PDA

View Full Version : Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8

Basil
20-03-2007, 01:16 PM
Ax, I respect you and your behaviour very much. I am on record of being most consistent in that opinion.

Your politics have nothing to do with my observations - and you do both of us an injustcice by tieing them in. As it happens, your politics are more palatible to me than most of the hippies around here - and even then, it might serve well to recall that 'most my friends are lefties' - and you're not even one of them.

It all boils down to this: Your shouts and monologues were too much. You may have a case if one were to limit the entire charade to recent claimed goal-post movings, but as far as I'm concerned, you lost the privilege to rely on same at least a week ago when you breached your promise to Bill.

Anyway, beer's on me and would you care for a game?

Axiom
20-03-2007, 01:58 PM
Ax, I respect you and your behaviour very much. I am on record of being most consistent in that opinion.

Your politics have nothing to do with my observations - and you do both of us an injustcice by tieing them in. As it happens, your politics are more palatible to me than most of the hippies around here - and even then, it might serve well to recall that 'most my friends are lefties' - and you're not even one of them.

It all boils down to this: Your shouts and monologues were too much. You may have a case if one were to limit the entire charade to recent claimed goal-post movings, but as far as I'm concerned, you lost the privilege to rely on same at least a week ago when you breached your promise to Bill.

Anyway, beer's on me aqnd would you care for a game? it would seem the goalposts moved so far, i couldnt even tactfully answer a direct question with the phrase "refer to 30 quotes"........ i was clear on the non mentioning of the link , 'his' name ,and no monologues.......but to be gagged for simply answering a direct question in what i thought was as discrete and tactful way as i could imagine,seems at best unfair, and at worse,a perjorative abuse of power.................but its clear to me now, that anything with any vague reference to any form of perceived grand corruption,govt.cover ups or in fact any aspect of my political views are clearly verboten in the sb, and anyone asking me such questions again in the sb,will have to do so in my *******s thread,.....but how will i be able to tell them where they can find the answer??...can i say ,"just go to my very long thread"? or should i PM them my answer?

Now, i appreciate your personal support here HD, but i dont think our political views are really that close ,to be honest.Have you,for instance read THE QUOTES or heard an Alex Jones radio show?(do you have real or windows audio player on that mac?). But regardless of our differing political views, we maintain a mutual respect. So cheers with the beers!..........and we'll start another game soon(currently have 5 on the go!)

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2007, 05:17 PM
a)did not ask me to stop discussing conspiracy theories

Yes he did, he said ""Just give it a rest in the shoutbox going on about conspiracies, Alex Jones, monalogues and any other such dribble "

Axiom
20-03-2007, 06:30 PM
Yes he did, he said ""Just give it a rest in the shoutbox going on about conspiracies, Alex Jones, monalogues and any other such dribble " and i obliged .(need to refer to the timeline )

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2007, 06:40 PM
and i obliged .(need to refer to the timeline )

The timeline is already discussed in Bill's post above.

Axiom
20-03-2007, 06:42 PM
The timeline is already discussed in Bill's post above.
and whose judgement proved fallacious at the point of my 12:46am

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2007, 06:48 PM
and whose judgement proved fallacious at the point of my 12:46am

The Schopenhauer quote? Well, why else did you post that?

Axiom
20-03-2007, 06:59 PM
The Schopenhauer quote? Well, why else did you post that? well, precisely :) and on that point , i noticed you referred to the lack of 'self evidence' in Schopenhauer's work............i would suggest ,that simply the message in 'that' famous quote was enough to show he has indeed established 'self evidence'. ! ")

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2007, 07:03 PM
I thought you were posting it to say that while conspiracy theories are initially ridiculed they are later accepted as fact.

Axiom
20-03-2007, 07:24 PM
I thought you were posting it to say that while conspiracy theories are initially ridiculed they are later accepted as fact. sorry,but nothing to do with theories of conspiracies but more to do with insightful commentary on the turning of untruth to truth.........but yes this can apply to some ,so called 'conspiracy theories'.

Axiom
20-03-2007, 07:29 PM
sorry,but nothing to do with theories of conspiracies but more to do with insightful commentary on the turning of untruth to truth.........but yes this can apply to some ,so called 'conspiracy theories'.
please note how many twist the term "turning"(above) into "spinning" .

four four two
21-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Axiom, you were asking about the difference between links to *******s and 442's youtube links. The difference is that some of the material on the *******s site could be quite reasonably considered offensive in the provocative way in which it's presented ("Gulags in America" is an example of that). Also, the shoutbox isn't really the appropriate place for prolonged political discourses unrelated to chess. So no more PR for *******s in the shoutbox please.

I would like to comment on my Youtube links in the shoutbox.

Generally they are on topic,well in a scatalogical way:D , and they dont "hog" the shoutbox...my shoutbox shouts count is less than one third of Axiom's...and I used to be in the top ten! :lol:

antichrist
23-03-2007, 07:18 AM
Bill Gletsos
Update to rules noting that the failure of a poster to follow a directive of an admin or moderator may result in immediate action being taken against the poster.
__________________

Now remember that you can't make that action retrospective like CC Mufti (KB) did once against me - and RW can't repeat his action of barring me for a day just because he felt like being God.

Desmond
23-03-2007, 07:37 AM
Bill Gletsos
Update to rules noting that the failure of a poster to follow a directive of an admin or moderator may result in immediate action being taken against the poster.I would have thought that this was a no-brainer, but I guess it doesn't hurt to make it explicit in the rules.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2007, 01:02 PM
It is a no-brainer, but even no-brainers are a bit too challenging for some. :lol:

_Bruce_
18-06-2007, 05:42 AM
Please Ban this account as it is a hydra and was only done for a joke.

Regards
Bergil

ElevatorEscapee
28-06-2007, 10:22 PM
Has Bergil also been banned for breaching site rules for his jocular "_bruce_" character!? ... (He has so often demanded that others be banned for breaching the most minor of infractions of site rules, and indeed, actively attempted to induce said other members of this site to transgress to attract such a punishment!)

A casual glance at the postings would suggest that it would seem that he has not been punitively treated for his activites.

I would like to politely request an explanation of: "if not, why not?" :)

To those who handle the "bannings", and other punitive actions dished out to the people here who may transgress from time to time, the constantly evolving (sorry Jonno "constatly re-created") site rules... would you please be so kind as to explain the differentiation of your treatment of similar behaviours between Bergil's transgression, and your reaction toward those other site members who may have perpetrated similar offences?

One of the major objections to AFL rules, at the moment, is related to the "hands in the back" rule... people don't object so much to the rule in general, but rather the differing interpretations applied to it by the umpires.

Dare I suggest that some consistency would be desirable when it comes to interpreting what is supposed to be expected from us on this forum. :D

Thank you,

~EE :D

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2007, 10:33 PM
Has Bergil also been banned for breaching site rules for his jocular "_bruce_" character!? ... (He has so often demanded that others be banned for breaching the most minor of infractions of site rules, and indeed, actively attempted to induce said other members of this site to transgress to attract such a punishment!)

A casual glance at the postings would suggest that it would seem that he has not been punitively treated for his activites.

I would like to politely request an explanation of: "if not, why not?" :)

To those who handle the "bannings", and other punitive actions dished out to the people here who may transgress from time to time, the constantly evolving (sorry Jonno "constatly re-created") site rules... would you please be so kind as to explain the differentiation of your treatment of similar behaviours between Bergil's transgression, and your reaction toward those other site members who may have perpetrated similar offences?

One of the major objections to AFL rules, at the moment, is related to the "hands in the back" rule... people don't object so much to the rule in general, but rather the differing interpretations applied to it by the umpires.

Dare I suggest that some consistency would be desirable when it comes to interpreting what is supposed to be expected from us on this forum. :D

Thank you,

~EE :DYou should have noted that it is not illegal to have a hydra if you are not a banned user.
e.g. Belthaser was not banned even though he used the hydra of Urgoff.
In fact bergil made no attempt to hide the fact that _bruce_ was a hydra as he was logged on with both ids simultaneously.
There are currently other users here with hydras (known by the mods).

ElevatorEscapee
28-06-2007, 10:58 PM
^^^

SHHHH Bill!!!! Please don't let anyone know that I am really Kevin Bonham!! :P

Basil
29-06-2007, 01:04 AM
Intent. Context.

Everybody carry on.

ElevatorEscapee
29-06-2007, 09:32 PM
Why not Name & Shame the offenders then!!!! :D

(eg TCN = TCNonlocatio, etc).

Bill Gletsos
02-07-2007, 11:25 PM
Why not Name & Shame the offenders then!!!! :D

(eg TCN = TCNonlocatio, etc).No need.

TCN isnt banned hence he can have a hydra if he chooses.

Matt and [Alex] are banned hence no hydras allowed.

ElevatorEscapee
05-07-2007, 07:35 PM
I am not banned (yet), can I have a hydra if I choose? ... please? ... pretty please with sugar on top!? :D

Dion wasn't banned either... why was Ugoff banned?

bergil
11-07-2007, 11:45 AM
I am not banned (yet), can I have a hydra if I choose? ... please? ... pretty please with sugar on top!? :D

Dion wasn't banned either... why was Ugoff banned?
"It has been noted by the moderators that ursogr8 broke the site rules by posting some of the contents of a PM elsewhere without the author's permission.
The application of a 2 week ban has been suspended, however it will be immediately added to any ban applied for any future occurence of the same or a related site rule violation"

EE When does your campaign for a life sentence for this repeat offender begin! :owned:

eclectic
11-07-2007, 12:54 PM
what happened?

did he get a dispensation due to yesterday being his post and shout :silenced: anniversary

wouldn't applying the suspension have helped him celebrate more with a 2 week PM and email :silenced: being icing on the cake? :owned:

:twisted:

Garvinator
22-08-2007, 11:51 PM
Surely Axiom has used up all good kudos by now and has no intention of obeying the site rules. Time to give him a long holiday.

He continues to re-offend, send him on his way for a long holiday.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2007, 12:20 AM
I'm personally willing (grudgingly) to just keep putting in the effort of banning his hydras until his current ban (now three weeks) is up, so long as the number of them stays manageable. If he signs up dozens per day it might be different.

