PDA

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



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

WhiteElephant
02-07-2009, 11:08 AM
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.

You know I like your stuff AC, but sometimes you have to self-censor. :)

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 01:33 PM
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.

Nah, the thing I nearly gave you a day off for was less serious.

Please stop using this thread to carry on nonsense with other posters. I have deleted your mostly irrelevant post re justaknight.

WhiteElephant
02-07-2009, 02:08 PM
And I was just thinking that the Moderation thread hadn't been updated for 2 months. I wonder what is the record for longest period without anyone getting banned.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 02:58 PM
And I was just thinking that the Moderation thread hadn't been updated for 2 months.

AC had a one-week banning during that period that wasn't logged.


I wonder what is the record for longest period without anyone getting banned.

We started the moderation thread in May 2005. Since then the longest period without an actual fresh banning (excluding hydras of banned users) was just under four months (Axiom suspended 17-4-2007, and again 14-8-2007). But during this period ursogr8 received a suspended ban that was imposed later on.

There may have been slightly longer periods without bans (not counting hydras of banned users) between:

* Jan 2004 (Sweeney) and May 2004 (a bunch of hydras voting on a poll)
* Apr 2005 (HappyFriend) and Sep 2005 (antichrist)

but because of records not being easily found in the one place it is hard to tell.

So the answer is most likely about four or five months. All this doesn't count spammers; we would rarely go a few days without banning a spammer anymore.

Schu
04-07-2009, 06:20 PM
AC had a one-week banning during that period that wasn't logged.



We started the moderation thread in May 2005. Since then the longest period without an actual fresh banning (excluding hydras of banned users) was just under four months (Axiom suspended 17-4-2007, and again 14-8-2007). But during this period ursogr8 received a suspended ban that was imposed later on.

There may have been slightly longer periods without bans (not counting hydras of banned users) between:

* Jan 2004 (Sweeney) and May 2004 (a bunch of hydras voting on a poll)
* Apr 2005 (HappyFriend) and Sep 2005 (antichrist)

but because of records not being easily found in the one place it is hard to tell.

So the answer is most likely about four or five months. All this doesn't count spammers; we would rarely go a few days without banning a spammer anymore.

Reading these types of threads, it took me a while to get what was going on when people said hydra-spamming/trolling/whatever. I thought it had something to do with the computer program or something. Then I realised that I've always called them sockpuppets :P I'm slow.

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Reading these types of threads, it took me a while to get what was going on when people said hydra-spamming/trolling/whatever. I thought it had something to do with the computer program or something. Then I realised that I've always called them sockpuppets :P I'm slow.

Yes, "sockpuppets" is by far the commoner term globally but I had a background in certain corners of Usenet where "hydra" was commoner. Sometimes the two are used in conjunction, eg "hydra" = the poster with multiple accounts, and each individual account is a head or sockpuppet.

antichrist
05-07-2009, 02:05 PM
But this time an extra reason was given for "general stupidity" I feel insulted by that because I always like to do a job properly or not at all. It this catoregy a first, I have broken new ground?

I have been still too busy to complete my move against THe REal deal, you should have barred me a bit longer. Watching too much serena I think, but i did much analysis between her singles and doubles games last night.

See you around.

I deserved baring on the basis alone of confusing stiletto with falseto for that poor guy from you know where. But I had brought up an occasional serious issue in the Women"s Lib thread, about the child being raped and the woman admitting to culling her child generations ago. These issues were brought up in a supporting and sympathetic manner to the women concerned, I was mixing the serious with the ridiculous. Give it another life if you can learn to forgive. If there were no complaints about the thread it could not have been that bad. Laugh and the world laughs with you.

BTW I had that Joan Sutherland understudy idea in my brilliant brain for months before releasing it. I thought it was a beauty.

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2009, 09:50 PM
If there were no complaints about the thread it could not have been that bad.

Faulty first premise and non sequitur. :wall:

antichrist
06-07-2009, 07:17 AM
Faulty first premise and non sequitur. :wall:

But you must realise that there are different types of people and sensitivities. The joluar type can laugh about themselves as I can do. As far as stupidity is concerned the theists here swim in it every day and so I have a go at them, but when I try a bit of stupidity I get barred for it. I am only doing to them what you are doing to me. And I know when I am being stupid but they don't so they are a lot more serious case and should be quarantined.

Merry Christmas in July. We cant get too many Christmasses.

antichrist
06-07-2009, 09:36 AM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=246746#post246746

Have mercy in post 127 this thread, I cant skirt around so many rules and still make a point - it would be like a Palestinian trying to build a home in Israel or the West Bank. ANother analogy!

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2009, 05:41 PM
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

antichrist
06-07-2009, 06:30 PM
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Did you see the shoutbox where Gunnar really appreciated my effort. Contorshonist for hire.

I will be back home tomorrow without a computer so you will all get a break - finally with baited breath.

Basil
06-07-2009, 06:53 PM
Did you see the shoutbox where Gunnar really appreciated my effort.

Not as appreciated as much as


Contorshonist

:lol:

antichrist
06-07-2009, 06:58 PM
Not as appreciated a smuch as



:lol:
shining up the ass so to speak

Saragossa
09-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Reading these types of threads, it took me a while to get what was going on when people said hydra-spamming/trolling/whatever. I thought it had something to do with the computer program or something. Then I realised that I've always called them sockpuppets I'm slow.

Yeah on another forum that I go to people would make other accounts so they could abuse people they didn't like secretly then their normal account would be for their normal forum activity, we called them alters.

antichrist
09-07-2009, 07:46 PM
Wasn't I a good boy I edited my naughty post in South Africa thread?

ElevatorEscapee
11-07-2009, 12:08 AM
Wasn't I a good boy I edited my naughty post in South Africa thread?

1302
Highly Illogical, Captain :P

antichrist
11-07-2009, 11:46 AM
1302
Highly Illogical, Captain :P

Listen EE, when I do my crawling just stay out of it.

When I interrupted Shirty's crawling to Maxy Fuller when he apologised I was told to FO FW.

But I would not say that to you.

antichrist
11-07-2009, 06:57 PM
why isn't little sprout getting into trouble for hogging the shoutbox with meaningless sprouts, I am sure someone has copped a warning for that earlier.

Basil
11-07-2009, 07:20 PM
why isn't little sprout getting into trouble for hogging the shoutbox with meaningless sprouts, I am sure someone has copped a warning for that earlier.
I have taken exception to his endless wibblings previously. Not today though. I should imagine context has something to do with the Squad's decision making process. Sproutz is (all but) harmless, whereas Axiom, you, JaK and me can be a little more objectionable!

antichrist
11-07-2009, 07:25 PM
I have taken exception to his endless wibblings previously. Not today though. I should imagine context has something to do with the Squad's decision making process. Sproutz is (all but) harmless, whereas Axiom, you, JaK and me can be a little more objectionable!

I stated there once that if he comes to Oz I will put him in manure and water him (being sprout that is what you do to them) and I got barred for that. Protected species so to speak. Have you noticed how many posters here crawl at any foreign posters. I like to show them the school of hard knocks so we dont have sensitive whimps complaining to admin every time we pass wind.

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2009, 07:36 PM
I have told him to tone down the quoting of song lyrics now and then.

Axiom
12-07-2009, 10:47 PM
I understood, as per agreement that no mention was there to be of *** , so i took the lead from macavity and substituted the word "felines" for "tigers" to be more more careful ,as earlier i used the phrase "tigers of the tundra" ( without repercussion !)
So could someone please explain the consistency here ?

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2009, 11:22 PM
I understood, as per agreement that no mention was there to be of *** , so i took the lead from macavity and substituted the word "felines" for "tigers" to be more more careful ,as earlier i used the phrase "tigers of the tundra" ( without repercussion !)
So could someone please explain the consistency here ?

Mentioning *** includes alluding to it or hinting at it by different words clearly meaning the same thing and this should surely be obvious to you. Furthermore if there was a previous use of the term in the shoutbox since your unbanning then the only reason I did not apply a ban was I did not see it.

I will unban you from the shoutbox but be warned that any further behaviour that either of us construe as breaching your shoutbox restrictions will result in a substantial full-site ban and the time before those restrictions are reconsidered being increased.

On this basis it is a very good idea for you to not even discuss your shoutbox restrictions in the shoutbox since doing so will surely lead to a situation where you can't help yourself from overstepping the mark.

Also please tone down the constant reference to "warriors on the edge of time" in the shoutbox, the repetition level always used to be annoying and it is so grating again already after only a few hours back that I feel like burning all my Hawkwind records in disgust.

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2009, 11:33 PM
I understood, as per agreement that no mention was there to be of *** , so i took the lead from macavity and substituted the word "felines" for "tigers" to be more more careful ,as earlier i used the phrase "tigers of the tundra" ( without repercussion !)I can find no reference in the shoutbox to your use of the term "tigers of the tundra" earlier tonight.

You used the wording "the spirit of the tiger" at 10:09pm.

So could someone please explain the consistency here ?It is quite simple.
I was away from the computer when you used the word "tiger".
No doubt Kevin also missed your use of the word "tiger".

You should have either just shut up or steered well clear of tigers, cats and any reference to felines, especially in conjunction with "the tundra".

Axiom
12-07-2009, 11:38 PM
Also please tone down the constant reference to "warriors on the edge of time" in the shoutbox, the repetition level always used to be annoying and it is so grating again already after only a few hours back that I feel like burning all my Hawkwind records in disgust.
lol , ok , the last thing i want to do is decrease hawkwind fanhood , and quite frankly i'm a little shocked that you would even entertain the idea of burning hawkwind records (actually , i correct myself , quite a few are rubbish )

So i hope you were not referring to

Warriors on the edge of time
Hall of the mountain grill
Space Ritual
Hawkwind
Levitation

but yes most others , burn.

Axiom
12-07-2009, 11:41 PM
I can find no reference in the shoutbox to your use of the term "tigers of the tundra" earlier tonight.

You used the wording "the spirit of the tiger" at 10:09pm.
It is quite simple.
I was away from the computer when you used the word "tiger".
No doubt Kevin also missed your use of the word "tiger".

You should have either just shut up or steered well clear of tigers, cats and any reference to felines, especially in conjunction with "the tundra".
what about using the term "not-dogs" ? :D

Garvinator
13-07-2009, 01:08 AM
Can I run a poll asking for posters to guess how long it will be before Axiom receives his next full site ban?

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2009, 01:41 AM
Can I run a poll asking for posters to guess how long it will be before Axiom receives his next full site ban?

If you like. :D

ER
13-07-2009, 03:38 PM
You should have either just shut up or steered well clear of tigers, cats and any reference to felines,
lol i think i saw a pussycat :P :lol:

ER
13-07-2009, 03:45 PM
Are there any other negotiations, (similar to those which took place with Ax), with other banned members?
I am interested about Matt in particular!

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2009, 03:52 PM
Are there any other negotiations, (similar to those which took place with Ax), with other banned members?
I am interested about Matt in particular!

