PDA

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



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

antichrist
28-07-2011, 10:36 PM
he is damn lucky coz he posted it at 5.30 here and 5.34 over there - is he becoming one of us?

He did not acknowledge that I gave him the hint there 3 days ago

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2011, 11:01 PM
It makes no difference what time he posted it where.

antichrist
29-07-2011, 08:26 AM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=315523#post315523

how come Jono can quote whole articles from newspapers but I can't coz breaking copyright, [rest deleted-mod]

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2011, 01:10 PM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=315523#post315523

how come Jono can quote whole articles from newspapers

He (generally) doesn't. In the post you reference he gives three paragraphs from a 14 paragraph article.

I deleted the rest of your previous post as you have been previously directed to post rubbish about defamation - and it was rubbish - only on the Libel and the Forum thread. Do not repost it there in this instance.

antichrist
10-08-2011, 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

Moderation Notice

antichrist is permanently banned from posting on this thread for posting off-topic material.

Garvinator:
Feel free to extend that to a site wide permanent ban!
__________________

AC
doesn't someone here deserve a yellow card for being off-topic?

[Mod response: upheld, off-topic post deleted.]

Hobbes
16-08-2011, 04:58 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=316937&postcount=260

Instead of giving AC complete site bans for 2 week periods, is it possible to punish his smaller indiscretions by banning him from everything except his off-topic bin for a time?

I admit to being an AC fan (at least when he is not on his Israeli bandwagon), he can be very funny. Putting him on the slippery slope leading to permanent banning would be a pity I think. AC is not in the same category as some of the malicious trolls of a few years ago.

PS, I hope this blatantly off-topic post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=314848&postcount=81) was taken into account for his current banning!

Adamski
16-08-2011, 05:13 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=316937&postcount=260

Instead of giving AC complete site bans for 2 week periods, is it possible to punish his smaller indiscretions by banning him from everything except his off-topic bin for a time?

I admit to being an AC fan (at least when he is not on his Israeli bandwagon), he can be very funny. Putting him on the slippery slope leading to permanent banning would be a pity I think. AC is not in the same category as some of the malicious trolls of a few years ago.

PS, I hope this blatantly off-topic post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=314848&postcount=81) was taken into account for his current banning!
I agree with Hobbes. Recent offences not serious enough for ban from complete board.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2011, 09:17 PM
I agree with Hobbes. Recent offences not serious enough for ban from complete board.

The thing is that an ordinary poster doesn't actually see most of the offences since they are generally quickly removed by the mods. And the problem is often not each individual offence but the sheer weight of numbers of them, and the way AC creates a large workload for site staff by not making more of an effort to stop the stupid stuff. He is about ten times more labour-intensive than all the other posters put together.


Instead of giving AC complete site bans for 2 week periods, is it possible to punish his smaller indiscretions by banning him from everything except his off-topic bin for a time?

We can restrict posters to certain forums. I don't think we can restrict them to specific threads. The problem is that just barring him from some sections of the board doesn't seem to discourage his behaviour in the slightest.


Putting him on the slippery slope leading to permanent banning would be a pity I think. AC is not in the same category as some of the malicious trolls of a few years ago.

He is indeed not in their category and I am keen not to permanently ban him if all he is going to be is nuisance value. If he started signing up hydras while banned then he would be on the slippery slope.

I should point out that at stages in the past AC was on zero tolerance with two month bans (albeit for a shorter list of transgressions than the new one).

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
16-08-2011, 09:42 PM
i propose banning him from the internet entirely. actually make that a ban on all possible verbal and non verbal communication for the rest of his life

you know it makes sense.

Rincewind
17-08-2011, 10:18 AM
i propose banning him from the internet entirely. actually make that a ban on all possible verbal and non verbal communication for the rest of his life

you know it makes sense.

Should we also eat more lamb?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-08-2011, 01:07 PM
Should we also eat more lamb?

only on and in the weeks preceding ostraylyuh day.

Rincewind
17-08-2011, 03:19 PM
only on and in the weeks preceding ostraylyuh day.

Thanks Sam.

Adamski
17-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Should we also eat more lamb?
Roast AC with spuds and peas I think.

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2011, 09:37 PM
Should we also eat more lamb?

Ignosheep cutlets are good. :lol:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-08-2011, 10:24 PM
thats the spirit. dont be un-ostrayl-yun.

ive had a gutful of all the sissy prada wearing, audi driving posers, sipping highfalutin named varieties of coffee, wasting everybodys time lookin like idiots and getting in my way when lanes merge.

just wack some lamb on the barbie and follow your local sporting team. just do what i say and you wont be as useless as a dozen dragqueens at a slaughterhouse if they finally reintroduce conscription to sort out all the limp wristed metrosexuals from the real men of this great brown land called oz.

you know it makes sense.

im juice by tappy. :D

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2011, 10:33 PM
OK, no more off-topic posts on this thread for a while please.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
17-08-2011, 11:23 PM
OK, no more off-topic posts on this thread for a while please.

ignosheep ?? :cool:

Kevin Bonham
17-08-2011, 11:30 PM
I was among the guilty in this instance but it is time for it to stop. Delete button enabled!

Hobbes
30-08-2011, 05:53 PM
30-08-2011 03:24 PM Kevin Bonham
3 hours left til the idiot is unbanned unless he ramps up his efforts to get rebanned in the meantime

Hope AC appreciates this mercy since 3 full weeks is not up until tomorrow, some of his bonus week off must have been served concurrently with the original time!

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2011, 06:10 PM
Hope AC appreciates this mercy since 3 full weeks is not up until tomorrow, some of his bonus week off must have been served concurrently with the original time!

It was. When I reset his ban to a week he still had about a day of the previous ban left so he really only got an extra six days.

He's seemed to be clearly fishing for being kept off longer with his behaviour over there in the last 24 hours but as he hasn't violated anything he didn't already violate I didn't give it to him.

Garvinator
01-11-2011, 08:31 PM
I have also made this post in the thread: http://www.chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=320508

I am wondering when a thread split is going to take place as it is almost due.

The discussion has taken two very different tangents. The first is the issue of what the organiser/arbiter can do with these types of situations and the second is the wider issue of Arab/Israel conflict.

I think discussion of the first issue should continue in this thread and the second issue be moved to a second thread.

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2011, 08:51 PM
I'm keeping an eye on it and it may get split soon. It's one on which some level of drift into off-topic areas is unavoidable because it's difficult to have the argument for or against Iran's restrictions on its players without also having the argument about Israel's behaviour to which those restrictions are supposedly a reply. However the discussion of the latter tends to be more heat than light. There's been about 10 posts so far that might get moved and I think I'll decide it based on whether those sorts of posts only bob up now and then or whether the thread starts getting dominated by long and probably pointless exchanges of them.

Max Illingworth
01-11-2011, 08:57 PM
I'm keeping an eye on it and it may get split soon. It's one on which some level of drift into off-topic areas is unavoidable because it's difficult to have the argument for or against Iran's restrictions on its players without also having the argument about Israel's behaviour to which those restrictions are supposedly a reply. However the discussion of the latter tends to be more heat than light. There's been about 10 posts so far that might get moved and I think I'll decide it based on whether those sorts of posts only bob up now and then or whether the thread starts getting dominated by long and probably pointless exchanges of them.

I think a thread split would be a good idea.

Kevin Bonham
01-11-2011, 09:14 PM
Some posts have now been moved.

Garvinator
07-11-2011, 02:57 PM
I am starting to think that we are starting to see a few hydras, with kibitzer and kayo being the main handles. We seem to have had a few new anonymous posters, which seems suspicious.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2011, 08:31 PM
I am starting to think that we are starting to see a few hydras, with kibitzer and kayo being the main handles. We seem to have had a few new anonymous posters, which seems suspicious.

There has actually been quite a plague of Axiom hydras in the last few days; we have banned/deleted dozens. kayo was an Axiom hydra but kibitzer is a legitimate user.