I'm trying to strike a balance here between convincing Ax not to act like a fruit when he gets moderated and doesn't agree with it, and at the same time not wishing to have him thrown off for so long that he is lost entirely, especially not as a result of escalating breaches that are individually trivial except for him wasting the mods' time (which, by the way, I don't appreciate). His is a difficult case because he is not badly motivated but he's got a fight-the-power type mentality that means he tends to go gaga in the shoutbox when he doesn't agree with things, and that also means he has responded stupidly to being banned in the first place. If a poster is badly motivated anyway (eg trolls) then there is no harm in banning them longer and longer each time they misbehave, but with someone who means well but goes silly when they don't agree with a mod decision, what do you do?

We had similar problems with antichrist and chesslover.

Basil
23-08-2007, 12:51 AM
Certainly Axiom is making things difficult, as is his wont.

Kev, let it be known that those with any semblance of ability of people management most likely support your position 100%, understand and respect the issues involved. BTW, you've nailed his psychology perfectly!

Rest assured that your final decision is likely to be the right one (either way) in the eyes of the aforementioned. Conversely there are others who'll never be satisfied. I'd suggest your care factor with respect to those people's opinions should settle around the zero mark.

Carry on!

Sunshine
23-08-2007, 11:00 AM
Do I take it that there is an active search to see if a banned poster has created a hydra ?

From what I can understand the hydras themselves are not causing any difficulties - it is just that somehow you deduce that it must be a banned poster and then going about deleting it.

While I had only noticed the one Axiom hydra - I had assumed that everyone was enjoying the cat and mouse nature of it all. I can now see that the moderators and some others see it a little more serious than that.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2007, 11:10 PM
Do I take it that there is an active search to see if a banned poster has created a hydra ?

We keep an eye on any new signups that look suss and check to see what they are. Often they are spammers, which we ban immediately. Obviously hydras of the permanently banned users Matthew Sweeney, Arrogant-One or HappyFriend are banned the instant we are aware of them, given the past form of these posters for posting while banned.

When we first started banning Ax's hydras we were under the impression that the only reason he was signing them up was to post, as it had previously appeared that banned users could still read the forum (we had frequently seen some online, often weeks after they were banned). However this appears to have changed (or to have not been the case to begin with); I signed up and banned a test hydra and found that it could not access the forum in any way, meaning that a banned user can read only as guest unless they sign up a hydra.

In any case, Axiom was given a clear instruction to desist from signing up further hydras, which he disobeyed, hence the first extension of his ban. He then also started posting while banned (arrow) so we take the view that any new hydras may be intended for posting purposes, and ban them all.

If he emails me promising that he will only use one specified hydra and will use it solely to read and not post or shout for the duration of his ban, I'll think about it.

eclectic
24-08-2007, 03:06 AM
If he emails me promising that he will only use one specified hydra and will use it solely to read and not post or shout for the duration of his ban, I'll think about it.

what's the point of banning him then?

what if we "threatened" him with a game called Reveal of Fortune :owned: in which every time he committed an indisgression the moderators exposed a consonant from his real name? :hand:

;)

Aaron Guthrie
24-08-2007, 03:19 AM
When we first started banning Ax's hydras we were under the impression that the only reason he was signing them up was to post, as it had previously appeared that banned users could still read the forum (we had frequently seen some online, often weeks after they were banned). However this appears to have changed (or to have not been the case to begin with); I signed up and banned a test hydra and found that it could not access the forum in any way, meaning that a banned user can read only as guest unless they sign up a hydra.

In any case, Axiom was given a clear instruction to desist from signing up further hydras, which he disobeyed, hence the first extension of his ban. He then also started posting while banned (arrow) so we take the view that any new hydras may be intended for posting purposes, and ban them all.

If he emails me promising that he will only use one specified hydra and will use it solely to read and not post or shout for the duration of his ban, I'll think about it.I recall once Axiom asking how to log in as a guest, and neither you nor I (if I recall correctly it was you) could explain it to him (for some reason he couldn't log out or something). So perhaps there is the small chance that he still cannot do so. Although I presume he would need to be logged out to first try and log in as a different account.

Sunshine
24-08-2007, 12:31 PM
It is difficult to fault either the process or the decisions made.

It does, however, seem a time consuming process for a volunteer when there is no damage being done by the hydras.

Bill Gletsos
24-08-2007, 02:39 PM
It is difficult to fault either the process or the decisions made.

It does, however, seem a time consuming process for a volunteer when there is no damage being done by the hydras.The problem is that you cannot just assume that the hydras created will do no damage since in past the hydras of other banned users were used to spam members via PM and also the site.

Hence the banning of hydras of banned users before that happens.

Basil
24-08-2007, 03:36 PM
It is difficult to fault either the process or the decisions made.

It does, however, seem a time consuming process for a volunteer when there is no damage being done by the hydras.

And in default (of the process being fulfilled), so becomes the slippery slide of one rule for one and one for another. There is only so much relaxation one can show.

As Axiom would say, he's having a larf. As I would say, he's being (now) a difficult & petulant sod.

Sunshine
24-08-2007, 04:53 PM
And in default (of the process being fulfilled), so becomes the slippery slide of one rule for one and one for another. There is only so much relaxation one can show.

As Axiom would say, he's having a larf. As I would say, he's being (now) a difficult & petulant sod.

Kevin and Bill's posts mean I better understand the "how's" and "why's" of all this.

It seems that the malicious actions and accusations of the past has resulted in a hardline attitude and approach in applying rules.

In that environment there will be always be some collateral damage.

My view of it would align more closely to Axiom's then yours on this occasion.

Basil
24-08-2007, 04:59 PM
My view of it would align more closely to Axiom's then yours on this occasion.
The trouble is, one person's larf is another's predicament and work. As it has been made clear that:
a) a rule exists
b) breach of that rule to date, has been most leniently dealt with (blind eye, even)

would you mind nominating a line in the sand when the joke (larf) ceases?

Sunshine
24-08-2007, 05:12 PM
The trouble is, one person's larf is another's predicament and work. As it has been made clear that:
a) a rule exists
b) breach of that rule to date, has been most leniently dealt with (blind eye, even)

would you mind nominating a line in the sand when the joke (larf) ceases?

I think everyone has behaved admirably.

I just think that harmless hydras, in this instance, could be ignored rather than actively hunted down - particularly if you don't want to spend your time hunting.

I'd liken it to the lady who calls the police about the naked trampolinist next door. When they say you can't see him from her house she says "If you climb on the table and lean to the left you can".

Basil
24-08-2007, 06:18 PM
I just think that harmless hydras, in this instance, could be ignored...
As in just let them accumulate as members?
> clog up the board
> make bulk work for someone when it comes time to remove them?
> create a precedent for the next time the jury is split on whether the intent is harmless?
> would you have the same opinion if you didn't have a soft spot for Axiom?


rather than actively hunted down
:eek:


I'd liken it to the lady who calls the police about the naked trampolinist next door. When they say you can't see him from her house she says "If you climb on the table and lean to the left you can".
I wouldn't liken it to that at all. The hydras are there and quite apparent on the home page. From your answers, I deduce that you don't wish to draw a line and let Axiom sign up as many as he wishes, notwithstanding:
-- the simplicity of what has been requested of him
-- the leniency to date
-- the precedent and difficulty set for future moderations
-- the transparency of the rule for everyone

I think you're seeking to absolve the bloke from one step too far.

Apart from that, we're going to have to agree to differ on the onus of both parties to play ball.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2007, 07:08 PM
I recall once Axiom asking how to log in as a guest, and neither you nor I (if I recall correctly it was you)

I have never discussed this in a post (this can be confirmed by searching for posts containing "guest" and written by me.

I have absolutely no memory of ever discussing it in the shoutbox, and don't believe I did. There are also no posts by Axiom using "guest" in this context.

If he wasn't able to log out from his existing account then he wouldn't be able to sign up a new one either.

One advantage of having a hydra signed up is that it is easier to read the board via checking new posts. I guess that might be a part of it, or maybe he's just doing it to be theatrical or annoying.

I do vaguely recall that someone was unable to log out at some stage.


It does, however, seem a time consuming process for a volunteer when there is no damage being done by the hydras.

The most time-consuming part is checking them - and we're going to do that with any new signup we're suspicious about, as with some hydras banning them as soon as you know it's a given banned user saves a lot of effort later on. Checking involves opening up the Mod Control Panel (including typing a password), doing a search for user, and mucking around with the IP address options and other details to try to work out who it is. Especially if it's not quite an exact IP match it may take a few minutes. But having got to that stage, banning them takes about ten seconds.

Sunshine
24-08-2007, 08:49 PM
I think you're seeking to absolve the bloke from one step too far.
Actually I was looking for a win-win.

I thought that the collective will was to have Axiom back in the fold and there wasn't any real concern over his indiscretions.

You are presenting another view that he needs to be punished into changing his ways.

The powers that be are, I think, somewhere in the middle. ggraygray and yourself were nudging them for a harsher penalty - I thought I'd nudge them for a lighter one.

If nothing else - maybe its has kept them in the middle a little longer.

Basil
24-08-2007, 09:22 PM
Actually I was looking for a win-win.
Great idea. Ax needs to play his part. He isn't.


I thought that the collective will was to have Axiom back in the fold and there wasn't any real concern over his indiscretions.
The collective will is there. Ax needs to play his part. He isn't.


You are presenting another view that he needs to be punished into changing his ways.
No I'm not. I'm not a believer in punishing people to change their ways. Sometimes I'm a believer in punishing because they won't. There's a difference.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2007, 11:57 PM
Ax has now signed up an account which I have good reason to believe is incapable of posting and will remain so, so I haven't banned it yet.

Basil
25-08-2007, 03:46 AM
Ax has now signed up an account which I have good reason to believe is incapable of posting and will remain so
Aha - just like the original!

Rincewind
25-08-2007, 11:23 AM
Aha - just like the original!

Settle.

Basil
25-08-2007, 12:49 PM
Settle.
I think you may have thought I was referring to his banned status. I wasn't. I should have been clearer.

I was referring to Axiom's unbanned status and his (apparent) inability to post on any subject (except for CT).

Bill Gletsos
25-08-2007, 01:18 PM
I think you may have thought I was referring to his banned status. I wasn't. I should have been clearer.