We are not in contact with Matt at the moment and nor are there ongoing discussions with any other of our very small collection of permanently banned members.

The standing deal is that Matt will be unbanned immediately if he agrees to abide by the forum rules.

In the past he has repeatedly refused to agree to this and at the moment it looks like he has lost much of his interest in (or time to visit) chess forums given that he has not posted over there since last September or logged in this year. But still the offer remains on the table.

Rincewind
13-07-2009, 04:14 PM
We are not in contact with Matt at the moment and nor are there ongoing discussions with any other of our very small collection of permanently banned members.

The standing deal is that Matt will be unbanned immediately if he agrees to abide by the forum rules.

In the past he has repeatedly refused to agree to this and at the moment it looks like he has lost much of his interest in (or time to visit) chess forums given that he has not posted over there since last September or logged in this year. But still the offer remains on the table.

I see and chat with Matt regularly. From memory, the topic has not been raised by either of us.

Bill Gletsos
13-07-2009, 04:23 PM
The standing deal is that Matt will be unbanned immediately if he agrees to abide by the forum rules.Of course if he did agree to that and his ban was lifted he would be on zero tolerance just like before.

ER
13-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Thanks for the very clear responses... The matter was raised most recently in private discussions in Adelaide (on a very sublte basis) as well as in earlier this year in Melbourne in a more heated way.
I made it clear in both situations (expressing my and only my opinion) that accusing the administration and mods of this Forum for onesided, non democratic and dictatorial policies is unjust and not responding to reality.
I have referred to concrete examples where members were given many opportunities to correct their behaviour.
Mind you, of what I have realised in my three years, or so, as a member of this Forum is that:
Whatever disagreements, which might lead to clashes at later stages, are owed to personal, ideological or other differences with the "unfair" accusations resulting from those differences and not from the actual way of running this Forum.
I strongly believe that the vast majority of this membership is of the same or similar opinion and that is mainly the reason why this vast majority stayed here and did not use other forums in order to raise their disapproval, indignation and or condemnation of this Forum.
PS As it was suggested in previous notes, Matt, during the two times we met in the last three years avoided discussions on the subject of the dealings of the Forums although in 2008 suggested that we should all get together for dinner, which did not eventuate.

antichrist
13-07-2009, 06:55 PM
we don't have any penalty here for incitement to commit a crime, do we?

I just viewed Mods Decisions, and lo and behold Axiom was barred from shoutbox again before his feet hit the ground. He did not parachute back in with lead balloons did he?

I am glad he is back, you may get distracted from me for awhile.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2009, 07:04 PM
we don't have any penalty here for incitement to commit a crime, do we?

I just deleted your post, if that's what you are asking.

antichrist
13-07-2009, 07:08 PM
I just deleted your post, if that's what you are asking.

I was just offering the alcoholic a drink, being kind I was!

antichrist
19-07-2009, 10:30 AM
My mate Starter" from over there:
But, you are correct...like where is the Fiction tag they make appear on Ax's threads?
__________________

There should be equality before the law. If Ax's thread gets the "fiction" title why doesn't the God botherers posts in Does God Exist also get fiction automatically posted onto their posts?

Axiom
29-07-2009, 01:24 AM
Request please to lift the url censor as it has destroyed my thread for readers .
No more spam attacks are likely , and even then , that is hardly under my control. But i at least can seek assurances with regards to the cessation of such attacks.
Also to remove the [fiction] tags on my *** threads . They are both an insult to myself and more importantly,to the readers.
No one else is insulted in such a way .

In light of the recent peace accord , i hope you can see fit to lift these anachronistic hangovers from the past.

Axiom

Basil
29-07-2009, 08:19 AM
Give him nothing! For reasons that could be argued. For reasons of backbone. But most importantly because Ax deserved nothing less!

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 10:20 AM
Request please to lift the url censor as it has destroyed my thread for readers .
No more spam attacks are likely , and even then , that is hardly under my control. But i at least can seek assurances with regards to the cessation of such attacks.
Also to remove the [fiction] tags on my *** threads . They are both an insult to myself and more importantly,to the readers.
No one else is insulted in such a way .

In light of the recent peace accord , i hope you can see fit to lift these anachronistic hangovers from the past.

AxiomThe *** is clearly fiction and marked as such. You have continually been asked to provide the mods/admins with proof and no such proof has been forthcoming.
As such the tags will remain.

As for the censoring of ignowars, you can thank the tool on the toolbox for the censor being in place due to his spamming of this board.
Any assurances from him can be taken with a grain of salt.
As such the censor will remain in place for the time being.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 11:08 AM
The *** is clearly fiction and marked as such. You have continually been asked to provide the mods/admins with proof and no such proof has been forthcoming.
As such the tags will remain.
If it's clearly fiction , why do you need to tag it ??
If i get Nigel Short GM to verify that i am in fact a genuine *** , would that be good enough ?
Why is no one else tagged in this way ?

As for the censoring of ignowars, you can thank the tool on the toolbox for the censor being in place due to his spamming of this board.
Any assurances from him can be taken with a grain of salt.
As such the censor will remain in place for the time being.
So i and the readers are to be punished for another's actions which we have no control over , explain the logic behind this ??

Your rationale for these rules appear to be in tatters .

Axiom
29-07-2009, 11:08 AM
Give him nothing! For reasons that could be argued. For reasons of backbone. But most importantly because Ax deserved nothing less!
been very active on board recently gd , but very quiet , everything ok is it ?

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 11:53 AM
If it's clearly fiction , why do you need to tag it ??Because some people make be gullible.

If i get Nigel Short GM to verify that i am in fact a genuine *** , would that be good enough ?
Why is no one else tagged in this way ?No one else is pushing fiction as fact.

So i and the readers are to be punished for another's actions which we have no control over , explain the logic behind this ??You did not object to his behaviour.
The admins here are protecting this site from trolls & spammers.
It is that simple.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 12:03 PM
...and the current sb ban ?
what for ??
and for how long ?

Axiom
29-07-2009, 12:12 PM
Because some people may be gullible.is this a chess forum, a kindergarten or a downs syndrome workshop ?

No one else is pushing fiction as fact. Thank god we have you here to determine the difference ! :rolleyes:

You did not object to his behaviour.
The admins here are protecting this site from trolls & spammers.
It is that simple.
i will guarantee no more spams , so lift the url censor .
and if a single spam attack were to occur , i will resign from the board ( or you simply permanently ban me )

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 12:19 PM
...and the current sb ban ?
what for ??Deliberately disobeying a moderation direction.
I deleted your red shouts just before I went to bed without imposing a penalty.
When I logged in this morning I saw that you had reposted some of them.

and for how long ?It is the opinion of the mods that you had been pushing the boundaries with some of your shouts since your ban was lifted but we took no action other than a couple of warnings.

That apparently fell on deaf ears as you continued to do so including a shouting of a tiger image.

Again we took no action other than delete it. We probably should have removed your shoutbox access then.

As such you are currently banned for 2 weeks from the shoutbox.

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 12:22 PM
is this a chess forum, a kindergarten or a downs syndrome workshop ?
Thank god we have you here to determine the difference ! :rolleyes:

i will guarantee no more spams , so lift the url censor .
and if a single spam attack were to occur , i will resign from the board ( or you simply permanently ban me )You seem to be under the misapprehension that you get to determine the conditions.

You do not.

Consider yourself lucky we lifted your site ban in the first place.

The removal of the [fiction] tag or the lifting of the censor were not part of any agreement when we lifted your ban.

They will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 12:24 PM
Deliberately disobeying a moderation direction.
I deleted your red shouts just before I went to bed without imposing a penalty.
When I logged in this morning I saw that you had reposted some of them.
It is the opinion of the mods that you had been pushing the boundaries with some of your shouts since your ban was lifted but we took no action other than a couple of warnings.

That apparently fell on deaf ears as you continued to do so including a shouting of a tiger image.

Again we took no action other than delete it. We probably should have removed your shoutbox access then.

As such you are currently banned for 2 weeks from the shoutbox.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that you get to determine the conditions.

You do not.

Consider yourself lucky we lifted your site ban in the first place.

The removal of the [fiction] tag or the lifting of the censor were not part of any agreement when we lifted your ban.

They will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.
as Igor Goldenberg once commented "this seems vindictive your treatment of Axiom".
This is nothing but a vindictive vexatious persecution of Axiom.

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 12:40 PM
as Igor Goldenberg once commented "this seems vindictive your treatment of Axiom".
This is nothing but a vindictive vexatious persecution of Axiom.Igor is entitled to his opinion.
It is however not correct.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 01:02 PM
Deliberately disobeying a moderation direction.
I deleted your red shouts just before I went to bed without imposing a penalty.
When I logged in this morning I saw that you had reposted some of them.
It is the opinion of the mods that you had been pushing the boundaries with some of your shouts since your ban was lifted but we took no action other than a couple of warnings.

That apparently fell on deaf ears as you continued to do so including a shouting of a tiger image.

Again we took no action other than delete it. We probably should have removed your shoutbox access then.

As such you are currently banned for 2 weeks from the shoutbox.
why did you delete my group of purple shouts ??
where was my warning re tiger image ?? it was not a siberian tiger , so whats the problem??
where was my official warning re red type ? all i got was the vague , "oh please ppl dont like red "

You are a disgrace bill gletsos.

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2009, 01:27 PM
why did you delete my group of purple shouts ??Because they were ramblings related to your red shouts.

where was my warning re tiger image ?? it was not a siberian tiger , so whats the problem??You were warned well prior to your shout of the tiger picture to keep well clear of anything to do with tigers.
That warning apparently fell on deaf ears.
BTW I was not the one who deleted you tiger picture shout. That was another admin.

where was my official warning re red type ? all i got was the vague , "oh please ppl dont like red "Wrong. At 11:18pm I shouted "lose the red Ax".
I then followed that up with why that was the case when I shouted "others have mentioned in the past that it is annoying when used as a continual shouting colour"

You are a disgrace bill gletsos.Keep abusing me if you like Ax but remember it all counts against you in the long run.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2009, 04:25 PM
I had also warned Axiom re the excessive use of unsightly red text in the shoutbox.

Re the tiger graphic (which I deleted with some pleasure as it is used as an avatar by an unstable hothead on my other forum :) ) I already wrote:


Mentioning *** includes alluding to it or hinting at it by different words clearly meaning the same thing and this should surely be obvious to you.

Clearly if you post an image of a tiger in the shoutbox then you are at least aware that it will most likely be taken as an *** reference whether the tiger is a Siberian tiger or not. (Quite aside from that, images of that size shouldn't be posted in the shoutbox anyway.)

As for the ignowars link block I made it clear that its lifting was dependent on good behaviour not just from you but also from the primary cause of the block (Arrogant-One). AO's ability to behave himself and cease ignowars-related and similar attacks on our site has not yet been tested over a long enough period. If there is a sufficient period without any spamming attacks from him, and without you getting yourself full-site banned, then we will consider lifting the word block. Note that this will not necessarily entail a lifting of the ban on discussing ignowars in the shoutbox as you have well and truly already blown your conditions for an automatic review of shoutbox restrictions after three months as it is.

