

<There are many scanty bios of famous players on this website. But for some reason, So's must both be lengthy and exhaustive FIRST, before any of these other (and arguably more significant) bios are fleshed out?>

Well, what would you think of a biography of Michael Jordan which does not mention the University of North Carolina or Dean Smith?>

Irrelevant, Michael Jordan never banned you from his player page.

<There are many scanty bios of famous players on this website. But for some reason, So's must both be lengthy and exhaustive FIRST, before any of these other (and arguably more significant) bios are fleshed out?>

<Twinlark>, who has left the site, wrote the biographies of top level active players. He also kept updating them.

The updating will no longer be done, unless other editors step up to the plate.

Many biographies are scant because there is no systematic work order. Editors freely choose which bios to work on.

Mystery: solved.

This issue has nothing to do with <Jim>, or anything <Daniel> did.

<Daniel> said a lot of things, frequently contradicting himself.

The difference between what he said about <Ray Keene's> bio and what he actually did in the case of <Wes So's> bio is a case in point.

Again, this has nothing to do with <Jim>.

If any of you wants to beef up stubby bios of worthy candidates, if this website ever starts functioning again, get off your ass and volunteer to become an editor.

Then get off your ass and do some of the work yourselves, instead of complaining.

Also educate yourself about the why the current state of bios is the way it is, before indulging in idiotic conspiracy theories about <Jim's> "ulterior motives."

Less idle gossip, more work- from *you*.