I was referring to Axiom's unbanned status and his (apparent) inability to post on any subject (except for CT).Very good Gunner as CT covers both conspiracy theories and chess tigers. ;)

Carry On.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2007, 05:09 PM
Aha - just like the original!

:lol:

Rincewind
25-08-2007, 10:46 PM
I think you may have thought I was referring to his banned status. I wasn't. I should have been clearer.

I was referring to Axiom's unbanned status and his (apparent) inability to post on any subject (except for CT).

You either overestimate your own ability to be subtle or underestimate my ability at comprehension. I note in passing that the two options are not exclusive.

Basil
25-08-2007, 11:26 PM
You either overestimate your own ability to be subtle or underestimate my ability at comprehension. I note in passing that the two options are not exclusive.
No let's gets something straight. Subtle is not my thing OK? There's no overestimating. I have absolutely neither the talent nor the desire to partake in subtle.

Now, your ability at comprehension? ... As delicious as the prospect was, I'll pass as your comprehension is fine.

...

So if you understood my meaning from the get go, may one enquire as to the meaning of the post 'settle' ?

Sunshine
26-08-2007, 12:15 AM
Ax has now signed up an account which I have good reason to believe is incapable of posting and will remain so, so I haven't banned it yet.

I knew there was some goodwill and common sense around here.

Basically if he isn't create a disturbance then the whole cycle can end.

Now as long as Axiom can stay quiet and Gunner doesn't climb up onto to the table this should all be over shortly.

Basil
26-08-2007, 12:24 AM
I knew there was some goodwill and common sense around here.
From one side of the fence.


Basically if he isn't create a disturbance then the whole cycle can end.
Resetting the boundaries? On the fly? Pfft!

Rincewind
26-08-2007, 01:00 AM
So if you understood my meaning from the get go, may one enquire as to the meaning of the post 'settle' ?

Seem to me you were having a dig at a time when Ax was not able to respond. My post of settle was like the steward at the start of a race before the gun has been fired. You're under starter's orders, now just wait for the gun to fire (i.e. Axiom's ban to be lifted for the subtlety challenged), ok?

Basil
26-08-2007, 01:22 AM
Roger, that's what I thought you meant. I didn't realise that you were applying the request/ directive/ observation 'to settle' even though you knew what I meant.

I disagree with your request/ directive/ observation because I was making a comment about his behaviour in his native, unbanned state.

Had I been poking fun at him pertaining to his banning, that may be different. But to be unable to discuss his general demeanour and style regarding his natural state seems a bit OTT. Fair suck of the sav!

eclectic
13-09-2007, 07:51 PM
may i please request that the *******s, ***, and krasnoyarsk threads be unified, sent to the restricted zone then declared a locked down wilderness area?

:eek:

Axiom
13-09-2007, 08:42 PM
may i please request that the *******s, ***, and krasnoyarsk threads be unified, sent to the restricted zone then declared a locked down wilderness area?

:eek: i know we all crave simplifcation in our lives, but would that really serve us well in this instance? :)

ElevatorEscapee
15-09-2007, 03:04 PM
^^ Agreed. Infoyawns... err wars, is irrelevant to the Krasno stuff (which is quite fun to read!)... :D

Axiom
28-09-2007, 12:52 AM
As one of the biggest stories of our time , ie. the iraq war, does it not deserve a thread on its own, so all related posts can be made there?
I ask that "the iraq war" thread be reinstated as a stand-alone thread and not tossed into the grab bag that is the axiom report.

One only has to look at some of the threads that are allowed to remain, to question why such a major and general topic like the iraq war does not qualify for stand-alone status.
I would be happy to reconstruct the opening post ,by only citing the DAILY MAIL article.

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 07:57 AM
As one of the biggest stories of our time , ie. the iraq war, does it not deserve a thread on its own, so all related posts can be made there?

It already has one here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5521).

I suggest if you want to make general comments about the Iraq war and how to stop it then post them there, but if you want to make comments tying the Iraq war into global conspiracy theories then post them on the Axiom Report.

Basil
28-09-2007, 09:10 AM
I suggest if you want to make general comments about the Iraq war and how to stop it then post them there, but if you want to make comments tying the Iraq war into global conspiracy theories then post them on the Axiom Report.
Can we tie them both to Axiom and throw him out of a plane? I'm sure he'd be OK with it, on account of finally having a chance to see if his theories fly http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/greenrofl.gif

Sam
10-10-2007, 06:00 PM
I ask that "the iraq war" thread be reinstated as a stand-alone thread and not tossed into the grab bag that is the axiom report.


Axiom report...grab bag...:lol:

Axiom
10-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Axiom report...grab bag...:lol:
AS A CONTRAST, YES :)

Axiom
29-10-2007, 08:56 AM
How long is a one week ban ? ;)

Rincewind
29-10-2007, 09:34 AM
How long is a one week ban ? ;)

Approximately seven days.

Axiom
29-10-2007, 09:48 AM
Approximately seven days.
Charming !

Axiom
03-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Request that the 'Information War' thread be unlocked and returned to the non-chess forum.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2007, 05:45 PM
Here is the deal.
You can pick one of the following three options.

1) It remains locked.
2) It is reopened and the threads "Coincidence theory", 'Police state", "The Axiom Report" and "The Nanny State" are merged with it.
3) It is reopened and the others mentioned in 2) above are locked.

Axiom
03-11-2007, 06:14 PM
Here is the deal.
You can pick one of the following three options.

1) It remains locked.
2) It is reopened and the threads "Coincidence theory", 'Police state", "The Axiom Report" and "The Nanny State" are merged with it.
3) It is reopened and the others mentioned in 2) above are locked.
Thankyou for considering and responding to my request.It is an agreeable proposal. Please give me a short period to confer,reflect and ponder as to my choice of options.
Thankyou ,
Axiom.

Is it safe for me to assume that i can then mention and site alex jones and his material there ? (i would accept - and only there !)

Axiom
03-11-2007, 06:28 PM
On a different matter.
I would like to propose that chesschat has its own court room to settle the disputes that arise from time to time between members. I would happily take on the role of judge for a period of time ,given of course public support for this.
Phil sig thread saw what a bit of even handed solomon-esque type discerning judgement can do for a community !

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2007, 06:31 PM
On a different matter.
I would like to propose that chesschat has its own court room to settle the disputes that arise from time to time between members. I would happily take on the role of judge for a period of time ,given of course public support for this.
Phil sig thread saw what a bit of even handed solomon-esque type discerning judgement can do for a community !As has been mentioned on numerous occasions this is a privately owned site and such issues are handled by the mods and admins.

Axiom
03-11-2007, 06:41 PM
As has been mentioned on numerous occasions this is a privately owned site and such issues are handled by the mods and admins.
mods and admins could have ultimate power and act as the High Court.
whilst maintaining what could appear to the average punter an independant-for the people / by the people- judicial process.
.......anyway float the idea with the other mods, i would happily go on a trial(sic) period, giving you ultimate veto rights of course.

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2007, 07:02 PM
mods and admins could have ultimate power and act as the High Court.
whilst maintaining what could appear to the average punter an independant-for the people / by the people- judicial process.
.......anyway float the idea with the other mods, i would happily go on a trial(sic) period, giving you ultimate veto rights of course.I have response was not negotiable. :hand:

Axiom
03-11-2007, 09:36 PM
I have response was not negotiable. :hand:
it would have been a laugh though....

Axiom
04-11-2007, 10:44 PM
Do jokes now receive a 2 week SB ban ?

04-11-2007 07:37 PM Axiom
hi all , hope everyone is staying safe from the terrorists
04-11-2007 07:38 PM Axiom
stay safe - check behind all stationary items


and just as i was to add the extremely humorous next line :- "and i'd keep an eye on the moving ones too"

i was banned

do we now have the joke police ?

bergil
04-11-2007, 10:48 PM
Do jokes now receive a 2 week SB ban ?

04-11-2007 07:37 PM Axiom
hi all , hope everyone is staying safe from the terrorists
04-11-2007 07:38 PM Axiom
stay safe - check behind all stationary items


and just as i was to add the extremely humorous next line :- "and i'd keep an eye on the moving ones too"

i was banned

do we now have the joke police ?Well it was crook! :rolleyes:

Axiom
04-11-2007, 10:56 PM
Well it was crook! :rolleyes:
i find you a person unfit to hold your current avatar !

Axiom
04-11-2007, 11:29 PM
[04-11-2007 11:20 PM] Gunner Duggan: Sorry George. My eyeballs just got back here and Axle has been ummm restrained in the sb.

Yes, ala jokus interuptus !

Axiom
06-11-2007, 09:01 PM
Do jokes now receive a 2 week SB ban ?

04-11-2007 07:37 PM Axiom
hi all , hope everyone is staying safe from the terrorists
04-11-2007 07:38 PM Axiom
stay safe - check behind all stationary items


and just as i was to add the extremely humorous next line :- "and i'd keep an eye on the moving ones too"

i was banned

do we now have the joke police ?
.?

Axiom
06-11-2007, 09:33 PM
[06-11-2007 09:30 PM] Bill Gletsos: Ax cannot see the SB at the moment

ahem :lol:

Axiom
07-11-2007, 03:35 PM
Do jokes now receive a 2 week SB ban ?

04-11-2007 07:37 PM Axiom
hi all , hope everyone is staying safe from the terrorists
04-11-2007 07:38 PM Axiom
stay safe - check behind all stationary items


and just as i was to add the extremely humorous next line :- "and i'd keep an eye on the moving ones too"

i was banned

do we now have the joke police ?

yes, im not surprised at the mute reception to this....... no doubt ,you are thoroughly disgusted and ashamed of yourself.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 06:36 PM
yes, im not surprised at the mute reception to this....... no doubt ,you are thoroughly disgusted and ashamed of yourself.

Can't vouch for Bill, but I think your complaints are just missing the point by too much to bother spending time on.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 06:56 PM
Can't vouch for Bill, but I think your complaints are just missing the point by too much to bother spending time on.
missing the point on ludicrous modding ??

what is so heinous about that tame joke?

so next time in the sb when i say "make sure you check behind the furniture for terrorists"
i will be banned again ?
if so ? why?
why is bill so sensitive to me ridiculing the war on terror ?