I note your comment guaranteeing no more spams but Alex has shown repeatedly that he is dishonest, untrustworthy and couldn't care less if he causes others to get banned from chesschat. We would not want to permanently ban you just because he had misbehaved and you had wrongly thought you could control him. Indeed, if we wanted to permanently ban you we would have done so ages ago, and having done everything we could to avoid doing so even though it would have been justified, we are hardly going to make an agreement under which we could be forced to do so by Alex.

Axiom
29-07-2009, 10:17 PM
This is my feedback ,
I'm not writing in red,
Music can say ,
What cannot be said .

The cross of fire that will not burn,
the light that never warms,
the nexus of the crisis ,
the origin of storms.


pEVJuLhHRkg&feature=related

I AM
AXIOM

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2009, 11:51 PM
We have decided on the following: the word block on those words will be lifted when you can go three months without getting yourself banned or shoutbox-banned if there have also been no hydra or spamming attacks on our site by Alex or any lackey of his in that time. If there were further such attacks by Alex or any lackey of his after that then the blocks would go back on for a period yet to be determined, but it would certainly be a long time.

The three months starts from the end of your current shoutbox ban for disobeying moderation directions.

If you are unsure whether any particular shout or action will get you banned then it is best to either refrain from it or ask via PM as making excuses that you did nothing wrong isn't going to wash given your past (and recent) record of pushing the boundary in the shoutbox.

Axiom
30-07-2009, 12:07 AM
We have decided on the following: the word block on those words will be lifted when you can go three months without getting yourself banned or shoutbox-banned if there have also been no hydra or spamming attacks on our site by Alex or any lackey of his in that time. If there were further such attacks by Alex or any lackey of his after that then the blocks would go back on for a period yet to be determined, but it would certainly be a long time.

The three months starts from the end of your current shoutbox ban for disobeying moderation directions.

If you are unsure whether any particular shout or action will get you banned then it is best to either refrain from it or ask via PM as making excuses that you did nothing wrong isn't going to wash given your past (and recent) record of pushing the boundary in the shoutbox.
Can i write in bright garish pink ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wCbB0uMlkA

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2009, 12:13 AM
Can i write in bright garish pink ?Yes if you want to get banned. ;)

Axiom
30-07-2009, 12:14 AM
Yes if you want to get banned. ;)
damn colourist !

how about cocktail lounge orange with a sunset tone ?

Desmond
30-07-2009, 09:17 AM
Hard knock life, eh Ax?

AzureBlue
30-07-2009, 02:04 PM
As such you are currently banned for 2 weeks from the shoutbox.
2 weeks is nothing much :) :lol:

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2009, 05:51 PM
2 weeks is nothing much :) :lol:It is if you are a uncontrollable dribbler like Axiom.

Axiom
30-07-2009, 08:35 PM
It is if you are a uncontrollable dribbler like Axiom.
is that hate speech ?

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2009, 09:28 PM
is that hate speech ?No, just a description of your shouting.

Axiom
30-07-2009, 09:40 PM
No, just a description of your shouting.
not sure that would hold up in court , but i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 03:08 PM
I'd like to post new thread on gm foods please in the science sub forum , but my posts keep getting deleted , why ?

Because you are posting ridiculously long cut and pastes without even attributing the (possibly copyrighted) source although you have been warned not to do this a number of million times before.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 03:46 PM
Because you are posting ridiculously long cut and pastes without even attributing the (possibly copyrighted) source although you have been warned not to do this a number of million times before.
that's why i deleted my post(after seeing your pm) , perhaps you now could do likewise.

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2009, 04:17 PM
Your latest thread is essentially no different from what the mods had previously deleted twice.

As such it has been deleted.

Do not cut and paste major parts and then link.

As has been explained to you numerous times do a short post using mainly your own words and then link to the material.


and i'm not going to warn you about this one ever again ax, in future i will just apply 1st offence = delete then repost of same post again = suspendAs Kevin noted in the shoutbox if you do it again you will be banned without further warning.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 04:23 PM
Your latest thread is essentially no different from what the mods had previously deleted twice.

As such it has been deleted.

Do not cut and paste major parts and then link.

As has been explained to you numerous times do a short post using mainly your own words and then link to the material.

As Kevin noted in the shoutbox if you do it again you will be banned without further warning.
i have cut it down now to basic intro , and just info of the book .
hope this is ok

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2009, 04:30 PM
i have cut it down now to basic intro , and just info of the book .
hope this is okNo it isnt.

I have edited your post as it was still mainly a cut & paste job with virtually no original comment from you.

Rincewind
31-07-2009, 04:32 PM
i have cut it down now to basic intro , and just info of the book .
hope this is ok

There is no reason to cut and paste more than a few sentences from anywhere. Any more than that should be just a link.

PPWPFL
31-07-2009, 05:11 PM
I assume this is the right thread..

I would simply like to know why I got a 2 week shoutbox ban for giving (a terribly inaccurate) recount of a saying Ax has mentioned to me before. It was not intentionally done to get myself banned and from what I have seen that was nothing compared to the references being made by other members. So can you please clarify whether I either have my own set of rules or whether you were simply feeling even more paranoid then usual that day.

And remember the sun doesn't rise in the morning, we turn to face it.

Thanks, Jaydon

Axiom
31-07-2009, 05:16 PM
...and from what I have seen that was nothing compared to the references being made by other members.
a salient point imo

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2009, 05:38 PM
...... and from what I have seen that was nothing compared to the references being made by other members.The others stopped as soon as they were warned by the mods to do so.

You were warned earlier in the night and then proceeded to ignore the warning.

As Kevin noted given your previous history of trolling in the shoutbox you were banned.

PPWPFL
31-07-2009, 05:57 PM
Thankyou for avoiding my question. So I will just assume that the answer to "Do I have a different set of rules" is a yes. And I'm not entirely sure if I actually was warned after my first ban expired..

And seriously, how is that enticing Axiom to break site rules? Should you be banned for enticing me to say bad things about you? If the answer is no as I presume it will be then as much as I'd hate to do it, I question your ab/use of moderation power.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 06:02 PM
So can you please clarify whether I either have my own set of rules

Because of your history of shoutbox trolling and trying to drag Ax into discussing stuff he is not allowed to discuss in there, you are banned from discussing Axiom's shoutbox restrictions in the shoutbox and you are banned from discussing anything to do with the subject matter of any of Axiom's shoutbox restrictions in the shoutbox.

You were warned about both of these things and kept ignoring the warnings.

Both these warnings apply to you for so long as Axiom's shoutbox restrictions remain.

If you continue to use the shoutbox for little but trolling and pushing the boundaries I may well ban you from it permanently.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 06:07 PM
Thankyou for avoiding my question. So I will just assume that the answer to "Do I have a different set of rules" is a yes. And I'm not entirely sure if I actually was warned after my first ban expired..

You were. After you told Axiom it would be hard to talk without discussing you-know-what I wrote:


yes jaydon and the above was an indirect reference so stop bringing it up and don't even flirt around the edges

and then when you persisted in being vague I told you:


now if you really feel the need to even drop hints about ukranian soccer tadpoles you can do so over in the toolbox

(Obviously here I mean hints about ***)

and then


ok jaydon, it is not acceptable for you to talk about axiom's shoutbox conditions in the shoutbox in any way. this is permanent in your case on account of your continual trolling'

Even after all those warnings you still recited a saying drawn from Axiom's *** lingo.

Furthermore if you have been banned for something you shouldn't expect another warning before being banned again if you do it again. (File under "bleeding obvious"!)


And seriously, how is that enticing Axiom to break site rules?

Obviously if you talk about a subject he is not allowed to talk about to him, it increases the chance he will talk about that subject. Especially when it's not possible for him to talk about not being allowed to talk about it, without actually talking about it in the process.


Should you be banned for enticing me to say bad things about you?

Well the bad things you would say would not necessarily be against the rules, but in any case contradicting your drivel is not enticing you to respond idiotically. It is, we hope, enticing you to get a clue and stop trolling. :lol:

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2009, 06:09 PM
Thankyou for avoiding my question.I answered your question.

So I will just assume that the answer to "Do I have a different set of rules" is a yes.You are subject to the same rules as everyone else, however as a repeat offender you punishment may vary to that of first offenders.

And I'm not entirely sure if I actually was warned after my first ban expired.You were warned, repeated the offence and were shoutbox banned.

And seriously, how is that enticing Axiom to break site rules?You were told along with others to refrain from trying to entice Axiom to refer to subjects he was not allowed to mention in the shoutbox.

Should you be banned for enticing me to say bad things about you? If the answer is no as I presume it will be then as much as I'd hate to do it, I question your ab/use of moderation power.Entirely different situations.
You were warned to refrain from trying to entice Axiom to refer to subjects he was not allowed to mention in the shoutbox. You chose to ignore the warning. As such you were in breach of ignoring a moderation warning and received a ban.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 06:12 PM
* Failing to follow a directive from an admin or moderator may result in immediate action being taken against the poster.

All posters are subject to this rule.

The content of directives varies from poster to poster because some posters persistently misbehave in certain ways while other posters never do so.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 08:42 PM
Why cannot the subject matter of a History channel program be aired in the Science sub forum ?

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 08:57 PM
Why cannot the subject matter of a History channel program be aired in the Science sub forum ?

The way in which you aired it by raving about whether the matter was conspiracy theory or not was alone enough to cause me to remove it from the "Science stories" thread.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:04 PM
The way in which you aired it by raving about whether the matter was conspiracy theory or not was alone enough to cause me to remove it from the "Science stories" thread.
ok, i'll redo it.

i know how annoying it must be to be less informed than those conspiracy nuts ! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:11 PM
ok, i'll redo it.

i know how annoying it must be to be less informed than those conspiracy nuts ! :lol:

Having watched the first four minutes of the video there is no evidence in that passage that the video is science.

As such it is not to be posted on the Science Stories thread and will be deleted if it is posted there.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:14 PM
Having watched the first four minutes of the video there is no evidence in that passage that the video is science.

As such it is not to be posted on the Science Stories thread and will be deleted if it is posted there.
you're now the arbitar of what is science and what is not are you ?
if its good enough for the History channel it should be good enough for an online forum.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:28 PM
you're now the arbitar of what is science and what is not are you ?

Well, clearly unlike you, I am actually a scientist and furthermore I have qualifications relevant to the philosophical foundations of science, so yes, I am an arbiter of that and the first four minutes presented no credible indication of real science.


if its good enough for the History channel it should be good enough for an online forum.

But not necessarily for a science thread.

I had not previously checked out the credentials of said channel but on doing so quickly I find that it has frequently been criticised for peddling pseudoscience and gibberish before.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:34 PM
Well, clearly unlike you, I am actually a scientist and furthermore I have qualifications relevant to the philosophical foundations of science, so yes, I am an arbiter of that and the first four minutes presented no credible indication of real science. ok , so what is your scientific assessment of weather mod science ?