Garvinator
11-11-2011, 05:23 PM
There has actually been quite a plague of Axiom hydras in the last few days; we have banned/deleted dozens. kayo was an Axiom hydra but kibitzer is a legitimate user.
:uhoh:

Ian Murray
11-11-2011, 05:51 PM
The two latest posts in the Sanctions against Israel thread, one from Jono and my counter re Goldstone, belong in the Gaza Conflict thread

[done and subsequent moved too - mod]

antichrist
13-11-2011, 06:24 AM
my 18YO + thread is still locked that forced me to post such material in AC Apprec Club that also got locked - gee my nose is getting out of joint, and I dont mean reefers

Garvinator
14-11-2011, 02:31 AM
Bonneville was a hydra. Could not see that one coming :whistle:

antichrist
23-11-2011, 08:25 PM
http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=322166#post322166


I the undersigned hereby request permission to repost the abovementioned post to the dark side, as FG has strong views on this topic and it may actually get a response. thanks in anti

AC

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2011, 09:27 PM
I the undersigned hereby request permission to repost the abovementioned post to the dark side, as FG has strong views on this topic and it may actually get a response.

A response which would be frothy and clueless and useless as firegoat is completely hopeless on the topic of ratings.

I'm a bit concerned that if you do drag it over there the author may be abused by some of those over there so as far as I'm concerned you can drag it only if the author of the post gives you permission to post it there. [EDIT: I see there is a post by The Seeing, an Axiom hydra which is on my ignore list, on a relevant thread - so I suspect it's been quoted over there already.]

Metro
26-11-2011, 06:16 PM
I think discussion of permitting OS players to play in Aus.Champ's should be moved to a thread in Australian Chess.Thanks Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2011, 06:22 PM
I think discussion of permitting OS players to play in Aus.Champ's should be moved to a thread in Australian Chess.

Agreed and done.

antichrist
13-12-2011, 10:30 AM
A just-started thread has been moved offline for legal review as it appeared possibly defamatory. It may or may not be returned, and if it is this may be in edited form.

How dare you give someone else attention

ER
15-12-2011, 12:12 AM
How come you (whoever you are) edit my posts when I quote lists of participants in tournaments and you allow others to cut and paste whole bloody lists (which are wrong and inaccurate anyway?) Bill exposed one of those in the shoutbox and now my friend and fellow Collingwood supporter Michael does the same and he goes unedited?

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2011, 12:18 AM
How come you (whoever you are) edit my posts when I quote lists of participants in tournaments and you allow others to cut and paste whole bloody lists (which are wrong and inaccurate anyway?)

I have a dislike of the lazy habit common to many posters of quoting huge posts unnecessarily when adding a single line of reply. It makes the forum less easy to read quickly by forcing people to scroll through more to get to real content.

I will zap overquoting of this kind by any poster who does it whenever I feel so inclined, and leave it whenever I don't notice it, momentarily don't care, or can't be bothered. All complaints about the choice of posts or posters targeted in this process may be directed to The C*B*L (There Is No C*B*L) c/- Bilderberg Group, The Paranoia Centre, What Remains Of Axiom's Brain, 0013.

However, I also zapped the overquote you mentioned.

ER
15-12-2011, 12:32 AM
I have a dislike of the lazy habit common to many posters of quoting huge posts unnecessarily when adding a single line of reply. It makes the forum less easy to read quickly by forcing people to scroll through more to get to real content.

I will zap overquoting of this kind by any poster who does it whenever I feel so inclined, and leave it whenever I don't notice it, momentarily don't care, or can't be bothered. All complaints about the choice of posts or posters targeted in this process may be directed to The C*B*L (There Is No C*B*L) c/- Bilderberg Group, The Paranoia Centre, What Remains Of Axiom's Brain, 0013.

However, I also zapped the overquote you mentioned.

Hehe I had a suspicion it was you! Now I know! :owned: :P Hey, those three suggestions could become interesting threads! I was about to start a Brainetics thread anyway, I might incorporate them there!

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2011, 11:11 AM
Posts moved

Discussion of accuracy or otherwise of Aus Champs lists in response to #1286 (which was itself moved from Aus Champs thread) moved to Australian Chess.

antichrist
21-12-2011, 10:00 AM
ou 've been placed in the right place. Enjoy the company (and the stench)!


AC
this is not suitable language for open BB

antichrist
24-12-2011, 11:58 AM
I think sprouty broke the speed limit last night and it is double demerit points for Christmas holiday period

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2011, 06:47 PM
I think sprouty broke the speed limit last night and it is double demerit points for Christmas holiday period

OK, I'll count that as a double whinge against your quota then. :lol:

antichrist
30-12-2011, 11:28 AM
OK, I'll count that as a double whinge against your quota then. :lol:

and dont undercount my barring a few nights ago in Mod Decisions, I like those stats no one will ever come near them

Beauty that was calling my disputers (that just happened to be hierarchy of board) a ship of fools in response to RW's load of pants re immorality of increment time

Garrett
30-12-2011, 04:50 PM
antichrist shoutbox-banned for 24 hours for trolling a poster about their username.

I bet it was little-spout

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2011, 04:52 PM
I bet it was little-spout

Nope!

antichrist
30-12-2011, 08:04 PM
Nope!

same answer to my request to have my barring 28 DEc listed

antichrist
05-01-2012, 10:53 AM
Is it true that FG Beaumont and Starter/Moz/Stanning have been permanently banned because FG barred antisense from ******* even though antisense does not even post there or not for long time?

Seems over the top punishment, not fitting the crime nor the persons, and FG's barring was against a 3rd person anyway who may not even care - a victimless crime I would classify FG's actions as.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2012, 11:04 AM
Is it true that FG Beaumont and Starter/Moz/Stanning have been permanently banned because FG barred antisense from ******* even though antisense does not even post there or not for long time?

No, it is not true in either case.

firegoat's last reign as mod over there was so idiotic that he was sternly warned that he should not agree to become mod over there, and if it happened, and our active members were affected, even once, he would most likely be permanently banned and irreversably so.

firegoat triggered this condition when he issued a deliberately silly ultimatum (I was to either unban Dean Hogg from the shoutbox here or else make you a moderator here) and then silenced me from their shoutbox. Clearly he was doing it deliberately to get himself permanently banned. It was not so much a punishment as giving him what he had specifically wished for a number of times. He claims to have no further interest in using his CC account anyway so it is a non-issue - except for you!

MOZ's ban is not permanent but indefinite. The shoutbox-silence on me was soon reversed by other mods (whether with or without firegoat's consent I do not know) but another Chesschat member remains banned, supposedly only for 24 hours but who knows. As MOZ was blatantly inciting firegoat to impose a ban on me and firegoat's ban on that member was connected to firegoat's ban on me, MOZ is banned until that action is reversed. Once I see it is reversed or expired, MOZ will be unbanned ... for now.

If MOZ wants to be unbanned he can use his own moderator powers over there to annul firegoat's idiotic ban on antisense. The same will apply to future bannings since MOZ is directly responsible for firegoat becoming a mod there and targeting our members. Again, MOZ no longer uses his account here at all so the only person affected by us banning him is you.

I should add that if I really wanted to criticise CV I would not be using words like "ungovernable" and "failure". I would be using words like "clocks", "unorthodox appropriation", "lack of adequate communication", "greatly inconveniencing the organisers of a successful national event", "self-contradiction" and "heads in the sand". :evil:

antichrist
05-01-2012, 11:09 AM
firegoat7
Account Permanently Banned
2,809 03-04-2008

Ac
so this above is sensationalism like front page newspapers? for dramatic purposes?

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2012, 11:15 AM
firegoat7
Account Permanently Banned
2,809 03-04-2008

Ac
so this above is sensationalism like front page newspapers? for dramatic purposes?

Sheesh, learn to read AC. firegoat is permanently banned but what I was saying above was that your claim that he was banned from here for banning antisense is false.