Basil
07-11-2007, 07:10 PM
why is bill so sensitive to me ridiculing the war on terror ?
I don't think he is. I think he is sensitive to your war on our sensibilities and good humour ;)

Axiom
07-11-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't think he is. I think he is sensitive to your war on our sensibilities and good humour ;)
from a solitary joke splitting the vacuous still night air of the shoutbox ??

Basil
07-11-2007, 07:33 PM
from a solitary joke splitting the vacuous still night air of the shoutbox ??
No. A keenly developed sense of the onset of dribble coupled with the hotel of last chances (passed about 100 klms back). In the background I see a man shouting 'wolf'.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 07:41 PM
The point is that you have extensive past form on political monologues in the shoutbox and have been told to take political comments to your threads instead of filling the shoutbox with politics.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 07:43 PM
No. A keenly developed sense of the onset of dribble coupled with the hotel of last chances (passed about 100 klms back). In the background I see a man shouting 'wolf'.
more like a jittery nerve-shot hair trigger with only me in it's sights.
Why does yours or sprouty's endless dribble not accord the same scrutiny ?
I maintain it is the subject matter itself that prompts the bullet, how else can such a tame joke result in a 2 wk sb ban ?

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 07:44 PM
I maintain it is the subject matter itself that prompts the bullet,

It is indeed. While some political discussion in the shoutbox is not a problem, your endless political monologues in the past were. Basically anything political you say in the shoutbox will be looked dimly upon for some time on account of that.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 07:50 PM
It is indeed. While some political discussion in the shoutbox is not a problem, your endless political monologues in the past were. Basically anything political you say in the shoutbox will be looked dimly upon for some time on account of that.
its a single joke ive used before in various forms.
ITS JUST A SINGLE JOKE , NOT A MONOLOGUE ! I dont do the political monologues anymore, as can be evidenced.
Bill either cannot tell the difference, or vexatiously discriminates.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 07:53 PM
Bill's told you before to take discussion of politics to your threads and keep it out of the shoutbox. Because of your past record in the shoutbox this means all discussion of politics, even jokes, hence his action.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 07:58 PM
Bill's told you before to take discussion of politics to your threads and keep it out of the shoutbox. Because of your past record in the shoutbox this means all discussion of politics, even jokes, hence his action.
i stopped political monologues in the sb ages ago!
so why should i not be allowed a political joke ?
can you change this blunt ruling.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 08:44 PM
i stopped political monologues in the sb ages ago!

Not enough ages. We've thrown you either out of the shoutbox or off altogether six times this year. You need to go several months without giving us cause to do so again before you can expect any slack.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 08:53 PM
Not enough ages. We've thrown you either out of the shoutbox or off altogether six times this year. You need to go several months without giving us cause to do so again before you can expect any slack.
ok, and, now , can you point me in the direction of gestapo headquarters?

Rincewind
07-11-2007, 08:55 PM
ok, and, now , can you point me in the direction of gestapo headquarters?

I would, but the domain name has been placed in the censored word list.

Axiom
07-11-2007, 09:09 PM
I would, but the domain name has been placed in the censored word list.
thats probably where all those terrorists are hidden too !

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2007, 09:51 PM
ok, and, now , can you point me in the direction of gestapo headquarters?

No, I'm only answerable to the Bilderberg Group. :D

Axiom
07-11-2007, 09:54 PM
No, I'm only answerable to the Bilderberg Group. :D
oh, so you are, an enemy of the people ! :P

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2007, 12:25 AM
I've decided that where I wish to respond to stuff from the other place concerning moderation I will simply put the response in here. However, in most cases I won't respond, and all comments about moderation (or indeed any matter of fact) posted in the other place should be assumed false.

Arrogant-One elsewhere alleges that I failed to enforce the no-legal-threat rule when Howard Duggan made legal threats against Arrogant-One on 21 March 2006.

The answer is that I decided that a warning was more appropriate given that Howard had only joined the site the previous day.

Basil
25-11-2007, 12:33 AM
Arrogant-One elsewhere alleges that I failed to enforce the no-legal-threat rule when Howard Duggan made legal threats against Arrogant-One on 21 March 2006.
For goodness sake, that was 18 months ago!

I guess he's upset about the threat of mine to toss him off Council for being a disruptive pillock (among other things), which turned into a reality ;)

Fitting that the issue's raised today while we remember the second longest serving someone at the same time the shortest serving someone rears his head. Get a job. Get a life. Get a brain.

antichrist
18-03-2008, 06:55 PM
I stopped posting mainly for very biased moderating by KB and Rincewind and other no hopers.

Basil
18-03-2008, 07:20 PM
I stopped posting mainly for very biased moderating by KB and Rincewind and other no hopers.
I guessed it was because you were in clink.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2008, 07:23 PM
I stopped posting mainly for very biased moderating by KB and Rincewind and other no hopers.

Anyone who wants to see my allegedly very biased moderating of this former serial pest can check the moderation thread (#59, #62, #75, #105, #106) for many of the gory details. :lol:

Trent Parker
20-03-2008, 08:44 AM
maybe another blunt tool to chuck into the toolbox. lol

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2008, 11:40 AM
maybe another blunt tool to chuck into the toolbox. lol

At one stage I was determined to give him to Sweeney's forum as a present. He did eventually show up there but never posted very much. Not sure he is even aware of the toolbox.

Desmond
17-04-2008, 07:49 PM
Is it possible to defame a person who's identity is not known to the online community? An anonymous poster, in other words.

Axiom
17-04-2008, 07:51 PM
Is it possible to defame a person who's identity is not known to the online community? An anonymous poster, in other words.
YES !! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2008, 08:15 PM
Is it possible to defame a person who's identity is not known to the online community? An anonymous poster, in other words.

No. If nobody reading the post would be able to figure out who the owner of the alias is, then nobody is defamed by criticism of the poster.

This comes up time and again on a political site I post on, where I do a lot of contrarian stirring under my real name, and weak anons often line up to have a shot at me. They can't defame me because I am identifiable, but I can defame them as much as I like if they get abusive, because they are just a name on a computer screen.

Aaron Guthrie
17-04-2008, 08:17 PM
No. If nobody reading the post would be able to figure out who the owner of the alias is, then nobody is defamed by criticism of the poster.What if their identity is subsequently revealed?

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2008, 08:39 PM
What if their identity is subsequently revealed?

Interesting question. I suspect in that case that the publishers (the site owner and mods) would have to remove either the original comments or the identity, but the person who originally made them would not be liable as it was not their fault that the poster was subsequently outed. Nor would the person revealing the identity if they themselves did not contribute to the defamation but merely happened to have found out who somebody was.

Boris, does your question concern anyone in particular? ;)

antichrist
07-05-2008, 05:00 PM
I stopped posting mainly for very biased moderating by KB and Rincewind and other no hopers.

I did not mean Bill G in this criticism. Bill's my mater

Rincewind
07-05-2008, 09:50 PM
Bill's my mater

Really, I didn't know Bill had any children.

Metro
09-06-2008, 07:00 PM
Regarding inappropriate language in this forum:why not simply ban the words?
Saves Mod's the trouble of deleting.Make sense?

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2008, 07:09 PM
Regarding inappropriate language in this forum:why not simply ban the words?
Saves Mod's the trouble of deleting.Make sense?

We're not generally doing this because:

1. There is not much of an inappropriate language problem on this forum anymore since most of the hotheads were either banned or left.

2. People route around such bans by misspelling the words in question.

3. Most cases of inappropriate language that do happen don't involve specific words that are completely "out of order", but rather, the use of a word that might be appropriate in some contexts in a context in which it is not on.

4. Word filters would also apply in the Coffee Lounge where swearing is OK so long as it is not gratuitous/excessive/abusive.

PS I will be moving your post and my reply to the feedback thread shortly.

antichrist
12-06-2008, 05:05 PM
Here am I trying to make a comeback and my posts are getting deleted left, right and centre, just like the Blues last night. Strange bag of fruit post re Tassie must have been rotten, and one about juniors in female rating threads!!

Bring on the Inquisition coz the Pope is coming

Basil
12-06-2008, 05:49 PM
Here am I trying to make a comeback and my posts are getting deleted left, right and centre
That's why we pay The Squad the big bucks. Deleting AC's posts is nearly as worthwhile as seeing him screech about it! I class this activity as valuable as giving Ax ad hoc periods in the cooler! :lol:

Carry on Squad!!!

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2008, 06:44 PM
Here am I trying to make a comeback and my posts are getting deleted left, right and centre, just like the Blues last night.

One was blatant trolling in the chess history section (which is not an appropriate place for it) and another contained inappropriate suggestions about juniors cross-dressing. I did, however, leave intact your idiotic post groundlessly comparing me to Stalin intact for all to behold its utter stupidity.

Metro
15-06-2008, 11:08 PM
We're not generally doing this because:

1. There is not much of an inappropriate language problem on this forum anymore since most of the hotheads were either banned or left.

2. People route around such bans by misspelling the words in question.

3. Most cases of inappropriate language that do happen don't involve specific words that are completely "out of order", but rather, the use of a word that might be appropriate in some contexts in a context in which it is not on.

4. Word filters would also apply in the Coffee Lounge where swearing is OK so long as it is not gratuitous/excessive/abusive.

PS I will be moving your post and my reply to the feedback thread shortly.

I think you are having me on, KB.
How about 5.Some moderators enjoy the power to delete posts,etc.
Actually,Skip tells me he can't be bothered placing the words in the filter;)

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2008, 11:13 PM
I think you are having me on, KB.

You're incorrect.


How about 5.Some moderators enjoy the power to delete posts,etc.

How about me pointing out both that this is unsubstantiated nonsense, and that one would hardly derive a feeling of power just from blocking out somebody's cuss words anyway?


Actually,Skip tells me he can't be bothered placing the words in the filter;)

Exactly; it's not worth the effort, mainly for the reasons stated above.

antichrist
16-06-2008, 04:17 PM
Am I allowed to have a go at the Pope whilst he is out here and it won't be deleted like last time some coward did to me?

Just because I did not include KB on list for next pope

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Am I allowed to have a go at the Pope whilst he is out here and it won't be deleted like last time some coward did to me?