I had not previously checked out the credentials of said channel but on doing so quickly I find that it has frequently been criticised for peddling pseudoscience and gibberish before.
ie. anything that doesn't conform to the myopic , corporate sell out science, refer "man made global warming" ! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 09:40 PM
ok , so what is your scientific assessment of weather mod science ?

My view on that (if any) is irrelevant because assessing the science of an issue is not the same thing as assessing whether a presentation of an issue is scientific. I was doing the latter and the first four minutes of the video were not a scientific presentation; not even close.


ie. anything that doesn't conform to the myopic , corporate sell out science, refer "man made global warming" ! :lol:

Incorrect. The criticisms have nothing to do with the global warming (or not) controversy but have to do with the promotion of pseudoscientific and/or pseudohistorical topics.

Axiom
31-07-2009, 09:55 PM
My view on that (if any) is irrelevant because assessing the science of an issue is not the same thing as assessing whether a presentation of an issue is scientific. I was doing the latter and the first four minutes of the video were not a scientific presentation; not even close. agreed , i never intended that the presentation of the history channel piece to conform to the exactitudes of the scientific method ,merely as a source for discussion about that which lies on the fringe of "accepted" science .
if you consider that conventional accepted science covers for all realities out there , you are very limited, and hamstrung in looking further afield for answers (the very epitomy of the inquiring scientific mind)




Incorrect. The criticisms have nothing to do with the global warming (or not) controversy but have to do with the promotion of pseudoscientific and/or pseudohistorical topics.
yes precisely , like the man made gw science !

Desmond
31-07-2009, 11:03 PM
And remember the sun doesn't rise in the morning, we turn to face it.
Oh good, the young Ax-ciple shows up to regurge some wisdom. Next!

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2009, 11:08 PM
agreed , i never intended that the presentation of the history channel piece to conform to the exactitudes of the scientific method ,merely as a source for discussion about that which lies on the fringe of "accepted" science .

The possibility of the methods discussed might lie on the fringes but the method of presentation was nowhere near. Clearly you were more concerned with legitimising a conspiracy theory than with simply raising an interesting story about actual scientific research.


if you consider that conventional accepted science covers for all realities out there , you are very limited, and hamstrung in looking further afield for answers (the very epitomy of the inquiring scientific mind)

I could easily query this but it is irrelevant to the reasons for my moderation decision.


yes precisely , like the man made gw science !

Again irrelevant. Anyway we have a thread specifically for global warming debates.

CameronD
01-08-2009, 04:53 PM
I propose this thread by renamed to the axiom whinges thread.

Axiom
01-08-2009, 04:57 PM
I propose this thread by renamed to the axiom whinges thread.
is that hate speech ?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 05:05 PM
I propose this thread by renamed to the axiom whinges thread.

"Axiom and antichrist whinging and other feedback" would probably be quite an accurate summary.

Excluding mods and admins, who are mainly replying to things posted, the postcounts look like this:

219 antichrist
133 Axiom
77 ggrayggray
56 ursogr8
etc

A reminder to all posters that this thread is for the provision of feedback and responses to feedback, and direct discussion of those things. Meta-debate and offtopic banter should be kept down and if it gets out of hand we will cull it.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2009, 05:28 PM
Several posts of mostly off-topic chatter and abuse have been removed to non-chess.

Bill Gletsos
02-08-2009, 12:55 AM
is that hate speech ?Refrain from posting this rubbish everytime someone makes a comment you do not like.

Axiom
02-08-2009, 01:20 AM
Refrain from posting this rubbish everytime someone makes a comment you do not like.
bit late , this thread has already been split :rolleyes:

antichrist
02-08-2009, 05:38 PM
"Axiom and antichrist whinging and other feedback" would probably be quite an accurate summary.

Excluding mods and admins, who are mainly replying to things posted, the postcounts look like this:

219 antichrist
133 Axiom
77 ggrayggray
56 ursogr8
etc

A reminder to all posters that this thread is for the provision of feedback and responses to feedback, and direct discussion of those things. Meta-debate and offtopic banter should be kept down and if it gets out of hand we will cull it.

What a champ I am, out scoring the next two contenders combined. I would not dare create a new thread on it but can I thank the mods for deleting my "will I committ suicide" thread and poll. Coz I read recently that a Jap guy had traced down 3 people who declared on the internet that they wanted to committ suicide and he killed them. Where as my thread was only a stir to brighten up a dull boring working day for me. Thanks mates for saving my life and I will never run away again to the opposition chess site.

If I may ask why is Sprouty going black, isn't he a greenie anymore?

antichrist
02-08-2009, 05:55 PM
Am I allowed to mention at above thread that maybe the *** used these pirated copies?

[rest deleted for even more offtopic trolling - mod]

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Am I allowed to mention at above thread that maybe the *** used these pirated copies?

Any mention of the *** on serious chess threads without clear mention that the *** is fiction is pretty likely to get zapped just for being too silly. Yes, I too find it hard to credit that anyone would fail to see the *** is fictional but it appears that there are such readers out there.

I am deleting the remainder of your post since it is not feedback about this site or its moderation but rather you threadjacking your rants about religion onto another thread as per normal.

antichrist
03-08-2009, 03:02 PM
Any mention of the *** on serious chess threads without clear mention that the *** is fiction is pretty likely to get zapped just for being too silly. Yes, I too find it hard to credit that anyone would fail to see the *** is fictional but it appears that there are such readers out there.

I am deleting the remainder of your post since it is not feedback about this site or its moderation but rather you threadjacking your rants about religion onto another thread as per normal.

I guess I should thank you for keeping me on the staight and narrow. You should have not put up those stats coz now I am on top of the ladder I will try to stay there.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2009, 03:25 PM
I guess I should thank you for keeping me on the staight and narrow. You should have not put up those stats coz now I am on top of the ladder I will try to stay there.

If you deliberately post off-topic rubbish on this thread just for the sake of posting on it then I will ensure that your total is frozen for a suitable period of time. :lol:

WhiteElephant
05-08-2009, 11:09 PM
When I was a more regular poster here I used to find Axiom entertaining.

But now that my habits have changed and I drop in occasionally to check out interesting threads and tournament info, I find Axiom to be by far the most annoying poster here. Sorry Ax, but that is the truth, as you know I have been a supporter of yours in the past but enough is enough.

Just from my brief visits, I have noticed that Ax constantly takes threads off topic, quarrels with Mods and other posters, posts controversial info when he has been told countless times it pisses people off.

I think that the Mods were extremely lenient allowing Ax back immediately after his long time hydra was outed, not to mention after his numerous hydras in the past year. Axiom should have counted himself very lucky. But instead it is the same pattern of behaviour.

Well maybe he will entertain some (and there is nothing wrong with that) but have some respect for the Mods' requests and for those who are here for other reasons than time wasting. Sorry but no sympathy from me.

antichrist
06-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Am I allowed to mention at above thread that maybe the *** used these pirated copies?

[rest deleted for even more offtopic trolling - mod]

as part of my post was considered trolling that I maintain definitely was not, I had to give example to make my point, I should be able to discuss it somewhere, so when in the mood I will create a new thread here called maybe Mods Decisions Discussion. Is that okay?

As well my post was deliberately pointed to Bill for his decision re Axiom, I think it should have been left up to Bill to delete it anyone.

antichrist
06-08-2009, 03:50 PM
When I was a more regular poster here I used to find Axiom entertaining.

But now that my habits have changed and I drop in occasionally to check out interesting threads and tournament info, I find Axiom to be by far the most annoying poster here. Sorry Ax, but that is the truth, as you know I have been a supporter of yours in the past but enough is enough.

Just from my brief visits, I have noticed that Ax constantly takes threads off topic, quarrels with Mods and other posters, posts controversial info when he has been told countless times it pisses people off.

I think that the Mods were extremely lenient allowing Ax back immediately after his long time hydra was outed, not to mention after his numerous hydras in the past year. Axiom should have counted himself very lucky. But instead it is the same pattern of behaviour.

Well maybe he will entertain some (and there is nothing wrong with that) but have some respect for the Mods' requests and for those who are here for other reasons than time wasting. Sorry but no sympathy from me.

WE, I can understand you re this but I read his first lengthy post re *** and thought this guy is a wonderful story teller, better than I could ever be, then never read another one again and was not upset by them. We do punish ourselves sometimes, so I avoid the religious dribble sometimes as well.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2009, 04:39 PM
as part of my post was considered trolling that I maintain definitely was not, I had to give example to make my point, I should be able to discuss it somewhere, so when in the mood I will create a new thread here called maybe Mods Decisions Discussion. Is that okay?

No it isn't; this is the thread for general feedback on moderation. If we rule that you are using moderation as a pretext to rant about irrelevant things then your ranting will get deleted wherever it is posted.

If you don't like the decision to delete part of your post you can object to that here, but if you post irrelevant provocations in the process they too will be deleted.

Now and then there is enough interest in a specific moderation to have a thread about it but you wanting to rant (and nobody else caring less) doesn't qualify.


As well my post was deliberately pointed to Bill for his decision re Axiom, I think it should have been left up to Bill to delete it anyone.

I will delete anything I consider to be requiring deletion no matter who it is addressed to.

ER
16-08-2009, 08:07 PM
There were two incidents last week, in a matter of hours from each other, resulting in Mods action which in my opinion should be noted, commended upon and congratulated.
Incident 1
Before publishing an announcement I messaged one of the mods asking his approval, due to the commercial nature of the announcement.
His immediate response was that I should ask another moderator since his involvement with the situation referred to in my announcement could create a conflict of interest case!
Congratulations for the mod's integrity and tactfull approach! :clap:
Incident 2
Moderators' assistance was asked to delete some shouting which could cause harm for some chess organisation during a moment of crisis which was resolved without further implications.
The mod's action was immediate and all traces of the initial shout as well as some responses to it, were removed from the shoutbox in seconds!
Congratualtions for the mod's immediate action! :clap:

antichrist
27-08-2009, 06:25 PM
True. When acting "incognito" as kjenhager he was able to pass him self off as a rational person. This begs the question which is the real person? Was Axiom pretending to be kjenhager, or is it the other way around?

This shows that Axiom is not in the same class as me coz I could never pass myself off as a rational person.

So bend your knee and honour The King of Crazies

antichrist
29-08-2009, 08:23 PM
This shows that Axiom is not in the same class as me coz I could never pass myself off as a rational person.

So bend your knee and honour The King of Crazies

Is everybody agreeing with me in private???

He is a fake that Axiom, fancy that after I went in to bat for him a few times and he was only pretending. He could have acted normal the whole time - I could have given him lessons.

Rincewind
29-08-2009, 08:41 PM
Is everybody agreeing with me in private???

