Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Until Vasik mans up and prove his source code to be stolen,which I strongly doubt,there is no need to delete links....so your fellow moderators are doing just fineGraham Banks wrote:My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.meschle wrote: Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
Cheers,
Graham.
Quite right. Ignore the Charter, it is a waste of time.Graham Banks wrote:My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.meschle wrote: Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
Cheers,
Graham.
5. Are not of questionable legal status.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Until Vasik mans up and prove his source code to be stolen,which I strongly doubt,there is no need to delete links....so your fellow moderators are doing just fineGraham Banks wrote:My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.meschle wrote: Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
Cheers,
Graham.
Dr.D
Christopher, you know I love you.Christopher Conkie wrote:5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations
5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Christopher Conkie wrote:Quite right. Ignore the Charter, it is a waste of time.Graham Banks wrote:
My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.
Cheers,
Graham.
What would constitute a post with illegal status?markboylan wrote:Christopher, you know I love you.Christopher Conkie wrote:5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Now that we have that settled, I have to disagree with your interpretation. I believe that Point 5 refers to the legal status of the post, not the legality of the subject of the post.
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations
5. Are not of questionable legal status.
I didn't claim that it made any sense, only that it's worded that way.Christopher Conkie wrote:What would constitute a post with illegal status?
Doubtful on both counts. If you can make up a Charter so can we.Matthias Gemuh wrote:Christopher Conkie wrote:Quite right. Ignore the Charter, it is a waste of time.Graham Banks wrote:
My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.
Cheers,
Graham.
Chris,
the CCC is not difficult to moderate if you stay in the CTF.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Matthias.
Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318Graham Banks wrote:My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.meschle wrote: Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
Cheers,
Graham.
So really it means nothing?markboylan wrote:I didn't claim that it made any sense, only that it's worded that way.Christopher Conkie wrote:What would constitute a post with illegal status?