Just because I did not include KB on list for next pope

I had nothing to do with the deletion of your silly pope poll.

antichrist
16-06-2008, 04:29 PM
One was blatant trolling in the chess history section (which is not an appropriate place for it) and another contained inappropriate suggestions about juniors cross-dressing. I did, however, leave intact your idiotic post groundlessly comparing me to Stalin intact for all to behold its utter stupidity.

You had a direct conflict of interest in deleting Strange Bag of Fruit post in Hobart thread - did you declare such conflict, leave the room while the others deliberated and voted? Betcha not!

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2008, 04:44 PM
You had a direct conflict of interest in deleting Strange Bag of Fruit post in Hobart thread

There was no such post in the Hobart thread. Your latest trolling in that thread has been deleted too.

It was a no-brainer that trolling of your kind would not be permitted in the history section, and in any case my highest duty is to the upholding of the tournament reporting conditions of the Burnie Shines Weekender 2006. :lol:

Metro
18-06-2008, 12:22 AM
Regarding inappropriate language in this forum:why not simply ban the words?
Saves Mod's the trouble of deleting.Make sense?

The main reason I said this was to establish a level of decent language.
So what's wrong with filtering out the f word?
Does it make much difference if it appears in the Coffee Lounge or in an open forum?Are the scumbags in the CL?
If filtered out it appears as ****.So?Is this a problem?
Please express your view(not KB as you have already done so).

WhiteElephant
18-06-2008, 12:45 AM
Re: New Rule in Moderation thread regarding spoilers

I think that in principle it is a good idea not to give away results of sporting contests, etc in thread titles but I think people should exercise discretion themselves - having a rule about it is too restrictive.

For example, if I want to discuss Tiger Woods' win in the US Open or an Aussie cricket Test win, when else would you want to discuss it apart from as soon as it happens? 24 hours later it is old news and boring.

The difference with Eurovision was that the TV telecast was delayed. So someone who was planning to watch the show would obviously not have known the result. Maybe the rule can be modified to apply to shows which are delayed (eg the Oscars, etc).

I don't feel that strongly about it, just an idea which I think mght be more workable.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 12:57 AM
Re: New Rule in Moderation thread regarding spoilers

It's not really a rule as such (it hasn't been added to the list of rules at the start of the thread), it's more in the nature of advice to people in order to avoid getting flamed the way someone did when they posted the Eurovision results before most people had watched it. Like I said, no one will get suspended over it unless they are trolling. We may moderate stuff that goes over the line but we were doing that anyway.


For example, if I want to discuss Tiger Woods' win in the US Open or an Aussie cricket Test win, when else would you want to discuss it apart from as soon as it happens? 24 hours later it is old news and boring.

Well this is actually well and truly covered by the guideline I posted because the US Open playoff was telecast live on Ten and as such posting on it as it happens is clearly fine under the guideline so long as you call your thread something like "Golf: US Open" rather than (in white) "Tiger Woods Nearly Loses To Someone Whose World Ranking Is Slightly Worse Than Matthew Goggin's"*


The difference with Eurovision was that the TV telecast was delayed. So someone who was planning to watch the show would obviously not have known the result. Maybe the rule can be modified to apply to shows which are delayed (eg the Oscars, etc).

The guideline already applies in that way. It already includes the following:

* If discussing the result of a non-chess contest in the last 24 hours in a thread dedicated to that purpose (eg a cricket or soccer match on the cricket or soccer threads) use best judgement. If the event is being broadcast live and free-to-air (or live and cable-only without free-to-air coverage) then posting about it as it happens is acceptable, but if the only free-to-air broadcasts are delayed then please use white text or SPOILER headings as above.

The point you have raised was already covered in what seems to me to be pretty much exactly the way you are suggesting. I have however made a couple of very minor amendments for greater clarity.

* I mention Goggin as an excuse to mention his little known past as a member of the Friends' School Chess Club ;)

WhiteElephant
18-06-2008, 12:58 AM
Actually, reading over the wording of the rule, it is not really at odds with what I wrote. Just think that generally people should exercise common sense.

EDIT: Posted above before seeing your reply. Yep, makes sense.

Bill Gletsos
18-06-2008, 01:00 AM
The main reason I said this was to establish a level of decent language.
So what's wrong with filtering out the f word?Because filtering out such words is generally not effective as posters will simply type f**k.

Axiom
18-06-2008, 01:06 AM
Because filtering out such words is generally not effective as posters will simply type f**k.
and failing that, will type ****

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 01:15 AM
Please express your view(not KB as you have already done so).

Now that's a red rag to a bull! :D I'll express my view whenever I like, and if I think there's more to say (or that an argument has been repeated after I dealt with it) I'll have another bite! :lol:


The main reason I said this was to establish a level of decent language.

I've already stated that the f-word and the c-word are not allowed on the main site; see http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=190990&postcount=99


So what's wrong with filtering out the f word?

What's right with it, especially given that people will just get around the block by using altered versions?


Does it make much difference if it appears in the Coffee Lounge or in an open forum?

Yes because the open forum is often viewed by juniors with little experience of the site or forums generally whereas the Coffee Lounge is not.

FYI, excepting porn spam (which generally has far more potentially offensive stuff in it than the odd f-word), the f-word has only been posted to the main site by a poster twice in the last two years.

Both of these were when it was contained in some ridiculously long copy and paste by Axiom which he doubtless didn't read in full and nobody else will either. (I've deleted them now, as it happens.)

It's a non-issue.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 01:17 AM
and failing that, will type ****

Ax, since you're here, this is a warning for you: please check your copy-and-pastes carefully for any swearing of this kind in future; any swearing contained in them will be treated as if you had posted it yourself.

Axiom
18-06-2008, 01:40 AM
Ax, since you're here, this is a warning for you: please check your copy-and-pastes carefully for any swearing of this kind in future; any swearing contained in them will be treated as if you had posted it yourself.
I'ts common on prime time tv ! (common acceptance etc type argument )

and yes again ,
i question the law !

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 06:45 PM
I'ts common on prime time tv ! (common acceptance etc type argument )

Prime time M-rated TV, sure. We are under an agreement with the site owner to keep a cap on that sort of swearing so please check your articles to make sure they don't contain it.

Axiom
18-06-2008, 07:20 PM
Prime time M-rated TV, sure. We are under an agreement with the site owner to keep a cap on that sort of swearing so please check your articles to make sure they don't contain it.
but does the site owner really invest that degree of interest ?

Basil
18-06-2008, 07:43 PM
but does the site owner really invest that degree of interest ?
Just own your (imported) crap. That's all that's being asked. None of your usual contorted back-end runs thanks :hand:

Axiom
18-06-2008, 07:50 PM
Just own your (imported) crap. That's all that's being asked. None of your usual contorted back-end runs thanks :hand:
are you the same brave speaker against political correctness, wowserism and insular preciousness ? :hand:

Basil
18-06-2008, 08:20 PM
are you the same brave speaker against political correctness, wowserism and insular preciousness ? :hand:
What you have listed are social issues that are there to be debated.

What I have called you on is an issue of boundary imposed on you (fairly), which you seek to fudge, obfuscate and where possible, avoid.

The only thing that's owned is your intelligence - probably for two bob in a pawn shop in Fitzroy.

Axiom
18-06-2008, 08:28 PM
What you have listed are social issues that are there to be debated.

What I have called you on is an issue of boundary imposed on you (fairly), which you seek to fudge, obfuscate and where possible, avoid.

The only thing that's owned is your intelligence - probably for two bob in a pawn shop in Fitzroy.
:lol:

I question not only the rule , but the authority of that rule !

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 08:29 PM
but does the site owner really invest that degree of interest ?

Irrelevant. We're under an agreement with him, we haven't been told it is rescinded, and I at least have better things to do than waste his time and mine asking whether to keep applying it just because a minority might want to post the f-word outside the Coffee Lounge.

Axiom
18-06-2008, 08:33 PM
Irrelevant. We're under an agreement with him, we haven't been told it is rescinded, and I at least have better things to do than waste his time and mine asking whether to keep applying it just because a minority might want to post the f-word outside the Coffee Lounge.
I don't care either way ,.......and likely, neither does the owner .

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2008, 08:51 PM
I don't care either way ,.......and likely, neither does the owner .

Your suspicion is uninformed and hence irrelevant.

Any time one of your cut and pastes (not that you should be pasting whole articles anyway) contains that sort of language we will delete the entire post. We won't bother editing it; it is your job to check.

Bill Gletsos
19-06-2008, 12:50 AM
I'ts common on prime time tv ! (common acceptance etc type argument )

and yes again ,
i question the law !You can question it all you like.
However as Kevin noted if the stuff you cut and paste contains swearing then you will be held responsible for posting it. So consider yourself warned.

As such if you offend in this regard you can expect to serve some time at the governors pleasure away from here. :whistle:

ER
19-06-2008, 02:50 AM
You can question it all you like.
However as Kevin noted if the stuff you cut and paste contains swearing then you will be held responsible for posting it. So consider yourself warned.

As such if you offend in this regard you can expect to serve some time at the governors pleasure away from here. :whistle:

Careful Ax, he is good enough to send to to Van Diemenís Land!:hmm: :doh: :eek: Cheers and good luck! :P

ER
19-06-2008, 09:47 AM
how come "careful" appears in red? :hmm: Cheers and good luck! :)

ER
19-06-2008, 09:48 AM
either that, or I am still drunk, I just saw red a minute ago, I swear!
Cheers and good luck!

antichrist
05-07-2008, 06:53 PM
For some time this site has a rule against quoting posters who are banned from here, the current version of which goes like this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
* While a poster is banned from chesschat it is not permitted to post on their behalf in any way, to post any previously unreleased material that poster has written, or to quote or link to anything by that poster first published or released somewhere else within the current ban period. The onus is on anyone quoting a banned poster to show that reposted material was published before that poster was banned.


At one stage this rule was necessary to stop banned posters from getting friendly carrier pigeons to repost their nonsense here (thus enabling them to continue to troll this board from beyond the grave, so to speak) and also there was a lot of complaint about cross-board dragging at the time.