Talking to yourself is the first sign of craziness.

antichrist
31-08-2009, 10:12 PM
Talking to yourself is the first sign of craziness.

He could have acted normal the whole time - I could have given him lessons.

I thought was more of a gem to pick up on.

(I just maybe trying to keep my post count in this thread up?? Keep it a secret)

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2009, 06:29 PM
AC, this is a thread for feedback about the site and its moderation (etc), not a thread for you to make generic meta-comments about stuff going on on this or the other board.

Here is your old "off-topic bin" thread in case you need to use it:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4631

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2009, 07:07 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is banned from this thread for two weeks for persistently posting off-topic in it.

If antichrist posts in this thread in the next two weeks he will be banned for the remainder of the two-week period.

PPWPFL
05-09-2009, 08:36 PM
Could I please have an explantion as to why I was SB banned for posting a youtube link to a siberian tiger video and for saying "nonsense?! I know you are simply in awe of the magnificent tiger".

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2009, 08:41 PM
Could I please have an explantion as to why I was SB banned for posting a youtube link to a siberian tiger video and for saying "nonsense?! I know you are simply in awe of the magnificent tiger".

Certainly and thankyou for asking so nicely.

After CZ posted "SIBERIAN CHESS TIGERS" in bold red (which I deleted, plus a rather large image which I converted to URL) I wrote "enough of that nonsense" but both of you continued with the *** trolling.

You were thus both SB-banned for the time necessary for me to make two cups of Imperial Spice tea. However since I have been distracted from that task by writing this reply, your unbanning will now take a few minutes longer. :D

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2009, 11:22 PM
It has now been discovered that the Comrade Zukovsky account was being operated by Axiom during the period 10 Aug 2009 to present. Thus all the above CZ posts were written by Axiom.

In my post of 26-8 I made some personal reflections about Ron Scott re the toilet-wall arbiting incident and the behaviour of the Comrade Zukovsky account.

These were made on the natural assumption that Ron was still operating the CZ account. We had not been advised otherwise and giving away accounts is against CC rules, while hacking (while not ruled out) seems unlikely.

Naturally I withdraw (and am deleting) those reflections (and replies to them) given that Ron was not operating the account in question at the time.

ER
06-09-2009, 12:35 PM
I am absolutely confused with the whole thing.
How do proxies work and can't they be detected straight away?
What does CZ have to say about all this?
I think all care must be taken not to blemish his reputation as a player and arbiter due to this rather farcical situation!
I met Ron in Adelaide for first time earlier this year and I have the best impressions of the fine young man although he is an Arsenal supporter and he was wearing an expensive Gunners jacket!

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2009, 12:40 PM
I am absolutely confused with the whole thing.
How do proxies work and can't they be detected straight away?

They can but this was the first time I had actually checked to see what sort of IP "CZ" was using. Prior to that I had just heard that the IP he was using didn't match any known to be used by Axiom, but nobody had checked to see if it was a proxy. Basically a proxy is just an IP address that masks where a poster is coming from and which ISP they are posting through.


What does CZ have to say about all this?
I think all care must be taken not to blemish his reputation as a player and arbiter due to this rather farcical situation!

That is why we are going to contact him and try to find out how it happened. There are two obvious possibilities and in one of those he is more or less blameless unless his password was too easily guessable.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 02:55 PM
My apologies, I was unaware that "***" is now a censored word. Just so I know clearly as now Ax is permanent banned I can't really encourage him to break site rules, what I am not allowed to say in the SB?

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:00 PM
Kevin warned you and CZ last night to stop that nonsense in the shoutbox.

You chose not to, hence the shoutbox ban.

Oh and *** was added after the ban, not before.

Have a nice day. :whistle:

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Kevin warned you and CZ last night to stop that nonsense in the shoutbox.

You chose not to, hence the shoutbox ban.

Oh and *** was added after the ban, not before.

Have a nice day. :whistle:

Yes I was warned of it last night, I thought that was more to do with the fact that CV posted a big picture and began writing in red more then my own behaviour. I didn't realise that this warning of KB's from last night applied to now also. I would still like a general outline as I am really quite unsure of what I am and, more to the point, are not allowed to say.

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Yes I was warned of it last night, I thought that was more to do with the fact that CV posted a big picture and began writing in red more then my own behaviour. I didn't realise that this warning of KB's from last night applied to now also.Your problem, not ours.

I would still like a general outline as I am really quite unsure of what I am and, more to the point, are not allowed to say.Unless advised otherwise consider yourself under the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Unless advised otherwise consider yourself under the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was.

So no ***, red font, info wars, caps?
I am surely allowed to still talk about a siberian tiger though, without making reference to the censored word of course?

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:13 PM
So no ***, red font, info wars, caps?
I am surely allowed to still talk about a siberian tiger though, without making reference to the censored word of course?What part of same restrictions as Axiom do you not understand.

Axiom was not allowed to even hint at Siberians or tigers.

Now neither are you.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:17 PM
What part of same restrictions as Axiom do you not understand.

I completely understood what you ment, I simply required a refresh of the rules as I am not Axiom ;)

Thankyou for that anyway, I shall take note of this, it's always nice to know the rules before you get punished for breaking them ;)

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:21 PM
I completely understood what you ment, I simply required a refresh of the rules as I am not Axiom ;)If you had completely understood you would not have had to ask for a refresh.

Thankyou for that anyway, I shall take note of this, it's always nice to know the rules before you get punished for breaking them ;)Well then make sure you remember the one about not disobeying a mod direction.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:24 PM
If you had completely understood you would not have had to ask for a refresh.
Well then make sure you remember the one about not disobeying a mod direction.

I ment I completely understood what you ment by "the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was" which you were implying I didn't understand.

I will keep that rule at the foremost part of my mind at all times.

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:34 PM
I ment I completely understood what you ment by "the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was" which you were implying I didn't understand.You clearly did not completely understand what I meant by "the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was" because if you and you would not have made post #1519.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:45 PM
You clearly did not completely understand what I meant by "the same shoutbox restrictions as Axiom was" because if you and you would not have made post #1519.

Kind sir I compltely understood what you ment by it, I was simply requiring a refresh of the actual restrictions not of what you were referring to by "what part of the same restrictions don't you understand".

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 03:50 PM
Kind sir I compltely understood what you ment by it, I was simply requiring a refresh of the actual restrictions not of what you were referring to by "what part of the same restrictions don't you understand".That is clearly rubbish as you would not have required a refresh of the actual restrictions if you had understood them.

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 03:53 PM
That is clearly rubbish as you would not have required a refresh of the actual restrictions if you had understood them.

By saying I completely understood what you ment did not infer that I knew the actual restrictions, it implied that I simply knew that I had to abide by them.

Inbegriff
06-09-2009, 04:06 PM
By saying I completely understood what you ment did not infer that I knew the actual restrictions, it implied that I simply knew that I had to abide by them.
I think you ment "meant" :)

PPWPFL
06-09-2009, 04:08 PM
I think you ment "meant" :)

indeed ;) my bad :P

and just so you know Bill I think I'm going to leave this argument alone now, as it could possibly be one of the most pointless ones I've ever involved myself in.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2009, 05:09 PM
Jaydon, I'm struggling to think of any compelling reason why you should be permitted to say anything in our shoutbox. Far too much of your limited usage of it is blatant trolling.

Garvinator
06-09-2009, 05:52 PM
:hmm: who is inbegriff?

Bill Gletsos
06-09-2009, 05:59 PM
:hmm: who is inbegriff?Way ahead of you on that one. ;)

CameronD
06-09-2009, 10:25 PM
I ask for antichrist latest poll be removed as it makes absolutely no sense compared to what was said in the post.

PPWPFL
07-09-2009, 05:48 PM
Jaydon, I'm struggling to think of any compelling reason why you should be permitted to say anything in our shoutbox. Far too much of your limited usage of it is blatant trolling.

Well now I have actually been set my own special set of rules to abide by ;) I might be able to follow them.


PS: Be wary of the caged tiger, tends to be a better idea to let them roam free ;)

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2009, 05:55 PM
PS: Be wary of the caged tiger, tends to be a better idea to let them roam free ;)

Or shoot them. :hand:

PPWPFL
07-09-2009, 06:00 PM
Or shoot them. :hand:

Just take the friendly warning, there are some you cant keep down ;)

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2009, 06:19 PM
Just take the friendly warning, there are some you cant keep down ;)

Were your comments referring to you or to Axiom?

Desmond
07-09-2009, 07:21 PM
Just take the friendly warning, there are some you cant keep down ;)Like foodcourt "beef" n blackbean.

WhiteElephant
08-09-2009, 06:18 PM
I think all care must be taken not to blemish his reputation as a player and arbiter due to this rather farcical situation!

Exactly! I have very high respect for Ron and thought it was strange when he had a go at me after I commented on Axiom's last banning. Imagine if this crap Axiom has been pulling affected how people view Ron in real life. And maybe it has! Good effing riddance that this sad individual is finally gone from ChessChat.

Garvinator
08-09-2009, 06:35 PM
Exactly! I have very high respect for Ron and thought it was strange when he had a go at me after I commented on Axiom's last banning. Imagine if this crap Axiom has been pulling affected how people view Ron in real life. And maybe it has! Good effing riddance that this sad individual is finally gone from ChessChat.
I do not think this is actually meant to a motion of sentiment or feeling, but I second it anyway :)

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 06:43 PM
Exactly! I have very high respect for Ron and thought it was strange when he had a go at me after I commented on Axiom's last banning. Imagine if this crap Axiom has been pulling affected how people view Ron in real life. And maybe it has! Good effing riddance that this sad individual is finally gone from ChessChat.

Crap Axiom has been pulling? Please...
Indeed "good effing riddance"... all that red font must've been hurting some eyes. Why if he had have kept making those references to Siberia and all those harmless posts which I could have, and most likely did, choose not to read then this place would have crumbled. :rolleyes:

Basil
08-09-2009, 06:50 PM
Crap Axiom has been pulling? Please...
Indeed "good effing riddance"... all that red font must've been hurting some eyes. Why if he had have kept making those references to Siberia and all those harmless posts which I could have, and most likely did, choose not to read then this place would have crumbled. :rolleyes:
WE is referring to deception and character damage. Those types of things are highly offensive to many of us. I accept they are water off a duck's back to you and others elsewhere. This is one of the differences that clearly defines the two boards.

As for this place crumbling ... :lol: Your perception of reality is the only thing crumbling ATM.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 06:54 PM
I have emailed Ron at two email addresses to see what he knows about the situation. I have not yet received a reply. If anyone has a recent email address for him that I might not have tried, please PM it to me.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 06:55 PM
WE is referring to deception and character damage. Those types of things are highly offensive to many of us. I accept they are water off a duck's back to you and others elsewhere. This is one of the differences that clearly defines the two boards.

As for this place crumbling ... :lol: Your perception of reality is the only thing crumbling ATM.