He is banned because he has accepted a mod position there and misused it even once despite being warned that given his past record he should not accept a mod position there again.

He stays banned for good even when the consequences of him doing so are rectified. After all the same thing will presumably happen again.

antichrist
13-01-2012, 11:32 AM
KB, we know that my whinge limits are based on week but that week can start on any day, remember that poll whether weeks begins on Sunday or Monday. So my one re-igniting of old thread per day, does that day begin at midnight or at any hour of day nominated by yourself as beginning of a CC day?

antichrist
13-01-2012, 10:16 PM
Scorpio
Account Compromised


what does this mean?

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2012, 10:34 PM
Compromised accounts are explained here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=257346&postcount=222). We freeze accounts that have been operated by banned users so that they cannot be used until the real owner contacts us.

As for the bumping quota consider it to be on a calendar-day basis but also if making one bump before midnight and another after allow at least 3 hours between them.

antichrist
06-02-2012, 10:20 PM
Jak's post in Aust Champs subsidation contains untruths and only attacks keen volunteers who did an excellent job for many years.

I request such post be deleted. They do not serve any good purpose in chess.

antichrist
06-02-2012, 11:01 PM
A person referred to in that post went to prison for refusing to salute Hitler, was ex-secretary of the NSWCA, and now has recently passed away, and is now being referred to a drongo. How shocking. Why wasn't the comment made when he was living and could defend himself - what a cowardly act.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2012, 11:08 PM
I think JaK's actual intent was to imply that the drongo was you. Anyway I do not think that his comment would be taken as referring to the person you are referring to.

antichrist
06-02-2012, 11:14 PM
I think JaK's actual intent was to imply that the drongo was you. Anyway I do not think that his comment would be taken as referring to the person you are referring to.

well the last 6 years of that comp was organised by one person alone I was 500 miles away. His name was in SMH Parr's column and all literature for 6 years. And plural is stated! Even if no one else was mentioned why should someone be attacked for organising perfectly good comp., there was never any trouble. Due to the precedent that was created by SEC now other clubs are also staging Easter comps for the same reasons that SEC existed.

If this is the treatment that volunteers cop for taking initiative and working hard why should they bother.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2012, 11:18 PM
well the last 6 years of that comp was organised by one person alone I was 500 miles away.

JaK's comment said nothing about the last 6 years and clearly referred to initiation of the event or a hypothetical one resembling it.

ER
06-02-2012, 11:21 PM
I think JaK's actual intent was to imply that the drongo was you. Anyway I do not think that his comment would be taken as referring to the person you are referring to.

Oh, I think if I was to refer to him (AC) I would have chosen something more subtle ie either stupid or clueless as in Bill's quote.
What is he on anyway?
Drongos could be any future Doeberl antagonists.
Doeberl is always held duringEaster!
The tent could be a circus, or any other tent!
Hay could be used to soften the impact on participants bums having to sit on the ground!
Australia has the largest population of camels in the world!
Camels eat hay!
And of course no sane participant would pay to play in such an event!
These are all imaginary future situations and no reference to real dead or alive people was intended!

antichrist
06-02-2012, 11:26 PM
JaK's comment said nothing about the last 6 years and clearly referred to initiation of the event or a hypothetical one resembling it.

on chess forums should not volunteers be protected from gratuitous attacks that serve no purpose? can we all start putting the boot in to any volunteer we dont like for no reason other then for them being a volunteer and organiser with initiative.

For consistency I have defended yourself (not that you need) and JCL recently and Bill in days long past.

ER
07-02-2012, 12:01 AM
What an absolute and typical distortion of what was posted in another thread!

Here is my post in response to continuous AC bullshit.


Oh, I think if I was to refer to him (AC) I would have chosen something more subtle ie either stupid or clueless as in Bill's quote.
What is he on anyway?
Drongos could be any future Doeberl antagonists.
Doeberl is always held duringEaster!
The tent could be a circus, or any other tent!
Hay could be used to soften the impact on participants bums having to sit on the ground!
Australia has the largest population of camels in the world!
Camels eat hay!
And of course no sane participant would pay to play in such an event!
These are all imaginary future situations and no reference to real dead or alive people was intended!

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2012, 10:15 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is banned from this thread and from making any public comment whatsoever about CC moderation on this or any other site for one month for exceeding his moderation whinging allowance.

Any breach of this ruling will result in him being placed on moderation and banned from the shoutbox for the remainder of the month.

Hobbes
22-03-2012, 11:26 AM
Ignorantia legis non excusat

ElevatorEscapee
23-03-2012, 08:11 PM
^^^
Semper ubi, sub ubi. ;)

Desmond
24-03-2012, 12:01 AM
Non loquor latine, sed utor Google.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2012, 09:32 PM
Mrs Jono, who seems unduly fond of backseat moderating, has written the following:


Do you consider everyone who kindly tries to point out a topic was split in the wrong spot, leaving some of the pertinent discussion behind, 'attacking' you?

This supposedly relates to my splitting of posts from the birtherism thread back to the racism thread.

I make the following comments on this:

* Posts were split from the racism thread to the birtherism thread when they drifted to the tangent of whether or not Jono was a birther.

* One of the moved posts (now #5 on the birtherism thread) also covered the issue of whether Jono was a racist, but was mainly to do with birtherism.

* Jono's response (#7) was also mainly on the subject of birtherism but among other things included a claim by Jono that he had a "proven anti-racist view".

* That claim from Jono resulted in a number of posts that returned to the race issue and were not relevant to the birtherism issue.

* Those posts were therefore returned to the race thread.

* Mrs Jono's complaint about me supposedly splitting in the wrong spot just because some pertinent discussion was left in another place is silly and unperceptive, and indeed inconsiderate in a manner I find distinctly less than "kind" (albeit on a trivial level). Frequently themes from different discussions overlap in a less than neat manner. A post that is mainly on a particular matter belongs in the thread devoted to that matter even if it includes some content that could belong on a different thread. A common standard I use for thread-splitting is to move those posts that are either totally or very largely off-topic for the thread they are on.

ER
06-08-2012, 03:27 PM
BTW I recently joined another forum re Melbourne and Australian Architecture topics. If you think this forum has strict rules, you better think twice! :doh: :eek: :lol:

Mrs Jono
06-08-2012, 04:33 PM
How many different places on this forum do you intend to misrepresent me about this event, Kevin?

[summary deemed irrelevant to discussion of merits of moderation action and moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=340099#post340099) - KB]


* That claim from Jono resulted in a number of posts that returned to the race issue and were not relevant to the birtherism issue.

This, I believe, is one of the major problems with this entire issue. It is being debated that it is 'not relevant to the birtherism issue', since one side is arguing that it's a defence to GF's asserted claim which was related to both birtherism and racism. In fact, Jono's defence against that claim was related to both birtherism and racism. Your statement of it not being relevant is your judgment in the matter, i.e., in line with your preferred side of the discussion.

You are spitting the dummy over something very minor which I think you are doing so based on your admitted intolerance over moderation criticism, rather than as you've been presenting it thus far as me being dismissive of your point, which I obviously wasn't, since I replied to it and told you that you'd ignored #1 and that #2 was the defence of #1.


Frequently themes from different discussions overlap in a less than neat manner.
[response deemed irrelevant to discussion of merits of moderation action and moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=340099#post340099) - KB]


A post that is mainly on a particular matter belongs in the thread devoted to that matter even if it includes some content that could belong on a different thread. A common standard I use for thread-splitting is to move those posts that are either totally or very largely off-topic for the thread they are on.
Which was fine, except you did not move two posts that started the, arguably, diverging matter, but rather left GF's asserted claim, and Jono's defence, behind, and then commented on Jono's when it was directly responding sardonically to GF's claim.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2012, 05:08 PM
How many different places on this forum do you intend to misrepresent me about this event, Kevin?