Now, firstly those likely to act as sycophants for banned posters are generally inactive; secondly some of those who complained about the practice are no longer active, and thirdly the level of expressed concern about the practice (and similar practices) seems to be much less. As such, the rule as it stands is simply an obstacle to debate, and as AR pointed out, has the perverse result that people have to actually go and read the other forum to see what is being commented on. When AR made that comment I asked if anyone saw any reason why the rule should not be reviewed; no one said anything.

We are therefore trialling the following as an attempt to relax the rule in question.


Quote:
* While a poster is banned from chesschat it is not permitted to post on their behalf in any way, or to post links to anything they have written while banned. Quoting of banned posters is permitted only if (i) the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced (onus is on the quoter to demonstrate this) or (ii) the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here.

Any post consisting largely of quoting of material by one or more banned posters with little or no original comment added will breach this rule, as will any post that quotes a banned user without discussing the comments quoted in relation to points being discussed on the thread. In any case all material quoted must be clearly within the site rules. If in doubt about this rule, please check your intended post with a moderator before posting it.


It is still very probably the preference of many posters that cross-board discussions be kept to a relatively low level rather than taking the form of endless flamewars.
__________________
Please Support Our Olympiad Teams!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Kevin Bonham : 24-06-2008 at 12:51 AM.


Does this refer to my dragging funny things over?




01-07-2008, 01:14 AM #160
Bill Gletsos
Community Leader




Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11,972 Axiom banned for 24 hours from the shoutbox for claiming the *** is a fact.
He has been previously warned to refrain from mentioning it until he provides the mods with proof of his claims.
To date no such proof has been provided.
__________________
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded

Does this refer to the Siberian Tiger thread? If so why cant he mention it - not doing any harm or is it annoying like World Youth Day?

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2008, 08:15 PM
Does this refer to my dragging funny things over?

Probably. If you drag a whole post you must provide new and substantial discussion of most if not all points raised in the post you drag. Dragging a whole post with a "this is funny" or any other inane one-liner will not qualify, and if it even looks to us like you are dragging to troll someone here, expect an immediate suspension in view of your past form.

antichrist
06-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Probably. If you drag a whole post you must provide new and substantial discussion of most if not all points raised in the post you drag. Dragging a whole post with a "this is funny" or any other inane one-liner will not qualify, and if it even looks to us like you are dragging to troll someone here, expect an immediate suspension in view of your past form.

Seems like you can't forgive and forget. I thought Libbey appreciated me dragging over that one about Ian Rogers column and the Canberra chess club. And Paul... (whoever from Canberra) reakons that anyone I can con like Mischa deserves whatever they get.

Plus I heard a lot of "funny" stories about [deleted - mod] recently - do you want to hear the scandal? Hyasinth Botham would love them. And who are you accusing of inane one-liners? Aye mate

antichrist
06-07-2008, 11:01 AM
Bill Gletsos
Posts: 11,980 Axiom banned for a week after admitting he has deliberately disobeyed moderation directions.

If Christians admit that they have deliberately made up their stories about JC breaking the laws of nature will they also be barred.

ER
08-07-2008, 04:04 PM
Bill Gletsos
Posts: 11,980 Axiom banned for a week after admitting he has deliberately disobeyed moderation directions.

If Christians admit that they have deliberately made up their stories about JC breaking the laws of nature will they also be barred.

yes by the big boss upstairs! after all that's his son you re talkin about mate! by the way i wanted to know if you dare to make your usual brazenly smartarse comments ie about the Prophet when u re amongst Muslim brothers
Cheers and good luck - and visit here more often, I miss you, you ratbag! :)

antichrist
01-10-2008, 02:46 PM
This is the seventh time antichrist has mentioned this on this board.

Well it is only about bloody championship that I won so I got nothing else to open my mouth about - and it was achieved without any strange bags of fruit under the table.

Desmond
05-12-2008, 04:36 PM
Is the current non-islamic terrorism thread essentially covering the same grounds as the closed BoH thread?

Ian Murray
05-12-2008, 05:13 PM
Is the current non-islamic terrorism thread essentially covering the same grounds as the closed BoH thread?
Not yet, but they're working on it :)

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2008, 07:08 PM
Is the current non-islamic terrorism thread essentially covering the same grounds as the closed BoH thread?

BoH was closed and removed not because of the topic matter but because the starter of the thread agreed he had gone over the line too many times (especially with respect to racial/ethnic antagonism) and very sensibly requested its removal.

eclectic
17-12-2008, 07:42 PM
i request members only login readability access to chesschat for an indefinite period of time to starve a rival? forum of "not their own source" material and to spare moderators from the time required to clean up pigeon droppings! :P

antichrist
26-12-2008, 02:42 PM
ursogr8 suspended for a month for yet again making false comments about moderation of this site elsewhere (specifically he alleged that he and firegoat7 were banned from here just because they post on another forum, which is nonsense as several people who post on that other forum are not banned from here.)

ursogr8 should consider himself lucky to only be suspended for one month as he was warned he was at risk of a permanent ban if he continued making false statements about this site's moderation elsewhere.
from announcements
------------------------------
what had the mods done to ensure that Starter does not reoffend? Has he been on a rehab program, has he had psychological counselling provided by the board, is he in a half way house while on parole?? tell us all

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2008, 08:30 PM
what had the mods done to ensure that Starter does not reoffend?

What have we done to ensure you don't?

antichrist
29-12-2008, 05:35 PM
What have we done to ensure you don't?

listen mate, that stir on Noidea was a classis, highly appreciated by everyone except the mods, even Howard loved being told "Bullshit Howard" by Noidea, he has told me it makes him rear like a horse when needing some pluck, you know what I mean

antichrist
29-12-2008, 05:39 PM
What have we done to ensure you don't?

Starter is off the lease, his muzzle has been removed, Israel has stopped bombing him, but he still keeps quiet, has his lips been unsewn??

eclectic
29-12-2008, 05:59 PM
Starter is off the lease, his muzzle has been removed, Israel has stopped bombing him, but he still keeps quiet, has his lips been unsewn??

he should be renamed marieantoinette as she wants to have her cake (decline to shout or post out of deference to a long in the tooth and stale grudge) and eat it too (still enjoy and take advantage of chesschat's PM and email privileges)

Cat at least took all his nine lives with him and walked away completely

antichrist
01-01-2009, 02:19 PM
Jaydon suspended from the shoutbox for about an hour for blatant trolling.

Does Jaydon crawl like a snail does he, or do you play favourites? I get weeks. You are worse than Isreael!

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2009, 02:22 PM
Does Jaydon crawl like a snail does he, or do you play favourites? I get weeks.

Yes because you have so many prior warnings and penalties. Also the offence which you got "weeks" for was far more serious than his.

ER
01-01-2009, 08:42 PM
I get weeks. :clap: :clap: :clap:
the way you go you get years, :owned: you are a serial offender, :owned: a bad example to our youngsters! :whistle: you should have your hair shaved, feathered, (maybe castrated too? :D ) and put in public exhibition as the worse case of irreverance ever! :owned: :owned: :owned:
CAGLES

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2009, 08:48 PM
Worst case of irrelevance more like it.

antichrist
06-01-2009, 11:32 AM
it is obvious there are no mods here to ban me from enjoying myself, virgins for Christ bring it on.

Garvinator
07-01-2009, 09:42 PM
I recall making a post in the Aus Open thread, but it does not appear to be there. Was my post deleted by the mods/admins?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2009, 09:52 PM
I recall making a post in the Aus Open thread, but it does not appear to be there. Was my post deleted by the mods/admins?Yes it was off topic as there is a complete thread dedicated to the subject.

antichrist
20-01-2009, 09:18 PM
we should hold a REquim Mass for Axiom, hi Axiom, if you a using a hydra. Completely innocent guy. I loved his stories about chess tigers

Basil
20-01-2009, 09:32 PM
... hi Axiom, if you a using a hydra. Completely innocent guy. I loved his stories about chess tigers
Innocent of the charge of having a clue perhaps.

antichrist
20-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Innocent of the charge of having a clue perhaps.



You certainly look like you have a clue in that lovvy dubby wedding photo you are showing off. it was all gunning Gunnar that night I bet

Basil
20-01-2009, 09:37 PM
You certainly look like you have a clue in that lovvy dubby wedding photo you are showing off.
Showing off? You think? Right that does it. Time for an avatar change. Did someone say Basil?

antichrist
20-01-2009, 09:41 PM
Showing off? You think? Right that does it. Time for an avatar change. Did someone say Basil?

Gunnar, there is a new book out on strange ways people died. Apparently a famous Ancient Greek died when an eagle mistaken a bald guys head for a stone and dropped a turtle on the skull to crack the turtle open - you had better watch out mate

antichrist
20-01-2009, 09:42 PM
I know I know - don't mention the war whil Boris is about

Desmond
20-01-2009, 09:43 PM
you started it!

antichrist
20-01-2009, 09:47 PM
you started it!

it is Startered It by the way

antichrist
21-01-2009, 11:10 PM
have I been barred shoutbox??? it has gone crazy

Kevin Bonham
22-01-2009, 10:57 AM
have I been barred shoutbox??? it has gone crazy

Yes, you were shoutbox-barred for one day for excessive dribble.

antichrist
22-01-2009, 11:41 AM
Yes, you were shoutbox-barred for one day for excessive dribble.

Starter, the Dribble Champ, was never barred for dribbling. You just can't handle Serena Williams coz she is black and you never came across any of them in Tassie coz your ancestors wiped them out - but underneath yu have indellible urges. [snip]

If is all on topic dribble

ER
22-01-2009, 11:46 AM
Hi A/C the ethno/socio graphics of the shoutbox have changed dramatically since the old days!
There are lots of kids, parents and ladies around. There are also situations discussed here, such as children's injuries etc which require sensitivity when one makes out of the blue random comments.
Just make sure you know the content before you open your big mouth and shout!
Just use your humour man! You can attract people with it!
Otherwise, I think you will again end up in the SB sooner rather than later!

antichrist
22-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Hi A/C the ethno/socio graphics of the shoutbox have changed dramatically since the old days!
There are lots of kids, parents and ladies around. There are also situations discussed here, such as children's injuries etc which require sensitivity when one makes out of the blue random comments.
Just make sure you know the content before you open your big mouth and shout!
Just use your humour man! You can attract people with it!
Otherwise, I think you will again end up in the SB sooner rather than later!

thanks, but stepping on toes is my forte - hint taken

Adamski
22-01-2009, 11:54 AM
Hi A/C the ethno/socio graphics of the shoutbox have changed dramatically since the old days!
There are lots of kids, parents and ladies around. There are also situations discussed here, such as children's injuries etc which require sensitivity when one makes out of the blue random comments.
Just make sure you know the content before you open your big mouth and shout!
Just use your humour man! You can attract people with it!
Otherwise, I think you will again end up in the SB sooner rather than later!Yes. But is the SB the Shout Box or the Sin Bin?!