Perhaps there is something you're not aware of, as absurd as that may sound to you..
Character damage is highly offensive to many :lol: Not to bad at dishing it out yourselves ;)
If you failed to notice I was using sarcasm when referring to the crumbling ;)

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 07:00 PM
Perhaps there is something you're not aware of, as absurd as that may sound to you..
Character damage is highly offensive to many :lol: Not to bad at dishing it out yourselves ;)

We dish it out to those who have proven that they deserve it, and far from damaging their character, we just highlight it. Or haven't you noticed yet that AO really is a charlatan and continual liar who struggles to make an accurate statement on any matter of contention between the two boards?

In this case Ron Scott's reputation was damaged by the impression that he was engaging in spurious hit-and-run style abusive personal attacks on posters here and then not staying around to follow up on issues raised. It turned out he was not the one doing this.

Basil
08-09-2009, 07:01 PM
Character damage is highly offensive to many :lol: Not to bad at dishing it out yourselves ;)
No, there's a significant difference. Toolies damage their own character by their actions. I and others simply put a spotlight on it. We have defences of truth, public interest (?) and excess time.
Conversely, Toolies often engage in character damage using lies and innuendo. They only enjoy the the defence of excess time.

Alex Tool is a perfect repeated example of this difference. Axiom passing himself off as another person is a further example. I assume you're not thick and you now understand the difference.

ER
08-09-2009, 07:03 PM
Hi Kev
What's A/C's new sentence now, will he be in the sinbin till he serves the original week off, or the new sentence starts from today? I suggest he should be allowed back after he finishes his original punishment, so he has some time to prepare a defence for your criticism re LOLA before the subject becomes outdated!

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 07:08 PM
It's a whole week and he's lucky it isn't more. I had a discussion with him via Toolbox PM in which I made it very clear what the boundaries were and he had hardly been back any time when he breached them again.

AC remembers threads of interest to him (and nobody else) for years so there's no risk of him failing to follow up on la-la-la-la-lola vs Katy Perry if it really affects him.

ER
08-09-2009, 07:33 PM
ok I understand he was warned, however on the grounds that
1) he had served already two days of his original sentence and
2) I don't think he would be able to comprehend the legalistic way your sentencing was worded
is it ok to reduce the sentence to say 5 days so he can be back some time during the weekend?

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Could I please have a valid justification as to why my last 3 posts were deleted. The last one especially was of significance importance, I'm trying to save a full scale war here but if you're going to delete my posts then you're bringing it upon yourself.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 08:00 PM
ok I understand he was warned, however on the grounds that
1) he had served already two days of his original sentence

Actually less than one day before I decided to let him back on, and the new sentence is for a second offence of the same kind. Furthermore I have since found that he did it twice since being readmitted.


and
2) I don't think he would be able to comprehend the legalistic way your sentencing was worded

I'm sure he knows what's going on.


is it ok to reduce the sentence to say 5 days so he can be back some time during the weekend?

It's OK but it isn't very likely to happen. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 08:02 PM
Could I please have a valid justification as to why my last 3 posts were deleted. The last one especially was of significance importance, I'm trying to save a full scale war here but if you're going to delete my posts then you're bringing it upon yourself.

Two were deleted for posting on behalf of a banned user in violation of site rules. You were exceedingly lucky not to just get banned right away for that.

I deleted the third because it was off-topic for the Toolbox-Detox thread.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:06 PM
Two were deleted for posting on behalf of a banned user in violation of site rules. You were exceedingly lucky not to just get banned right away for that.

I deleted the third because it was off-topic for the Toolbox-Detox thread.

Kind sir when was "the Siberian chess tigers" a banned user? Am I now not allowed to post on behalf of groups who possess a banned user?!

I will post this again, I'd leave it here for your own sake, save yourself!

[no I'll delete it thanks - mod]

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:12 PM
5-uCIOLFnGg&feature=related

Basil
08-09-2009, 08:16 PM
We want Axiom back.
Who is "we"? The East Tidwell Prats? The army of two? The Rebels Without Cause Clue? U15s Frightened Front?

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Who is "we"? The East Tidwell Prats? The army of two? The Rebels Without Cause Clue? U15s Frightened Front?

Ignore my leaked warning at your own peril.

WhiteElephant
08-09-2009, 08:21 PM
Why if he had have kept making those references to Siberia and all those harmless posts which I could have, and most likely did, choose not to read then this place would have crumbled. :rolleyes:

Jaydon, I would rank Axiom's forum contributions as follows:

Chess related and other general comments - interesting and frequently insightful

Siberian Tigers - A little annoying

IWars - Extremely annoying

Making confrontational posts while posing as Ron Scott - inexcusable

Desmond
08-09-2009, 08:22 PM
We want Axiom back. Ax has a resistance army ready to rise up. It will be easier to let him back lest he unleashes his full power, of which you have only had a taste. He has an underground resistance movement ie cc members, an army of hydras both manned and unmanned and a collection of shell hydras ready to go. He is warning you.Well of course I can only speak for myself, but by my reckoning:

1. You have no friends here.
2. No one here respects you.
3. If you want to converse with the liar that is Axiom, you are free and able to do so elsewhere.
4. You might like to include Toolie and his many hydras in the convo's. I'm sure you have much in common and plenty to discuss.

WhiteElephant
08-09-2009, 08:23 PM
We want Axiom back. Ax has a resistance army ready to rise up. It will be easier to let him back lest he unleashes his full power, of which you have only had a taste. He has an underground resistance movement ie cc members, an army of hydras both manned and unmanned and a collection of shell hydras ready to go. He is warning you.

This sounds like an Axiom grandiose statement. Has Axiom taken over Jaydon too? Or was it Axiom all along? :)

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:27 PM
Jaydon, I would rank Axiom's forum contributions as follows:

Chess related and other general comments - interesting and frequently insightful

Siberian Tigers - A little annoying

IWars - Extremely annoying

Making confrontational posts while posing as Ron Scott - inexcusable

Yeah but you dont have to read anything he actually posts.
Ax was simply protesting and as I've mentioned above, it is just the start.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 08:32 PM
Kind sir when was "the Siberian chess tigers" a banned user? Am I now not allowed to post on behalf of groups who possess a banned user?!

Disingeneous drivel; you were posting a comment by Axiom taken verbatim from the other place.


* 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.

Oh, and I'm deleting your "We want Axiom back" line of drivel again. As well as being off-topic for both threads it is posted on, it is clearly condoning the breaking of site rules, and expect a lengthy ban if you post it or anything too closely resembling it again.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:33 PM
Well of course I can only speak for myself, but by my reckoning:

1. You have no friends here.
2. No one here respects you.
3. If you want to converse with the liar that is Axiom, you are free and able to do so elsewhere.
4. You might like to include Toolie and his many hydras in the convo's. I'm sure you have much in common and plenty to discuss.

You will never know the wind of freedom blowing through the cobwebs of your own atrophical malaise ... You can only dream of the ***!

Desmond
08-09-2009, 08:40 PM
You will never know the wind of freedom blowing through the cobwebs of your own atrophical malaise ... You can only dream of the ***!Oh pullllease you're a freedom fighter are you? Fighting for the freedom of an anonymous known liar from a forum where he knowingly and deliberately broke the site rules. The only wind blowing near you is that of your own inane, ineffective bravado.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:44 PM
Oh pullllease you're a freedom fighter are you? Fighting for the freedom of an anonymous known liar from a forum where he knowingly and deliberately broke the site rules. The only wind blowing near you is that of your own inane, ineffective bravado.

I rest my case ;)

Desmond
08-09-2009, 08:48 PM
I rest my case ;)Oh good, toddle off then.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 08:52 PM
Oh good, toddle off then.

:rolleyes:
It's simply a shame you can't toddle off to the light of truth, liberty and justice!

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2009, 08:57 PM
I rest my case ;)

It could certainly do with a rest, given how tired and weak it is.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2009, 08:57 PM
Kind sir when was "the Siberian chess tigers" a banned user? Am I now not allowed to post on behalf of groups who possess a banned user?!

I will post this again, I'd leave it here for your own sake, save yourself!

[no I'll delete it thanks - mod]The sentence you keep posting is one used by Axiom. Axiom is neither siberian or Russian.
You are no more a Siberian Chess tiger than Axiom is.

As such all you are doing is repeating Axiom's rubbish which is therefore posting on behalf of a banned user.

PPWPFL
08-09-2009, 09:05 PM
The sentence you keep posting is one used by Axiom. Axiom is neither siberian or Russian.
You are no more a Siberian Chess tiger than Axiom is.

As such all you are doing is repeating Axiom's rubbish which is therefore posting on behalf of a banned user.

How can you be so sure that Axiom is not Siberian?!
:eek: Why we are the freedom fighters! THE *** are the penultimate figures for hope in chess!

I may not be a fully fledged tiger yet! But still a cub continuing a grand tradition

I simply feel pity for you, that you cant feel the fresh, invigorating wind of freedom sweep through your cobwebs :(

Mischa
08-09-2009, 09:41 PM
ummm...why do we hate Jaydon? I think I missed that bit

Hobbes
08-09-2009, 09:54 PM
ummm...why do we hate Jaydon? I think I missed that bit
ummm... I don't think anyone hates him.

But this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) might help.

Basil
08-09-2009, 10:16 PM
ummm... I don't think anyone hates him.

But this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) might help.
I agree - I don't think anyone hates him at all. If the wiki link doesn't shed light, perhaps you can check http://www.disingenuoussimpleton.com or even http://www.heightenedwasteofbandwidth.com

PPWPFL
12-09-2009, 11:59 PM
When will my account have the shout box ban lifted? Be quick before I forget the ridiculous restrictions you've imposed!!

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2009, 12:03 AM
When will my account have the shout box ban lifted?

Your shoutbox ban is scheduled to expire around 2pm.


Be quick before I forget the [..] restrictions you've imposed!!

That would be most unwise. I might "forget" to treat you any differently from any other spammer when deciding upon your next shoutbox ban duration.

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2009, 12:03 AM
When will my account have the shout box ban lifted?14 hours

Be quick before I forget the ridiculous restrictions you've imposed!!Forget them at your own risk as you will not be reminded of them again.

PPWPFL
13-09-2009, 12:04 AM
14 hours
Forget them at your own risk as you will not be reminded of them again.

Thankyou and at least you're not in denial ;)

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2009, 12:07 AM
Thankyou and at least you're not in denial ;)Not in denial of what?

PPWPFL
13-09-2009, 12:10 AM
Not in denial of what?

The ridiculousness of the restrictions ;)

One day I hope you see the light; the light of truth, justice and liberty!
When that day comes I will be proud to call you my friend.
Let the wind blow away the webs, feel the goodness consuming you
You can still be saved!

Bill Gletsos
13-09-2009, 12:15 AM
The ridiculousness of the restrictions ;)Do not try being a smartass as you lack the smarts and are just being an ass.

One day I hope you see the light; the light of truth, justice and liberty!
When that day comes I will be proud to call you my friend.
Let the wind blow away the webs, feel the goodness consuming you
You can still be saved!There is no Siberian Chess Tigers and Axiom is not Siberian nor Russian.
Anyone who believes him is simply buying into his delusion.