None whatsoever and indeed I have recently moved discussions about the event from the Kennesaw thread to the racism thread to reduce the number of places where the discussion occurs to two.

The discussion on this thread should be confined - and indeed will be confined as irrelevant matter will be edited, deleted or moved as necessary - to discussion of whether my moderation action in splitting the thread as I did was correct.


This, I believe, is one of the major problems with this entire issue. It is being debated that it is 'not relevant to the birtherism issue', since one side is arguing that it's a defence to GF's asserted claim which was related to both birtherism and racism. In fact, Jono's defence against that claim was related to both birtherism and racism.

But the posts that were moved back to the racism thread, starting with this one (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=339562&postcount=459) engaged with the question of whether or not Jono had a "proven anti-racist view" and disregarded the birtherism issue. Hence the split. Furthermore the only connection drawn by Jono was to claim that his "non-birtherism" was consistent with his "proven anti-racist view" and the evidence he cited that he had a "proven anti-racist view" was not related to birtherism.

So the above is just completely irrelevant to the decision to move the posts.


Your statement of it not being relevant is your judgment in the matter, i.e., in line with your preferred side of the discussion.

My preferred side of the discussion about moderation or my preferred side of the discussion about the meaning of your comment?


You are spitting the dummy over something very minor which I think you are doing so based on your admitted intolerance over moderation criticism[..]

As you should be aware by now my "lack of tolerance" comment related specifically to lack of tolerance of people discussing moderation on the thread being moderated. Comments implying a general intolerance of moderation criticism are not only falsified by this thread, making them look very silly indeed, but will be considered to be lying if repeated from this point on.


Which was fine, except you did not move two posts that started the, arguably, diverging matter, but rather left GF's asserted claim, and Jono's defence, behind, and then commented on Jono's when it was directly responding sardonically to GF's claim.

What I did as a poster is irrelevant to the merits of my action as a moderator in moving some posts that had become totally off-topic.

Mrs Jono
06-08-2012, 05:35 PM
I just posted a reply to 558 in the other thread, before seeing you'd moved stuff around, and indicated in a second reply that you might want to move my post here as well. (feel free to delete this after)

Mrs Jono
06-08-2012, 06:51 PM
The discussion on this thread should be confined - and indeed will be confined as irrelevant matter will be edited, deleted or moved as necessary - to discussion of whether my moderation action in splitting the thread as I did was correct.

So there are no misunderstandings here, are you indicating that if I continue addressing this matter, as I've been indicating all along that the problem lies in the leaving behind of GF and Jono's post, that it will be edited, deleted, or moved as you deem it irrelevant? So am I being cobbled from showing the minor issue related to where it was split is directly related to why I am pointing it out, and the reasons why the split in that place appears to have led you to the mistake of addressing only the defence?


But the posts that were moved back to the racism thread, starting with this one (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=339562&postcount=459) engaged with the question of whether or not Jono had a "proven anti-racist view" and disregarded the birtherism issue. Hence the split.

Here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=339820&postcount=507) is the post of yours to which I actually replied. In it, you brought back into the conversation the fullness of Jono's defence, including both birtherism and racism.


Furthermore the only connection drawn by Jono was to claim that his "non-birtherism" was consistent with his "proven anti-racist view" and the evidence he cited that he had a "proven anti-racist view" was not related to birtherism.

Which clearly shows that he was defending against GF's asserted claim that they were consistent. I appreciate the level of work it takes to maintain a forum, but I'm asking that you split this discussion in a more neutral manner. Whether you think it's shifting the burden or not, the two posts in question are directly related to the moved discussion. That you quoted the pertinent sentence from Jono's post in its entirety should be enough proof to move it over. That Jono's quoted and was defending against GF's post should be enough proof to move it over as well. Alternatively, yet another entire post about how horrible you guys think my husband is could be created, but that is not my preference, especially as I consider all this nonsense to be attacking the man instead of the attacking the argument.


My preferred side of the discussion about moderation or my preferred side of the discussion about the meaning of your comment?

Thank you for asking. It's easier to answer a question, than to continually defend against misunderstood assumptions. I was indicating your preferred side in a discussion which I was questioning might be affecting where you made the split when you moderated, i.e., where you split the topic was where Kevin-poster lay on the side of the discussion that the burden is not being shifted and that the birtherism is irrelevant.

Let me give Kevin-moderator/admin the benefit of the doubt, and simply ask for neutrality. Regardless of what side you are on in the discussion, your post moved back to indicating Jono's defence of birtherism and racism both, and discussion has continued over shifting the burden which also addresses both, as well as addresses GF's asserted claim.


What I did as a poster is irrelevant to the merits of my action as a moderator in moving some posts that had become totally off-topic.

I'm extending the benefit of the doubt that your moderation is not coloured by your posting.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 02:04 AM
I just posted a reply to 558 in the other thread, before seeing you'd moved stuff around, and indicated in a second reply that you might want to move my post here as well. (feel free to delete this after)

I thought most of it was not directly relevant to discussion of my moderation actions so left it where it was.


So there are no misunderstandings here, are you indicating that if I continue addressing this matter, as I've been indicating all along that the problem lies in the leaving behind of GF and Jono's post, that it will be edited, deleted, or moved as you deem it irrelevant?

What I want is for the comments relating to whether I should have performed any given moderation action to occur here and here alone. Comments about whether I as a poster supposedly commented in a certain way as a result of the thread-split, but that do not comment critically about the thread split decision itself, should go back with the rest of the meta-debate.

Comments that blur the boundaries between the two by implying that my thread split caused me to make some "mistake" in how I commented about the "burden of proof" as it related to Jono's comments, and that imply that if I had not earlier moved the posts I would have had a different view, are best posted only to Santa Claus c/- the North Pole, as they are ludicrous. Do let us know if Santa replies. Where I see such comments as a pretext for lengthy discussion of my alleged failings as a poster, they'll get deemed off-topic for this thread and dealt with in one of the mentioned ways.


Here is the post of yours to which I actually replied. In it, you brought back into the conversation the fullness of Jono's defence, including both birtherism and racism.

Not correct. While I quoted the sentence "So my non-birtherism is consistent with my proven anti-racist view", I did not actually engage with the birtherism angle in any way, and could just as easily have quoted just "my proven anti-racist view" and perhaps saved myself a few words in the process. My post was confined to the racism angle and to addressing your burden-of-proof comment regarding it.


Which clearly shows that he was defending against GF's asserted claim that they were consistent. I appreciate the level of work it takes to maintain a forum, but I'm asking that you split this discussion in a more neutral manner.

You've not produced any evidence that my decision to split was not neutral (just asserting that the split was supposedly convenient to my position is not evidence even if true) and nor have you provided any (in my view) remotely practical suggestion as to how the thread split should have been handled better. If I had I moved posts that are mainly related to the birtherism debate but mention racism very briefly in passing to the racism thread, then they would have been lost to the birtherism thread, which would significantly damage that thread.


I was indicating your preferred side in a discussion which I was questioning might be affecting where you made the split when you moderated, i.e., where you split the topic was where Kevin-poster lay on the side of the discussion that the burden is not being shifted and that the birtherism is irrelevant.

Where I split the thread had nothing to do with any of this. The thread was simply split at the point where posts started being made that were entirely or overwhelmingly off-topic for the birtherism thread. That's common practice here. Posters generally understand that sometimes the material that led to the off-topic tangent gets left on another thread when this occurs.


Let me give Kevin-moderator/admin the benefit of the doubt, and simply ask for neutrality.

If you really want to give K-m/a the benefit of the doubt you could try not asserting neutrality was absent on such weak evidence. I should remind you that the claim of non-neutrality in moderation is one on which your beloved "burden of proof" lies with you.

Mrs Jono
07-08-2012, 04:51 AM
I thought most of it was not directly relevant to discussion of my moderation actions so left it where it was.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure it was fine.


What I want is for the comments relating to whether I should have performed any given moderation action to occur here and here alone.