ER
22-01-2009, 08:19 PM
not much of a difference there, is it? :P

Kevin Bonham
22-01-2009, 08:50 PM
Starter, the Dribble Champ, was never barred for dribbling. You just can't handle Serena Williams coz she is black and you never came across any of them in Tassie coz your ancestors wiped them out - but underneath yu have indellible urges. You must admit that a certain M/E power does not dribble - do you admire them for it ? No!!

If is all on topic dribble

Check your assumptions at the door AC, before it hits you.

It wasn't actually me who suspended you! :hand:

(Furthermore, my ancestors were not Tasmanian and did not wipe out any Aboriginal people. I am an import to this island.)

Metro
24-01-2009, 01:25 AM
thanks, but stepping on toes is my forte - hint taken
AC,you are a rough one:D (If you don't mind me saying.If you do,please tell me).

antichrist
01-02-2009, 06:20 PM
KB, I think it was Justaknight who dragged one of my old posts out, i am not complaining but was that from a "closeted" thread?

ER
01-02-2009, 07:51 PM
you wrong, you dill, I was going through your old posts cause I have a grouse time reading them, and that's one of the reason I have you on my "must read" list. Don't get encouraged by the fact that you are first on the list, its purely alphabetical! :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2009, 08:08 PM
KB, I think it was Justaknight who dragged one of my old posts out, i am not complaining but was that from a "closeted" thread?

It was from a thread which was locked but which is on public display.

antichrist
02-02-2009, 05:46 PM
It was from a thread which was locked but which is on public display.
I did know that, is it still under old name, when I enquired a year ago about it you told me I could not access it??

Kevin Bonham
02-02-2009, 09:52 PM
I did know that, is it still under old name, when I enquired a year ago about it you told me I could not access it??

No, it's not "Blood on Hands", it's The Jewish Lobby: What A Precious Lot (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4658), which I locked because it was covering the same subjects as "Blood on Hands".

antichrist
04-02-2009, 02:12 PM
What happened with that Women"s Lib thread? See you won't even let Women"s Lib have their own thread.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2009, 02:57 PM
What happened with that Women"s Lib thread? See you won't even let Women"s Lib have their own thread.

I moved it offline because you were threatening to make a big deal about it in front of a female poster.

Happened that she'd seen it anyway. It's back now though I'll remove it permanently on request from any poster who finds it offensive, as it really is gouging out holes in the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality standards.

antichrist
04-02-2009, 08:42 PM
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
Alex ******* has been paying several posters to post on his forum.

Is my cheque in the mail - and one for Axiom, Howard, EE etc. I must be worth a fortune by now.

ElevatorEscapee
06-02-2009, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
Alex ******* has been paying several posters to post on his forum.

Is my cheque in the mail - and one for Axiom, Howard, EE etc. I must be worth a fortune by now.

Um, we all got our cheques months ago...

Maybe your input wasn't considered sufficiently worthy enough to send you a cheque to encourage you to continue to post....Anyway, I am happy to have an argument with you... especially as I get paid for all of my efforts! ;)

So, what do you think of the view of Christ in the Koran, where they say that Jesus fooled the Romans by putting in a substitute to die on the cross?

antichrist
07-02-2009, 02:43 PM
check in Does god exist thread

antichrist
08-02-2009, 06:59 PM
Bill, I am off so can you report on censoring decision on my mate mike in this thread please. Can I post from shoutbox to over there?

antichrist
08-02-2009, 10:01 PM
I wish to complain that Mike Baron was not censored for saying in shout box: can someone kill A/C for me?

There should be consistency in law, as Matt Sweeney was penalised for similar so should my mate mike.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2009, 10:04 PM
I wish to complain that Mike Baron was not censored for saying in shout box: can someone kill A/C for me?

There should be consistency in law, as Matt Sweeney was penalised for similar so should my mate mike.Sweeney had been banned numerous times and was on zero tolerance by that stage.
Baron on the other hand has never been banned.

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2009, 12:07 AM
And also, AC, while Sweeney's use of that sort of language was merely in response to your inability to quote, Michael Baron's was after you unintentionally behaved very offensively on a thread, and then compounded it with your usual dragging of inflammatory Israel/Palestine analogies into threads to which they are off-topic.

He was against the rules but his error was pretty trivial compared to yours.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:27 PM
KB from announcements thread
antichrist suspended for a week for again using irrelevant Israel analogies to troll on a chess thread. He has had a very large number of warnings about this.

It would have been longer in view of him also doing the same thing on a non-chess thread dealing with the Victorian bushfire disaster but I have cut him some slack for his admirable handling of the computer-cheating accusations issue.

Why didn't I get early parole for defending you over in that other place? Maybe coz you are barred you could not read it.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:29 PM
And also, AC, while Sweeney's use of that sort of language was merely in response to your inability to quote, Michael Baron's was after you unintentionally behaved very offensively on a thread, and then compounded it with your usual dragging of inflammatory Israel/Palestine analogies into threads to which they are off-topic.

He was against the rules but his error was pretty trivial compared to yours.

Mike asked: Could someone kill A/C for me?

What about if some looney Jewish extremist had taken up his challenge then you would miss your old mate. You let the board become an antichrist-hate site.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2009, 05:35 PM
Why didn't I get early parole for defending you over in that other place?

Because it doesn't work like that. Whether people are kind to us in our capacity as posters should have no bearing on our actions as mods. But in a non-mod capacity, thankyou for defending me.


Maybe coz you are barred you could not read it.

I'm not barred; I was in a usergroup over there called "Admonished Users" which makes it slightly harder for me to follow new posts, but that has just been lifted.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:40 PM
I'm not barred; I was in a usergroup over there called "Admonished Users" which makes it slightly harder for me to follow new posts, but that has just been lifted.

Did not you feel embarrassed to be in such group - not a good look.

And to be honest even if I agreed with their views about you I could not bring myself to go with the flow - I must oppose

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2009, 05:45 PM
Did not you feel embarrassed to be in such group - not a good look.

More like a badge of honour to be "admonished" by a fibbing clueless dingbat like Alex but I shan't rave too much about how wonderful it indicates I am, lest he decide I like it so much that he puts me there permanently!

antichrist
25-02-2009, 08:11 PM
can't I even advertise a new poll in the shoutbox, I am sure others have done so. I know who is behind it but will get barred for saying so

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 08:13 PM
can't I even advertise a new poll in the shoutbox, I am sure others have done so. I know who is behind it but will get barred for saying so

No you won't get barred for saying I deleted your spruiking for your silly thread in the shoutbox.

And no, you can't advertise your silly non-chess thread in the shoutbox. We didn't let Axiom do that either.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 08:18 PM
No you won't get barred for saying I deleted your spruiking for your silly thread in the shoutbox.

And no, you can't advertise your silly non-chess thread in the shoutbox. We didn't let Axiom do that either.

Well I was going to blame Israel - thanks for the chance to let me explain without prejudice.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 08:21 PM
Well I was going to blame Israel - thanks for the chance to let me explain without prejudice.

Just as well you didn't as you certainly would have been banned for that.

You are now banned from mentioning Israel again on this thread except where the discussion is relevant to the moderation of threads mentioning Israel.

Your ban from mentioning Israel again on this thread expires on 1 November 2063.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 08:23 PM
Just as well you didn't as you certainly would have been banned for that.

You are now banned from mentioning Israel again on this thread except where the discussion is relevant to the moderation of threads mentioning Israel.

Your ban from mentioning Israel again on this thread expires on 1 November 2063.

when I will be the oldest person alive in the world - do you really want to put up with me that long?

Can I mention my new thead about the Tamil Chess Tigers in the Shoutbox?

antichrist
26-02-2009, 09:44 AM
Didn't I have a post somewhere in that thread about the junior cheating, I was querying what would have happened if the junior was really needing to relieve himself and that father was perving on him over the toilet wall?

Bill Gletsos
26-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Didn't I have a post somewhere in that thread about the junior cheating, I was querying what would have happened if the junior was really needing to relieve himself and that father was perving on him over the toilet wall?I suggest you read threads before just chriping in at the end.
Your post was deleted as irelevant at this time as the subject had previously been raised in the thread and in the shoutbox at the time.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 04:02 PM
I suggest you read threads before just chriping in at the end.
Your post was deleted as irelevant at this time as the subject had previously been raised in the thread and in the shoutbox at the time.

Maybe so, but being practical who has the time or inclination to see everything in the shoutbox - remember St George Comp drama about that.

But I cant remember anyone bring up the ethics of peering over toilet walls - it is an invasion of privacy. I could not find the thread to check it out.

antichrist
27-02-2009, 08:39 AM
Imagine what they think when they get to my door. :) Fortunately I live at top of a steep private access way and get very few doorknockers of any description.

They would get a shock if they go to KBs door, coz outside will be his jungle boots (strange bags of fruit) - that will teach them

antichrist
27-02-2009, 09:40 AM
Why can't I have my Trollers Delite thread like set up before? Never hurt anyone, and anyone is warned coz of the title

antichrist
03-03-2009, 11:07 PM
Bill, Why can GG get away with making inciting comments in the shoutbox without warning?

Am I not supposed to respond? I just want to know the answer to know how it works.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2009, 11:32 PM
Bill, Why can GG get away with making inciting comments in the shoutbox without warning?

Am I not supposed to respond? I just want to know the answer to know how it works.His calling your posts crap in the shoutbox isnt trolling.
Some might call it a factual comment on his part.
Some might call it a warning to the unwary, especially new members.

Some may call it all of the above. :whistle:

antichrist
03-03-2009, 11:36 PM
His calling your posts crap in the shoutbox isnt trolling.
Some might call it a factual comment on his part.
Some might call it a warning to the unwary, especially new members.