PPWPFL
13-09-2009, 12:18 AM
Do not try being a smartass as you lack the smarts and are just being an ass.
There is no Siberian Chess Tigers and Axiom is not Siberian nor Russian.
Anyone who believes him is simply buying into his delusion.

Do you also deny the existence of truth, liberty and justice?! I do believe that is what I said, I suppose you cant keep your mind off Ax though, separation issues, fair enough mate.

Also very nice insult do you mind if I write that one down for use by myself later?

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2009, 12:19 AM
One day I hope you see the light; the light of truth, justice and liberty!

You wouldn't have a clue about any of these things. However, if you want a little light reading on liberty and how it relates to our right to ban people from this forum if they persistently act the goat (fiery or otherwise) check out this thread here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4050)

antichrist
17-09-2009, 12:26 PM
I hereby apologise to my many fans if my posts are not so spicy and exciting coz I am facing many hardships and restrictions in getting my posts out -you all know what I mean. You will just have to read between the lines and think - aw yeah A/C meant to include that innuodo or double meaning or troll. Sorry.

antichrist
18-09-2009, 01:16 PM
AC rebanned for another off-topic religious reference, this time on the Toolbox-Detox thread. KB
__________________

I was backing you up in that post, I was on your side and you have let me break a few rules in that thread before??

Did you also count off-topic The Lord is my Shepherd in Lola-Kiss Girl poll?

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2009, 02:17 PM
I was backing you up in that post, I was on your side and you have let me break a few rules in that thread before??

I don't care whose side you are on; I have completely had a gutful of your persistent making of off-topic religious references, whether "accidental" or deliberate.


Did you also count off-topic The Lord is my Shepherd in Lola-Kiss Girl poll?

It was started before you were placed on zero tolerance.

ER
18-09-2009, 03:17 PM
Did you also count off-topic The Lord is my Shepherd in Lola-Kiss Girl poll?
Hey A/C are you into one of those "Oh Lord Please Don't Let Me Be Missunderstood" periods again? :P

antichrist
19-09-2009, 04:36 PM
KB, a ban for Poll thread was not strictly necessary as was not off topic

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2009, 04:45 PM
KB, a ban for Poll thread was not strictly necessary as was not off topic

You have been directed not to discuss religion outside the religion and science section in any way without my permission as a result of your frequently excessive trolling on the matter. That is why I deleted it. However since you weren't trashing anyone else's thread I didn't ban you for it - this time.

antichrist
19-09-2009, 04:49 PM
I thought you would apprec that apology in Detox thread - not often you get one of those

antichrist
20-09-2009, 11:36 AM
I see that sprouty has been barred from shoutbox. Long overdue that was - posted heaps of irrelevant stuff that discouraged other posters. Not that I like to see posters barred. At least I am trying to change the world - for better or worse.

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2009, 02:21 PM
I see that sprouty has been barred from shoutbox.

As far as I can determine this is false.

antichrist
20-09-2009, 06:46 PM
I may have looked too quickly and it was Axiom - sprouty is almost as bad as Ax as far as I am concerned. Coz i am only occasional I am bearable

CameronD
20-09-2009, 08:37 PM
I may have looked too quickly and it was Axiom - sprouty is almost as bad as Ax as far as I am concerned. Coz i am only occasional I am bearable


Your not bearable, your offensive and aggresive to other, sprouty dribbles a lot, but doesnt offend or attack others :twisted:

antichrist
21-09-2009, 10:37 PM
Your not bearable, your offensive and aggresive to other, sprouty dribbles a lot, but doesnt offend or attack others :twisted:

May be but how come my girlfriend still loves me very much? Absolutely adores me she does - my sense of humour and stirs - goes crazy without me. Must have something going for me.

I love you too sweetie.

antichrist
25-09-2009, 10:19 PM
Hey Bill, you owe me a favour, I got AO to let you back into *******. You too KB when you get into trouble you know who to call. But I promised AO that you have both turned over a new leaf.

Bill Gletsos
25-09-2009, 11:10 PM
Hey Bill, you owe me a favour, I got AO to let you back into *******. You too KB when you get into trouble you know who to call. But I promised AO that you have both turned over a new leaf.You did nothing that contributed to AO lifting the ban. He did so in response to an email from me.
In fact I am surprised you did not make the situation worse.

Rincewind
25-09-2009, 11:31 PM
In fact I am surprised you did not make the situation worse.

Give him time.

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2009, 12:58 AM
AC, please keep stuff that is purely about the other site off this thread in future. This thread is for discussion of moderation on this site.

antichrist
30-09-2009, 11:53 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=10784

I post something totally libellous and its given sunlight, whereas my little ditty about Denis marrying the leader of trodgadykes on bikes never stays in first gear, the clutch keeps slipping

Kevin Bonham
01-10-2009, 12:51 AM
I don't think it was libellous at all, but on further consideration it was needlessly starting a new topic so I have deleted it as well.

Garvinator
10-10-2009, 12:57 AM
I would suggest that when the real Comrade comes back that he chooses a new handle as well.

antichrist
11-10-2009, 03:40 PM
From Mod Decisions:

BG:
Antichrist banned for a week for reposting a previously deleted off topic post as an off topic post in another thread.
_______________

Bill from ******* Forum commenting on same ban:

You have repeatedly been warned about making off topic posts.
You posted your rubbish in JAK's interview thread where it was clearly off topic and it was for that reason you were banned.
__________________________________________________ _________

Bill, these seem to me to maybe contradictory as I can't remember reposting a deleted post in the Interview thread? Was the repetition deleted? What was the essence of the repetition so that I may remember it?

antichrist
11-10-2009, 04:13 PM
What is comment between poster "friends" and is accepted by all as being okay, is later decreed by a mod to be off topic and a barring issued. If the other conversationist completely accepts it and there is no complaint is there the need for a mod to unnecessarily interfere? We don't interfere in every conversation that children make in good faith even though we have the powers to. Surely live and let live is okay amongst adults. Is the cut and thrust here so brutal that half a toe over the sideline is declared a foot fault?

What about Jono's permanent sermons after his posts that invade every thread he comments in? They are called by-lines or something. I will include a few choice offensive ones like he also has and see if I receive the same leniency? At least I find them offensive.

Bill Gletsos
11-10-2009, 05:28 PM
From Mod Decisions:

BG:
Antichrist banned for a week for reposting a previously deleted off topic post as an off topic post in another thread.
_______________

Bill from ******* Forum commenting on same ban:

You have repeatedly been warned about making off topic posts.
You posted your rubbish in JAK's interview thread where it was clearly off topic and it was for that reason you were banned.
__________________________________________________ _________

Bill, these seem to me to maybe contradictory as I can't remember reposting a deleted post in the Interview thread? Was the repetition deleted? What was the essence of the repetition so that I may remember it?Stop playing stupid AC you know full well what post it was as you referred to it on the toolbox.
You have been warned about off topic posts in the past.
Kevin deleted it twice from two separate threads and I deleted it a third time from JAK's interview thread when I banned you.
It was completely off topic in JAK's interview thread.

Garvinator
11-10-2009, 05:51 PM
Stop playing stupid AC you know full well what post it was as you referred to it on the toolbox.
I don't think he is playing ;)

antichrist
12-10-2009, 02:41 PM
Stop playing stupid AC you know full well what post it was as you referred to it on the toolbox.
You have been warned about off topic posts in the past.
Kevin deleted it twice from two separate threads and I deleted it a third time from JAK's interview thread when I banned you.
It was completely off topic in JAK's interview thread.

Hey Gavinator, you may be correct I was not playing. Bill, I really can't remember posting that ditty a third time in Interview thread -does anyone else remember? You are not imagining it are you?

Well if that is the case you will have to challenge me instead in grudge match!

ER
15-10-2009, 04:29 PM
ok about A/C since it happened that some of his punishments have occured while he is engaging with me, I feel a bit sorry for the silly bugger! Since he has shown that he is not exactly proud of what he's done and keeps on sulking uncontrollably, is there any chance to reduce his sentence from three to say 1 1/2 weeks? And if he promises he won't do it again maybe to one week?
Also can I suggest old age as a factor for showing some leniency to certain serial offenders? I mean you don't really expect A/C to really change now do you?

Kevin Bonham
15-10-2009, 05:18 PM
AC is such a serial offender (albeit mostly small fry) that he should consider himself lucky he is allowed to post any more often than, say, about one six-hour guest appearance per month.

ER
15-10-2009, 05:23 PM
That's an idea! hey how about implementing it? Actually sounds great! It's going to be like a radio program, with ratings, ads etc! Go for it! :clap:

Bill Gletsos
15-10-2009, 06:32 PM
ok about A/C since it happened that some of his punishments have occured while he is engaging with me, I feel a bit sorry for the silly bugger! Since he has shown that he is not exactly proud of what he's done and keeps on sulking uncontrollably, is there any chance to reduce his sentence from three to say 1 1/2 weeks? And if he promises he won't do it again maybe to one week?
Also can I suggest old age as a factor for showing some leniency to certain serial offenders? I mean you don't really expect A/C to really change now do you?A/C was only recently banned for posting on behalf of a banned poster. After claiming he didnt realise that the poster was banned we lifted that ban. Just on 2 weeks later he does the exact same thing involving the same banned poster.

As Kevin said he is a serial offender.

His current ban will not be reduced.

ER
16-10-2009, 04:34 PM
As Kevin said he is a serial offender.

yes but

(albeit mostly small fry) :P

ER
20-10-2009, 05:00 PM
Not over yet? I can see him getting http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Unhappy/unhappy-060.GIF!!!

Bill Gletsos
20-10-2009, 05:09 PM
Not over yet? I can see him getting http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Unhappy/unhappy-060.GIF!!!He still has just under two weeks to go so will not be with us until the evening of 3rd November.

ER
20-10-2009, 10:51 PM
He still has just under two weeks to go so will not be with us until the evening of 3rd November.

That's going to be the last day of the Melbourne Chess Club Weekender! Talking about weekenders can't we use a system like giving some inmates time out on leave to spend with their families, (I mean their online families here) or serve the rest of their sentence during weekends? Or even have a No of hours monthly during which they can visit the forum?

Garvinator
20-10-2009, 10:55 PM
That's going to be the last day of the Melbourne Chess Club Weekender! Talking about weekenders can't we use a system like giving some inmates time out on leave to spend with their families, (I mean their online families here) or serve the rest of their sentence during weekends? Or even have a No of hours monthly during which they can visit the forum?
Why are you being an apologist for his behaviour in trying to get his sentence reduced?

Kevin Bonham
20-10-2009, 11:50 PM
Why are you being an apologist for his behaviour in trying to get his sentence reduced?

I wondered the same thing; responding to these futile requests is certainly a complete waste of my time and frankly I'd appreciate them not being made in the first place.