Fair enough


Comments that blur the boundaries between the two

I think it was a fair question, as there is no crime in mistakenly missing posts in a split, and no crime in pointing out that you missed them, and pointing out it was or might have been a mistake is no reflection on you, since we all make mistakes. Further, it should be perfectly acceptable to reason a skewed reply was due to that suggested oversight, and again a simple mistake. Your reaction made this a bigger issue than it needed to be, IMO.


My post was confined to the racism angle and to addressing your burden-of-proof comment regarding it.

That may have been your intention, and I do not dispute that was your intention. You did, however, leave birtherism in, and my very next post was a response to the entire burden of proof relating to both birtherism and racism as compared by GF, and defended by Jono.


You've not produced any evidence that my decision to split was not neutral (just asserting that the split was supposedly convenient to my position is not evidence even if true) and nor have you provided any (in my view) remotely practical suggestion as to how the thread split should have been handled better. If I had I moved posts that are mainly related to the birtherism debate but mention racism very briefly in passing to the racism thread, then they would have been lost to the birtherism thread, which would significantly damage that thread.

The two posts in question are not 'mainly related to the birtherism debate but mention racism very briefly in passing to the racism thread', but instead are the basis for which the continuing conversation originated. Rather than leaving them hanging behind, and then quoting them from the other thread, I'm asking they be moved.


Where I split the thread had nothing to do with any of this. The thread was simply split at the point where posts started being made that were entirely or overwhelmingly off-topic for the birtherism thread.

I disagree, which is why I am addressing it.

My concession in this matter will be that I will simply link to the posts in the other thread, if you choose not to move those two posts, but my discussion will continue centering around GF claims about both birtherism and racism. From there, I guess you'll have to decide which post goes in which topic, since they will cover both topics.


If you really want to give K-m/a the benefit of the doubt you could try not asserting neutrality was absent on such weak evidence. I should remind you that the claim of non-neutrality in moderation is one on which your beloved "burden of proof" lies with you.

You said it is not absent, and I agreed to a benefit of the doubt from that point further. I don't see where I need provide any evidence aside from what is there in black and white showing I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2012, 12:33 PM
I think it was a fair question, as there is no crime in mistakenly missing posts in a split, and no crime in pointing out that you missed them, and pointing out it was or might have been a mistake is no reflection on you, since we all make mistakes.

There was no mistaken missing of posts. Indeed that I had seen at least one of the posts I was leaving on the thread was demonstrated by me quoting the crucial part of that post in announcing the moving of posts. All along I was completely aware that I was leaving a very small amount of material on the parent thread (in this case the birtherism thread) and my decision to do so was completely deliberate and completely consistent with standard practice in thread splitting on this site.


Further, it should be perfectly acceptable to reason a skewed reply was due to that suggested oversight, and again a simple mistake.

No, it is just complete nonsense. Indeed as I pointed out in a recent post on the racism thread, I (as a poster) was responding to similar arguments in very much the same way long before the thread split. Therefore the idea that the thread split itself confused me as a poster into replying in a certain unusual way is simply and utterly bunkum.


Your reaction made this a bigger issue than it needed to be, IMO.

Neither as a poster nor as a moderator do I care about keeping issues small just for the sake of there not being a supposedly big issue.


That may have been your intention, and I do not dispute that was your intention. You did, however, leave birtherism in, and my very next post was a response to the entire burden of proof relating to both birtherism and racism as compared by GF, and defended by Jono.

This has nothing to do with moderation.


The two posts in question are not 'mainly related to the birtherism debate but mention racism very briefly in passing to the racism thread', but instead are the basis for which the continuing conversation originated.

This is an obviously spurious dichotomy. A post mainly related to one subject but briefly mentioning another can easily become the basis for a subsequent discussion of another subject. It is an extremely common event on forums that some passing comment is taken up by another poster and becomes the seed of a different line of discussion. It's also common for a line of discussion that goes from one subject to another to make passing reference to the original subject, as was the case here.


Rather than leaving them hanging behind, and then quoting them from the other thread, I'm asking they be moved.

The posts will not be moved. You have had ample opportunity to address my concern that moving them would result in a loss of primarily relevant posts from the birtherism thread and have not addressed this at all.


My concession in this matter will be that I will simply link to the posts in the other thread, if you choose not to move those two posts, but my discussion will continue centering around GF claims about both birtherism and racism. From there, I guess you'll have to decide which post goes in which topic, since they will cover both topics.

That can be very easily read as saying that if I do not do as you wish then you will retaliate by deliberately attempting to make my job as moderator more difficult.

The racism thread is already heavily laden with thread-drift, insults and meta-debate (and I'm not only talking about our own discussion there of the last few days). So long as material posted continues being relevant to whatever is being replied to, that is not a problem.

However if at any time I believe that a poster is vexatiously mixing in or (re)introducing material from other topics with the intention of making the job of deciding where to store posts unnecessarily difficult, I will just provisionally delete the posts in question (an action which can be reversed later by me or another moderator if desired). Debate about the history of the birtherism thread has been relevant to meta-debate occurring on the racism thread, but posting substantive arguments about the birtherism debate itself would not be relevant.


I don't see where I need provide any evidence aside from what is there in black and white showing I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

No, you directly wrote "I'm asking that you split this discussion in a more neutral manner." thus clearly stating that my thread split was less than optimally neutral and hence biased.

If you do not retract that statement you are not giving my moderation in that instance the benefit of doubt.

Mrs Jono
07-08-2012, 12:40 PM
The posts will not be moved.

Nothing else need be said by me then, as it would be a further waste of my time.

Goughfather
10-08-2012, 05:58 PM
Nothing else need be said by me then, as it would be a further waste of my time.

And Kevin's. Good to see that you've seen the light.

Max Illingworth
13-09-2012, 08:47 PM
The thread 'you may be a...if' is completely tasteless. Denigration of a person/people's religion doesn't belong on this forum.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2012, 09:00 PM
The thread 'you may be a...if' is completely tasteless. Denigration of a person/people's religion doesn't belong on this forum.

It wasn't actually started as a thread by itself; I moved Jono's opening post and several following it because I considered the whole line of "you may be a ...if" posts was going way off topic for the thread originally posted on. Unfortunately in the process I may have given some rubbishy posts more prominence than they deserve. Some of the posts have been posted here before but I'm not sure there have been previous such cases that attack a whole religion as opposed to extreme variants.

I've seriously considered modding it for possible breach of anti-vilification laws in various Australian states, though we probably let AC get away with things of equal stupidity from time to time (though I have modded him if I thought he was in breach in his comments about Christians or Jews) and I'm possibly too biased to get involved. If any other mod wants to zap it I have no objections.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2012, 10:10 PM
I've now moved the thread offline pending review by other moderators. It's not appropriate that I make the final decision but it is enough of a worry (including legally) that I think removing it until/unless another mod decides it is OK is the best course.

Adamski
14-09-2012, 07:19 AM
I've now moved the thread offline pending review by other moderators. It's not appropriate that I make the final decision but it is enough of a worry (including legally) that I think removing it until/unless another mod decides it is OK is the best course.
Sounds a sensible course of action .FYI Kevin, I can't recall ever having an issue with your moderating.

ER
14-09-2012, 11:35 AM
... FYI Kevin, I can't recall ever having an issue with your moderating.

That's only because he is a devote theist and inspired by your signature! :owned: :P

Adamski
14-09-2012, 01:30 PM
That's only because he is a devote theist and inspired by your signature! :owned: :P
LOL!

Desmond
25-09-2012, 11:39 AM
Suggest moving the posts regarding BHCC from What They Said thread so the discussion is in 1 place.

antichrist
26-03-2013, 06:50 PM
what happened to Jak's pic of The Gap and his later post?

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2013, 08:44 PM
what happened to Jak's pic of The Gap and his later post?