Some may call it all of the above. :whistle:

and the funny part about his post that a few hours later when I came home I noticed he was in that Arbiter thread lapping it up - is he a sucker for punishment or what?

antichrist
15-03-2009, 10:39 AM
how can I complain about trolling in the coffee lounge if I can't drag it over?

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2009, 09:52 PM
how can I complain about trolling in the coffee lounge if I can't drag it over?

You could make your complaint in there, not that anyone would care.

I deleted your post about Axiom, and your posts about Jaydon and starter as they were commentary and not feedback.

antichrist
20-03-2009, 03:29 PM
KB from What should arbitar do?
PS Give the trolling a rest. Shifting from Israel to Iraq analogies won't do you any good at all - I am an equal opportunity deleter when it comes to that sort of rubbish. And keep this toilet tirade to the two threads where it has been most discussed - dragging it onto other threads to troll as you did twice yesterday is likely to result in another suspension if I see it again any time soon.

A/C
surely I can post to classics posts without censorship? That is what appeared to have happened. Come can be classic coz so shocking or revolting. Not all art is pretty ask Adolf Hitler.

Whew that was close, I have gone a whole week without been barred.

William AS
22-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Is it possible to ban a member of this forum from a single thread? If so, can it be done if that member is a moderator on this forum?

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2009, 05:37 PM
Is it possible to ban a member of this forum from a single thread? If so, can it be done if that member is a moderator on this forum?Thread banning is not possible.

At least my post was on topic. Your last 2 posts in the thread contributed nothing other than be off topic. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2009, 07:10 PM
Is it possible to ban a member of this forum from a single thread? If so, can it be done if that member is a moderator on this forum?

I'm not entirely sure someone who thought it was reasonable to make a post containing no original content but the words "Irrelevant prats" and three smileys is in a good position to complain about anyone else's contributions.

As Bill noted, excluding a poster from a specific thread is not directly possible. In cases where it is considered warranted (ie certainly not the one you are complaining about) then it is possible for us to effectively ban a poster from a thread simply by telling them that if they post again on that thread their post will be deleted and they will be suspended.

antichrist
24-03-2009, 05:59 PM
Hitler was also an equal opportunity deleter - whether it be Jews, Gypsies or lunatics. Nothing like talking to myself. Now what had I asked you again?

eclectic
24-03-2009, 06:03 PM
a/c what are you doing in feedback? why you chaff at the bit so much you need a feed bag! :owned:

antichrist
28-04-2009, 03:59 PM
while I was barred I posted "over there" concerning my barring, can I bring it over now that I am unbarred or must I type it again using different words so you can clearly see that I did not bring it over and therefore posting a barred poster?

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 04:11 PM
while I was barred I posted "over there" concerning my barring, can I bring it over now that I am unbarred or must I type it again using different words so you can clearly see that I did not bring it over and therefore posting a barred poster?

The quoting-banned-posters rule only applies while the poster is banned.

It does not apply to quoting something written by a poster while they were banned, if that poster is not banned at the moment.

antichrist
28-04-2009, 04:18 PM
The quoting-banned-posters rule only applies while the poster is banned.

It does not apply to quoting something written by a poster while they were banned, if that poster is not banned at the moment.

my rubbish should be banned anyway

Rincewind
28-04-2009, 04:34 PM
my rubbish should be banned anyway

That is as may be however what Kevin said is correct. By way of context, the reason for the embargo on quoting barred posters is to prevent the scenario of a banned poster effectively evading the ban by having posts parroted here by another poster.

In this case you are presently unbanned and since you said the original posts anyway you can cut and paste the originals provided you have not transferred copyright to a third party (e.g. if they were published in a magazine or the like). My understanding is that posts on a bulletin board do not imply a transfer of copyright to the owners of the board.

antichrist
29-04-2009, 04:17 PM
That is as may be however what Kevin said is correct. By way of context, the reason for the embargo on quoting barred posters is to prevent the scenario of a banned poster effectively evading the ban by having posts parroted here by another poster.

In this case you are presently unbanned and since you said the original posts anyway you can cut and paste the originals provided you have not transferred copyright to a third party (e.g. if they were published in a magazine or the like). My understanding is that posts on a bulletin board do not imply a transfer of copyright to the owners of the board.

When I was at that Creationist's Vs Ian Plimer trial years ago in Sydney, a guy from Skeptics gave me his letter to that magz, I reprinted it and did he see red, I thought that was why he gave it to me. We were only speaking in whispers so judge would not hear us and misread our lips.

antichrist
24-05-2009, 06:09 PM
I could not edit my post in shoutbox so don't blame me

antichrist
24-05-2009, 06:10 PM
has anyone ever been barred twice simultaneously - for two sins at once.

Maybe I could pull it off one day

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2009, 07:02 PM
I could not edit my post in shoutbox so don't blame me

Try avoiding the shoutbox if you cannot control yourself in it.


has anyone ever been barred twice simultaneously - for two sins at once.

Maybe I could pull it off one day

I believe that you already have!

antichrist
26-05-2009, 02:18 PM
Try avoiding the shoutbox if you cannot control yourself in it.



I believe that you already have!

I will take that as a compliment, am I the first hopefully?

I must outpace the current legal posters by a mile for being the most barred - no competition

antichrist
09-06-2009, 01:58 PM
The other day the SMH ran a headline something like "...pizza the action". About an imitation pizza delivery guy of olive skin complexion appearance with heavy European accent holding up drivers and robbing them.

If was okay for SMH surely it is okay for this board??

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2009, 04:32 PM
I think you are reading racial overtones into the SMH headline that were not there - the person's pretence to be a pizza deliverer is sufficient to ground the pun on "pizza" vs "piece a" as common slang for "piece of" and the headline would have worked irrespective of the culprit's extraction.

antichrist
10-06-2009, 02:51 PM
I think you are reading racial overtones into the SMH headline that were not there - the person's pretence to be a pizza deliverer is sufficient to ground the pun on "pizza" vs "piece a" as common slang for "piece of" and the headline would have worked irrespective of the culprit's extraction.

well true to God, (and wwe all know about God) they mentioned his heavy European accent and olive complexion. I am not saying they are racist but that it is okay to talk "pizza" etc when relevant.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2009, 03:41 PM
well true to God, (and wwe all know about God) they mentioned his heavy European accent and olive complexion.

They probably only did so to indicate the extent to which his imposture was likely to be convincing.

antichrist
11-06-2009, 08:53 PM
BIll would lock that journalist up for a week if he could.

antichrist
16-06-2009, 09:55 AM
I think you are reading racial overtones into the SMH headline that were not there - the person's pretence to be a pizza deliverer is sufficient to ground the pun on "pizza" vs "piece a" as common slang for "piece of" and the headline would have worked irrespective of the culprit's extraction.

You are drawing a long bow here trying to avoid admitting the obvious - a play on words coza of his brokena de inglish - talking about leaving Starter for dead in the obfuscation stakes

My use of "brokena de inglish " is without prejudice, defamo being your hobby you will know what I am getting at. It can not be used as evidence against me in any futher barring.

And a complaint, why was not my barring posted in Mod's decisons thread?

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2009, 11:45 AM
And a complaint, why was not my barring posted in Mod's decisons thread?

Maybe the person who barred you felt that you had got yourself barred so often it was no longer worth the trouble of logging all your indiscretions since everybody knows you are a hopeless case. :lol:

antichrist
25-06-2009, 11:14 AM
I would have liked his reasons stated: You won't speaka lika dat anymore. How he could describe it without stating it.

antichrist
01-07-2009, 10:45 PM
in Arbitars corner what happened to my terrific analogy re Aung Su Kye (?) and that guy swmming over?

Rincewind
01-07-2009, 10:53 PM
in Arbitars corner what happened to my terrific analogy re Aung Su Kye (?) and that guy swmming over?

Sounded like trolling to me.

antichrist
01-07-2009, 11:00 PM
Sounded like trolling to me.

Not even a Burmese cat would have snapped at that one. I was replying to your scenario I think re some people trying to help and only making it worse. I will bet drinks all round that no one else could provide a better example!

I am too buggered to work my move out and I am frustrated so watch out I could easily be tripped into fighting mood.

And I have it in for KB as well in What Happens Now thread, esp how he was encouraging Kaitlin to forfeit my winning game against The REal deal for getting barred for talking like Greenbottle.

And I have it in for Bill as well for barring me in the first place - s o you had all better watch out.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 12:17 AM
And I have it in for KB as well in What Happens Now thread, esp how he was encouraging Kaitlin to forfeit my winning game against The REal deal for getting barred for talking like Greenbottle.

Total nonsense.

antichrist
02-07-2009, 12:22 AM
Total nonsense.

You led her by the nose in saying that that is what G Gray done in his comp. You should have been like a chess spectator and not interfered or alternatively feigned sympathy for me, she would have fell for it. It made me more determined to win the game

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 12:26 AM
You led her by the nose in saying that that is what G Gray done in his comp.

No, I was just stating the facts to indicate what standards already existed on the board. Had I been leading her by the nose I would not have bothered to mention that she, rather than Garvin, was in charge of this particular game, with the obvious suggestion that her views may (or may not) be different.


It made me more determined to win the game

Doesn't concern me whether you win the game or not. My concern was with being informative.

WhiteElephant
02-07-2009, 01:00 AM
Is AC's trolling reaching new heights or have I been away from the forum too long? Just constant non-sequiturs in multiple treads.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 01:04 AM
Pretty bad tonight and nearly gave him a day off an hour or so ago.

antichrist
02-07-2009, 07:13 AM
Is AC's trolling reaching new heights or have I been away from the forum too long? Just constant non-sequiturs in multiple treads.

Its coz I am stuck at work in front of a computer working all hours and bored to tears, it happens about every 2 or 3 months and I manage to get barred every time, even multply bars. It will be over by tonight and you can all have peace again.

I am earning that annual trip overseas.

Now KB 1 day off that is more like it, not 7 like that Young Turk hothead you have out the back there gives. Thanks for backing me up.

Rincewind
02-07-2009, 10:33 AM
Is AC's trolling reaching new heights or have I been away from the forum too long? Just constant non-sequiturs in multiple treads.

A bit of both perhaps.