Given AC's past form, any ban he gets that is less than three months long already has more leniency than he deserves factored into it. Can't remember whether I have done so in the past but henceforth I will neither implement nor support any call for a ban on AC to be reduced if that call is made by a third party. We do from time to time reduce his bans on our own initiative or in response to communication from him.

Garvinator
20-10-2009, 11:54 PM
Given AC's past form, any ban he gets that is less than three months long already has more leniency than he deserves factored into it. Can't remember whether I have done so in the past but henceforth I will neither implement nor support any call for a ban on AC to be reduced if that call is made by a third party. We do from time to time reduce his bans on our own initiative or in response to communication from him.
Given AC's past form, when he gets a new ban for something that he has already been banned for in the past, his new ban should automatically be longer than his previous ban. So, if he got 1 month for off topic trolling, then when he gets banned again for off topic trolling, his new ban is longer than 1 month.

ER
21-10-2009, 12:37 AM
I am forming a prison reform committee! I also want to propose reduction of punishment with the introduction of a community service system! You can include it in the pointless whinging part of this thread if you find it annoying, revolting, disgusting or simply threatening!

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2009, 12:02 PM
I am forming a prison reform committee! I also want to propose reduction of punishment with the introduction of a community service system! You can include it in the pointless whinging part of this thread if you find it annoying, revolting, disgusting or simply threatening!

I don't find it any of the latter four but I do find it a complete waste of time and think it's more in the nature of a running joke than a serious proposal.

littlesprout85
24-10-2009, 06:55 PM
Sprouty would like to thank BG's & KB's for the great job they do here at chesschats. :owned:

Would also like to know if the ban on axioms will ever be lifted.Sprouty is neither for or against ems ban- just would like to know if ems will ever be back onz chesschats :S

-Sprout85 =)

Rincewind
24-10-2009, 07:46 PM
Would also like to know if the ban on axioms will ever be lifted.Sprouty is neither for or against ems ban- just would like to know if ems will ever be back onz chesschats

Never say never. But considering the number of hydras and hackings of existing users' accounts that Axiom has perpetrated I would not expect to see him on Chesschat for quite some time to come.

antichrist
25-10-2009, 03:04 PM
I wondered the same thing; responding to these futile requests is certainly a complete waste of my time and frankly I'd appreciate them not being made in the first place.

Given AC's past form, any ban he gets that is less than three months long already has more leniency than he deserves factored into it. Can't remember whether I have done so in the past but henceforth I will neither implement nor support any call for a ban on AC to be reduced if that call is made by a third party. We do from time to time reduce his bans on our own initiative or in response to communication from him.

And being consistent you will never increase future bans as requested by a third party, namely Gavinator, in his post a few blocks up. This guy would lock em up and throw away the key. Talk about no sense of justice that guy. He would lock his grandmother up.

Adamski
25-10-2009, 05:06 PM
I note that AC is back before 3 Nov. There must have been a reduction of his sentence.

antichrist
25-10-2009, 05:43 PM
I note that AC is back before 3 Nov. There must have been a reduction of his sentence.

The trade off is that I am going to back Bill up "over there"!

That apology of Chessguru to BIll I repeated over there in big red letters

ER
25-10-2009, 06:05 PM
Not a word of thanks for my campaign to liberate you, you ungrateful silly old bugga! NExt time i 'll apply for increase of sentence not a reduction, wait and see!

antichrist
25-10-2009, 06:10 PM
Not a word of thanks for my campaign to liberate you, you ungrateful silly old bugga! NExt time i 'll apply for increase of sentence not a reduction, wait and see!

Actually I appreciated it very much and thanks, even though KB was pretending to be John Howard staring down a boatload of Afghan refugees.

I got to feeling that Zochat was like Chesschat lite, or having a nicoteene patch on.

For further comment:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=259154#post259154

ER
25-10-2009, 06:38 PM
Actually I appreciated it very much and thanks, even though KB was pretending to be John Howard staring down a boatload of Afghan refugees...

hey don't go that far, accoding to Howie (Gunna) Rudd is worse and we might end up next cell to Chapelle Corby cauz he's sending all refos back to Indonesia!


I got to feeling that Zochat was like Chesschat lite, or having a nicoteene patch on

More like cold turkey I reckon!

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2009, 06:58 PM
I note that AC is back before 3 Nov. There must have been a reduction of his sentence.Correct.

Bill Gletsos
25-10-2009, 06:58 PM
Not a word of thanks for my campaign to liberate you, you ungrateful silly old bugga! NExt time i 'll apply for increase of sentence not a reduction, wait and see!Your campaign had nothing to do with it.

ER
26-10-2009, 11:41 AM
At least I tried. I want to make sure he stays out of trouble till around Xmas, NY period!

antichrist
26-10-2009, 03:28 PM
Not a word of thanks for my campaign to liberate you, you ungrateful silly old bugga! NExt time i 'll apply for increase of sentence not a reduction, wait and see!

I also could have elaborated that Bill was taking the part of Philipp Ruddock. And you were only Jaydon Lite - you did not fling yourself at the barb wire fences and dodging hand grenades and getting yourself banned like hero Jaydon did over Axiom. Now did you?

ER
26-10-2009, 06:25 PM
I also could have elaborated that Bill was taking the part of Philipp Ruddock. And you were only Jaydon Lite - you did not fling yourself at the barb wire fences and dodging hand grenades and getting yourself banned like hero Jaydon did over Axiom. Now did you?

Nop, cauz I have already interviewed Ax; that's why I try to save you like an endangered gorilla species or something!

antichrist
26-10-2009, 09:15 PM
How come sprouty can run amok in the shoutbox? If was some other lumineri they would cop the boot

Basil
26-10-2009, 09:18 PM
How come sprouty can run amok in the shoutbox? If was some other lumineri they would cop the boot
A legitimate question. I would encourage the mods to have a quiet word and provide a little direction.

ElevatorEscapee
26-10-2009, 11:15 PM
Yeah... they should tell Howie to stop doing it! ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2009, 12:24 AM
How come sprouty can run amok in the shoutbox? If was some other lumineri they would cop the boot

Haven't seen the last 4 days of form but we do draw a distinction between those who run amok with contentious ranting and provocation vs those who just run amok with fluff and dribble.

However the use of the shoutbox to pour out song lyrics etc at great length is disapproved of whoever does it.

Basil
28-10-2009, 03:04 PM
I think the extended monolgue ruling is required to be (officially) enacted. Nothing too heavy. Foot fault gentle warning is all that's required in the first instance. It can be called the 'whoa there cowboy' warning!

antichrist
29-10-2009, 02:28 AM
I think the extended monolgue ruling is required to be (officially) enacted. Nothing to heavy. Foot fault gentle warning is all that's required in the first instance. It can be called the 'whoa there cowboy' warning!

I agree, there postings is overboard

ER
31-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Hey A/C we must get around the banned chatter's rule, for the interview. Let's face it chances are you 'll be locked in with the key thrown away when the time comes for the completion and publication. I think there are two sound options here.
1) you either shut up or think before you type then shut up again and give it a second thought (I don't know why i classified this as a sound option but anyway I still believe in miracles)! and
2) to try to convince the mods that publishing your answers even posthumously will be good for rating purposes and/or for scientific research like when they examine great loony brains to see how much crap they contained etc

ER
01-11-2009, 10:51 PM
There is a discussion in the shoutbox in regards to (of what I understand a priviledged) account lending /access to / permission to use, from one member to another member/non member given a situation that has arisen elsewhere.
Is this a practice that occurs in this forum as well, apart from cases of designation / appointment of a new mod etc? If yes, under what circumstances?

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2009, 01:21 AM
There is a discussion in the shoutbox in regards to (of what I understand a priviledged) account lending /access to / permission to use, from one member to another member/non member given a situation that has arisen elsewhere.

I assume this is a reference to the stuff MOZ raised re Frosty's (now The Snail King's) use of an account to investigate a claim that a post had been deleted on the other forum some time ago.

AFAIR Alex is correct that a special admin account was temporarily set up over there for Frosty to use for the purpose of the investigation. That account was called "Spiny Sleuth". I doubt whether the stuff about MOZ loaning his account to another poster is actually correct.


Is this a practice that occurs in this forum as well, apart from cases of designation / appointment of a new mod etc? If yes, under what circumstances?

No. Not even in the case of appointment of a new mod. If we want to appoint a new mod we just move their existing account to a different usergroup.

ER
02-11-2009, 04:40 AM
I assume this is a reference to the stuff MOZ raised re Frosty's (now The Snail King's) use of an account to investigate a claim that a post had been deleted on the other forum some time ago.

Yes it was reference to that. So SK was brought in as an objective investigator, as a person mutually acceptable due to his undisputable integrity as well as his technological expertees!


AFAIR Alex is correct that a special admin account was temporarily set up over there for Frosty to use for the purpose of the investigation. That account was called "Spiny Sleuth". I doubt whether the stuff about MOZ loaning his account to another poster is actually correct.

Did that happen a long time ago? I mean in all fairness providing your account to another user for whatever use is not something easily forgetable, unless it happened really a long time ago!


No. Not even in the case of appointment of a new mod. If we want to appoint a new mod we just move their existing account to a different usergroup.

That makes sense and thanks for the information, I think not many members, including myself, would like this practice taking place in the Forums we belong!

Desmond
02-11-2009, 09:03 AM
Probably a case of a story teller forgetting the finer points of his story later on.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2009, 11:18 AM
Did that happen a long time ago?

Two years ago. The matter was investigated in November 2007.

antichrist
02-11-2009, 03:24 PM
Hey A/C we must get around the banned chatter's rule, for the interview. Let's face it chances are you 'll be locked in with the key thrown away when the time comes for the completion and publication. I think there are two sound options here.
1) you either shut up or think before you type then shut up again and give it a second thought (I don't know why i classified this as a sound option but anyway I still believe in miracles)! and
2) to try to convince the mods that publishing your answers even posthumously will be good for rating purposes and/or for scientific research like when they examine great loony brains to see how much crap they contained etc

I will have you know that I will decide if I get barred or not and under what conditions I will be barred.

If KB can learn from John Howard how to stare barred people down well I also can learn how and when...

As far as my mushy brain goes could it because of all those sheep brains I ate as a youngster? Mato sauce on them was beautiful, with toast of course.

antichrist
02-11-2009, 03:27 PM
Mod policy?

I think I have observed that a second mod will make a penalty more severe but never interfere and make a lesser penalty. Is that correct? It has other maybe unforeseen consequences. And we all interested in justice here - right? (bullshit)

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2009, 03:28 PM
I think I have observed that a second mod will make a penalty more severe but never interfere and make a lesser penalty. Is that correct?

Can you cite even a single incident where this has happened?

antichrist
02-11-2009, 04:26 PM
Can you cite even a single incident where this has happened?

When I think about it again, I have had so many and overlapping bans maybe this did or did not occur, pretty confusing when still fighting over first ban when banned again. But would you like to answer the question anyway please?