Nothing; they are on the Am I the only smoker? thread

antichrist
21-04-2013, 11:58 PM
from detox our mate jak
you go and **** your mother, your sister and your family, stupid squeaky, worm .., go get a proper name first and then talk to me mother ****ing stupid anynymous bastard!

ER
22-04-2013, 12:01 AM
from detox our mate jak
you go and **** your mother, your sister and your family, stupid squeaky, worm .., go get a proper name first and then talk to me mother ****ing stupid anynymous bastard!
you are just a ****ing dobber, I never did that to you!
shame on you!

antichrist
22-04-2013, 12:06 AM
you are just a ****ing dobber, I never did that to you!
shame on you!

well you have done it to me now having you - ha ha
u remind me of Matt's late night sessions

ER
22-04-2013, 12:12 AM
well you have done it to me now having you - ha ha
u remind me of Matt's late night sessions
I never dobbed you in to the authorities!

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2013, 12:27 AM
wish I could get away with this

Had Hobbes not provoked him with the gratuitous "nazi" (even in the context "spelling nazi") he certainly wouldn't have.

As it is I'm not sure there's an injured party.

Hobbes
22-04-2013, 12:48 AM
Had Hobbes not provoked him with the gratuitous "nazi" (even in the context "spelling nazi") he certainly wouldn't have.

As it is I'm not sure there's an injured party.

Hey, I am not complaining about the jak post, I don't care at all.

But I disagree that "spelling nazi" is any sort of gratuitous reference about nazis, it is a well established term for someone who nitpicks other people's spelling on the internet.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2013, 01:01 AM
But I disagree that "spelling nazi" is any sort of gratuitous reference about nazis, it is a well established term for someone who nitpicks other people's spelling on the internet.

It is one of the more provocative ways of making the same point. Especially as, now I look at the exchange more closely, I don't think jak's original post was really in the same league as the average unnecessary/pointless spelling flame.

antichrist
22-04-2013, 10:28 AM
It is one of the more provocative ways of making the same point. Especially as, now I look at the exchange more closely, I don't think jak's original post was really in the same league as the average unnecessary/pointless spelling flame.

just as well as no one says nazi moderator

antichrist
04-05-2013, 11:24 AM
how come jono can mention all those "gay" diseases in same sex marriage thread whereas I am barred from doing such?

and what happened mrs jono our paths have never crossed

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2013, 12:56 PM
how come jono can mention all those "gay" diseases in same sex marriage thread whereas I am barred from doing such?

I am getting very edgy (in a mod capacity) about him doing so but a relevant difference is that he is posting it in vaguely relevant reply to other posters whereas you were threadjacking to be grotty and troll.

Oepty
04-05-2013, 08:47 PM
Good decision to split the invites thread.

Oepty
07-05-2013, 03:48 PM
I think I have done this before, but I strongly object to a poster being able to post under the "God". I do not believe it should be allowed.

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2013, 05:19 PM
I did nuke the God account's shout collection once.

If we allow posts that are basically religious preaching (including even those who do it in their sigfiles!), we should also allow posts that satirise religion. Blasphemy is not illegal in this country anymore.

If there really is an all-powerful God then they would have numerous recourses including:

* removing the account themselves
* fiddling with the brains of the admins to force us to remove it
* striking the imitator with a bolt of lightning (etc)

In the absence of such actions it seems rather safe to assume that either such a God does not exist or else they're really not that fussed about it, and in either case there's no reason for us to be concerned about vicarious offence.

Oepty
07-05-2013, 06:21 PM
I did nuke the God account's shout collection once.

If we allow posts that are basically religious preaching (including even those who do it in their sigfiles!), we should also allow posts that satirise religion. Blasphemy is not illegal in this country anymore.

If there really is an all-powerful God then they would have numerous recourses including:

* removing the account themselves
* fiddling with the brains of the admins to force us to remove it
* striking the imitator with a bolt of lightning (etc)

In the absence of such actions it seems rather safe to assume that either such a God does not exist or else they're really not that fussed about it, and in either case there's no reason for us to be concerned about vicarious offence.

I am not objecting to satirising religion or blasphemy, although I do not agree with them either, they can stay
I am objecting to someone pretending to be someone they are not.

Desmond
07-05-2013, 06:27 PM
I am not objecting to satirising religion or blasphemy, although I do not agree with them either, they can stay
I am objecting to someone pretending to be someone they are not.
Maybe it is God. Why do you hate God so much?

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2013, 06:29 PM
I am objecting to someone pretending to be someone they are not.

We do have a rule against impersonation of "Impersonation of other users or of Australian chess personalities generally" but I don't consider hypothetical deities to fall into either category.

We also have a rule stating we will often ban "any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it (eg adult posters pretending to be juniors)" but in this case I think it's extremely obvious that the poster is not setting out to sincerely represent themselves as God.

Oepty
07-05-2013, 06:30 PM
I believe that the account God breaks the following rule, the bit in bold.


Impersonation of other users or of Australian chess personalities generally, including via PM, is not permitted. Multiple accounts for a single poster may be permitted, or not, at our discretion. We will frequently ban anonymous accounts that are suspected of being operated by banned users, any account that misrepresents the nature of the person operating it (eg adult posters pretending to be juniors) and any account employing a proxy IP.

EDIT: Posted before I saw Kevin's post above

Oepty
07-05-2013, 06:32 PM
Maybe it is God. Why do you hate God so much?

If I said what I really want to say I would get myself banned.

Desmond
07-05-2013, 06:43 PM
If I said what I really want to say I would get myself banned.
What; I have to miss out on your eternal prison life? No no, anything but the comfy chair!

Oepty
10-05-2013, 08:50 AM
Some posters seem to have got the idea that the new member John777 and I are the same person. I do not know who John777 is but as far I know I have no connection with this member.
Can you please confirm we are not the same person?

Rincewind
10-05-2013, 09:51 AM
Some posters seem to have got the idea that the new member John777 and I are the same person. I do not know who John777 is but as far I know I have no connection with this member.
Can you please confirm we are not the same person?

I can't confirm that (I don't know if anyone can) - but there is certainly no evidence to suggest that you are the same person and in my opinion the suggestion that you are is mistaken.

Of course I might also be one of your hydras. :lol:

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:18 PM
Can the KJV only discussion be moved out of threads where it is off topic and placed in its own thread? Preferably the one I created if that is possible, if not possible put it in its own thread and delete the thread I started.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2013, 12:35 PM
Good idea. Have moved a bunch of it and will move more if I find it.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:36 PM
Good idea. Have moved a bunch of it and will move more if I find it.

Thank you Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2013, 12:42 PM
I will add that:

(i) it is best to request a thread split rather than starting a new thread to discuss something that is going off-topic.

(ii) requests for a thread-split should be made either in this section or via PM to the moderators since posts on a thread to request that that thread be split at least create work for us deleting those posts - and sometimes create meta-debate about whether the thread should be split.

(iii) that posters who are moderators are just as much entitled to explore tangents on threads as anyone else, and the threads can always be split if necessary.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:52 PM
I will add that:

(i) it is best to request a thread split rather than starting a new thread to discuss something that is going off-topic.

(ii) requests for a thread-split should be made either in this section or via PM to the moderators since posts on a thread to request that that thread be split at least create work for us deleting those posts - and sometimes create meta-debate about whether the thread should be split.

(iii) that posters who are moderators are just as much entitled to explore tangents on threads as anyone else, and the threads can always be split if necessary.

I really was happy for there to not be a thread split until Barry choose to sidetrack the new thread and he has quite possibly even now has ruined it. Your efforts as greatly appreciated.

Is it against the rules it repeatedly claim things about someones emotions after they have been denied?

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Is it against the rules it repeatedly claim things about someones emotions after they have been denied?

Not as such.

Actually looking at the Bible Quotes thread Rincewind posted a bible quote and you responded "So you can post something that is true even if you have to quote it to get something right." Looks like a personal attack (presumably on the basis of baggage from other threads) so not a surprise that there was a personal response.

Let me know if I have missed something there amid the mess of having to cart all John777's KJV stuff into a single thread - it does mess up the thread histories.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 02:27 PM
Not as such.

Actually looking at the Bible Quotes thread Rincewind posted a bible quote and you responded "So you can post something that is true even if you have to quote it to get something right." Looks like a personal attack (presumably on the basis of baggage from other threads) so not a surprise that there was a personal response.

Let me know if I have missed something there amid the mess of having to cart all John777's KJV stuff into a single thread - it does mess up the thread histories.

So Barry can keep on falsely saying I am angry like he did in the shoutbox?

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 03:04 PM
So Barry can keep on falsely saying I am angry like he did in the shoutbox?

You will find my shout was replying to the presumptuous instruction you directed my way in the Shoutbox.

Oepty
26-06-2013, 02:01 AM
Can jammo's off topic post in the Jobe Watson thread be removed please?

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2013, 10:16 AM
Can jammo's off topic post in the Jobe Watson thread be removed please?

I've deleted the last sentence which I consider to be unnecessary personal trolling/goading for that particular thread. He can explore that angle on a suitable religion thread if he wants.

I don't see any problem with the rest.

Oepty
26-06-2013, 11:01 AM
I've deleted the last sentence which I consider to be unnecessary personal trolling/goading for that particular thread. He can explore that angle on a suitable religion thread if he wants.

I don't see any problem with the rest.

Thank you for deleting what you did delete. I still think there rest should be deleted as it has absolutely no application to the Jobe Watson case but I guess I will have to live with it staying there.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-06-2013, 03:35 PM
Can jammo's off topic post in the Jobe Watson thread be removed please?

....... and completely pointless whinging. ;)

antichrist
26-06-2013, 03:46 PM
I was on topic re nazi pics on detox not only were they deleted but myself barred as well - but I am sure out of KBs sense of justice that ban willbe lifted

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2013, 03:52 PM
I was on topic re nazi pics on detox not only were they deleted but myself barred as well - but I am sure out of KBs sense of justice that ban willbe lifted

You made three posts in 12 minutes of which two were silly and only very tangentially related to the point (in the sense that they mentioned Nazis in some way) and the third was completely off-topic. None seriously addressed the issue being discussed.

The Toolbox-Detox thread has strict topicality: it is for discussing and debating false claims and bad moderation behaviour on the other forum. You're a repeat offender for posting off-topic and being stupid in that thread.

ER
26-06-2013, 06:42 PM
You made three posts in 12 minutes of which two were silly and only very tangentially related to the point...

I think that's a remarkable improvement!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
27-06-2013, 12:52 PM
Can we please ban oepty from threads when he deliberately responds with god waffle.

If jammo and i get warned and deleted for pointing out oeptys double standards in criticising jobe watson then surely oeptys comments in the same sex marriage thread are worthy of deletion as well

Thanks , G.U.B.

Oepty
27-06-2013, 01:31 PM
So my on topic posts are not allowed.

Oepty
27-06-2013, 01:36 PM
The idea that politics and religion can be completely separated is totally flawed. If anybody with religious beliefs separates their politics and their religion completely then their religion is rather pointless and empty.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2013, 01:47 PM
The situations are slightly different because the SSM debate is one in which religion-related arguments appear frequently, including the claim that SSM is an example of a general trend of standards turning upside down and so on. I personally find such claims stupid and melodramatic but they are nonetheless on-topic. All the same I think Oepty's post strayed too much into proselytising rather than just sticking to the issue and I've therefore moved it and the discussion that followed.

I don't have any problem with people discussing Oepty's claimed double standards but the question is where. If it's going to be done as unsubtly as jammo's attack in that case then it should happen in the religion section. We should be able to discuss issues in world sports without having a poster tell another poster that they are going to hell for hypocrisy only a handful of posts in. I certainly wouldn't like to see that style of attack carry over into similar discussions on chess threads.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2013, 02:00 PM
Therefore any critisicm of his over the top devotion is completely valid.

I am not disputing the validity of the criticism; I am just ruling that heavy-handed versions of it like jammo's are not to be posted in the early posts of an otherwise secular thread.

If someone wants to quote Oepty's post from that thread and argue that it is inconsistent with his religious views in the religion section they can go for it. Actually the most recent posts in this thread are starting to drift towards debate about whether Oepty is inconsistent rather than discussion of moderation as such and may well be moved soon on that basis.

ER
27-06-2013, 02:55 PM
The thread will not be restored and AC is banned from posting any comment about the other forum on this forum whatsoever, including in the shoutbox, for a week.

Is that like a cooling down period??? :lol:

antichrist
27-06-2013, 05:46 PM
KB, I can understand concern re this thread but I was trying to at least get discussion on the issue and find out about it. I left the quote long so readers could see that it was probably from a hatred site. I could not find link though saved it in favourites???

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2013, 06:04 PM
Your last post on the now deleted thread blatantly incited ethnic hatred and was in very blatant breach of anti-vilification law in at least some Australian states, and you are a repeat offender on such counts. Even if you were just quoting someone else's warped view for the sake of discussion it was still clearly illegal. It's just so obvious from experience that any thread you start involving certain issues will end up with you crossing the same lines sooner or later that there is just no point in allowing you to start new threads on such issues further.

If you want to have such discussions and "learn" more then do it somewhere else.

antichrist
27-06-2013, 06:56 PM
Your last post on the now deleted thread blatantly incited ethnic hatred and was in very blatant breach of anti-vilification law in at least some Australian states, and you are a repeat offender on such counts. Even if you were just quoting someone else's warped view for the sake of discussion it was still clearly illegal. It's just so obvious from experience that any thread you start involving certain issues will end up with you crossing the same lines sooner or later that there is just no point in allowing you to start new threads on such issues further.

If you want to have such discussions and "learn" more then do it somewhere else.

only for sake of discussion, posting and discussing the Holocaust could be termed as inciting ethnic hatred against Germans as the Passion of Christ was accused was against Jews. We know religions get dispensation from anti-vilification laws that probably all of their so-called Holy Books probably break, but I have a pure mind and pure purpose in spite of what you think.

actually I was hoping that some People of the Book would get involved.

see you next time same station
--------------------------

of course some Lebos do terrible things, but I dont cringe away from or attempt to deny and happy to discuss

The Turks take offence at discussing Armenia etc etc, - taken to its logic we won't be able to discuss anything

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2013, 08:45 PM
We know religions get dispensation from anti-vilification laws that probably all of their so-called Holy Books probably break, but I have a pure mind and pure purpose in spite of what you think.

There are exceptions for things said in good faith in the public purpose, eg in the course of serious debate. But they don't cover comments that come across as malicious, biased and careless about the facts (as Andrew Bolt found out). And quoting some hateful rant while openly stating you're not sure it is true doesn't cut it in terms of taking due care to debate such issues properly, especially not when you have a pattern of pushing one side over the other. If it was the first or even third time it would be different, but in your case this has happened over and over and over and over again. So I've decided there are some subjects you are best kept away from.

Hobbes
30-06-2013, 08:41 AM
Oepty moved to Suspended Users group for three days after breaching a moderation directive to stop creating new threads that duplicated existing dicussion.

Seems that Oepty gambled and lost!

ER
02-07-2013, 06:04 PM
antichrist violated this ban and is banned from the shoutbox for a month.

How come he only got minimum sentence? He is a serial offender! :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2013, 06:34 PM
How come he only got minimum sentence? He is a serial offender! :hmm:

First ban since his return. Also at the lower end of the obnoxiousness scale for his sad obsession with shouting about same-sex issues.

antichrist
03-07-2013, 08:29 PM
may I bump this thread on topic if the ""artist"" says it is art then it is art? As became the thinking last century

may I drag over from dark side Grants thesis on how unfairly MCC is treated by CV coz Jak (my mate) reakons everything is peaches and cream

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2013, 08:35 PM
may I bump this thread on topic if the ""artist"" says it is art then it is art? As became the thinking last century

Yep, go ahead.

antichrist
03-07-2013, 08:53 PM
KB did you notice that I had added onto request to drag over, was included in post asking to open Art thread, my edit was 8.35 same time as your Yep okay

I did edit before you had replied

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2013, 09:15 PM
No I didn't notice that and while I generally discourage multiple posts, in this case it might be best to put a request in a separate post rather than edit in.

I don't see any current discussion that that MCC stuff is relevant to.

antichrist
03-07-2013, 09:17 PM
No I didn't notice that and while I generally discourage multiple posts, in this case it might be best to put a request in a separate post rather than edit in.

I don't see any current discussion that that MCC stuff is relevant to.

my post in Is it ARt was also wiped, about if the artist calls it art then it is art - too highbrow?

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2013, 09:26 PM
my post in Is it ARt was also wiped, about if the artist calls it art then it is art - too highbrow?

Your request didn't indicate you were going to post puerile stuff about 9/11 as part of your post so I don't think you were within what I gave you permission for. I didn't delete it but support it staying deleted in the circumstances.

antichrist
03-07-2013, 09:30 PM
Your request didn't indicate you were going to post puerile stuff about 9/11 as part of your post so I don't think you were within what I gave you permission for. I didn't delete it but support it staying deleted in the circumstances.

thanks but it could be a valid question - I was trying to prove the point that art is not art just because it was declared art

maybe the whole thread was deleted, would not that mess up your stats

Adamski
04-07-2013, 12:23 AM
The idea that politics and religion can be completely separated is totally flawed. If anybody with religious beliefs separates their politics and their religion completely then their religion is rather pointless and empty.
Defrinitely agree with Oepty here. Glad to see he is only temporarily suspended - at first I thought he had voluntarily suspended his account I(to remove the temptation of posting), but I have read more since....It is the serious offence of creating duplicate threads which led to a 3 day suspension!

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2013, 12:51 AM
Glad to see he is only temporarily suspended - at first I thought he had voluntarily suspended his account I(to remove the temptation of posting), but I have read more since....It is the serious offence of creating duplicate threads which led to a 3 day suspension!

This is inaccurate in two respects:

(i) the suspension is now indefinite, though I think there is a fair chance it may end soon

(ii) the initial suspension was not just because he created duplicate threads but because he did so in defiance of a directive not to do so. He also continued to state for some time after his account was suspended that if allowed back on he would continue to defy the forum rules.

He has since withdrawn his threat to continue defying the forum rules so it is possible his access will be restored soon.

There remains the problem that while his account was suspended he breached the forum rules by posting misleading and false attacks on this forum's moderation on another forum. He has asked that my name be removed from the title of one of those threads, which I appreciate, but if he does want to resume posting here I believe he should contact the moderators over there and arrange for the thread to be deleted - I am confident george would assist.

Adamski
04-07-2013, 12:56 AM
Thanks for clarifying, Kevin. Glad to know he is likely to return.

Have you seen my "timed out" problem on my attempt at an election poll? Could you add a poll to my new thread please? Thanks again.

antichrist
04-07-2013, 09:43 AM
I may be guilty of bringing religion into strictly science thread despite warning that I forgot

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2013, 12:28 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist has reached his quota for complaining about moderation and is not to do so again until 9:30 pm 10 July or to respond to this post in any way.

antichrist
13-07-2013, 07:59 PM
I, Mr Antichrist hereby apply for permission to reopen my Classic Stirs thread lying redundant for many years - and goodevening to the mods here tonight - a shoutout so to speak

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2013, 08:03 PM
I, Mr Antichrist hereby apply for permission to reopen my Classic Stirs thread lying redundant for many years - and goodevening to the mods here tonight - a shoutout so to speak

Yeah OK but try to behave in it. :lol:

antichrist
23-07-2013, 01:04 PM
Doesn't jono deserve strapping on raw backside for posting large tracts but not making substantia comment?

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2013, 01:56 PM
Doesn't jono deserve strapping on raw backside for posting large tracts but not making substantia comment?

Not necessarily a strapping but the proverbial friendly reminder. I've snipped one of them and posted a reminder to posters about it.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2013, 12:49 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is permanently banned from:

(i) Using this thread to comment on any same-sex related issue whatsoever, except where making relevant comment on moderation of his own posts.

(ii) Making moderation comment about any matters that are more than three months old except where making relevant comment on consistency of a current decision.

In both cases what is relevant will be judged by me or other moderators and not by antichrist.

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2013, 02:02 PM
Also antichrist's moderation comments quota is reduced to one per week, each week defined as Monday to Sunday, until the end of August. If he attempts to negotiate this in any way the quota for this period will become zero.

NB Any discussion of the start date of the week is off-topic for this thread and will be deleted.

Rincewind
01-08-2013, 02:28 PM
Can I dobb in Mr rw in for breaking your ruling in trayvon Martin killing thread. Throw him out. I m loving this my only whinge for the week

What rule is that?

WhiteElephant
09-08-2013, 10:12 AM
my favourites are dead cats

Can this idiot please be banned once and for all?

I can find 10+ examples of offensive posts he has made on multiple threads just in the past week.

As an animal lover I find the above post deeply offensive.

I find his signature offensive and I know I am not the only one.

I come to this forum for serious chess news and discussion, and I enjoy reading the off topic banter too, but this guy's constant swiping and rubbish is annoying to say the least. Imagine if parents of kids who play chess read some of his comments...

whatteaux
09-08-2013, 06:08 PM
Just add him to your ignore list. I never see his posts (except when people quote him in their responses). Works a treat.

Rincewind
09-08-2013, 06:36 PM
I agree with whatteaux. If you enjoy all the non-AC related material, simply putting AC in your ignore list will mostly address your problem.

AC has a long history of pushing the envelop of acceptable online behaviour and so has been temporarily banned many times over the history of the board. However none of his misdemeanours have been serious enough that the moderation team believe it warranted a life-time banning. I guess there is an argument that such a serial offender will continue to be a problem and so should be banned permanently. However, personally I would not look to justify such a banning from either offense to me personally or the potential offense that he might cause the parents of chess-playing children that might wander by.

I don't wish to sound dismissive as I do value your feedback. I am just trying to provide some context to the current situation and why AC is not currently permanently banned. The good news is that it is still an option! :)

WhiteElephant
09-08-2013, 06:56 PM
Sounds like good advice, thanks.

antichrist
01-09-2013, 07:39 PM
Hey Boss, I have created new thread that gets us around a lost of problems, if you will just ease the brakes on a few of the "guidelines"". And I have been such a good little boy over the past month.

antichrist
08-09-2013, 07:57 PM
I have posted a copy of Ian Rogers column on Max Fuller, this article is not available on line, and I have not got permission - so chop my head off at your leisure

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2013, 09:42 PM
I have posted a copy of Ian Rogers column on Max Fuller, this article is not available on line, and I have not got permission - so chop my head off at your leisure

I'm leaving it up pending any complaint from Ian; however if there is a complaint from Ian action may be taken.

However because you engaged in off-topic baiting of the moderation team in the same post you are now banned from complaining about the moderation of this forum for the rest of the month. This includes anything that in my opinion is an implied complaint.

Furthermore if you cause me to impose a similar condition next month, you will be banned for complaining for the rest of the year.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2013, 10:34 AM
May as well delete my thread on the George Trundle Memorial (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15000-George-Trundle-Memorial-2013) in the NZ section. Someone else started one.

ER
13-11-2013, 04:27 PM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is directed to improve the quality of his posts on this thread.

LOL as if he could!


If antichrist continues to frequently make posts that are obviously stupid and/or lazy he will be banned from the thread and from discussing the match at all until after it is over.

That's another big ask. I mean how can a stupid idiot stop making stupid and idiotic posts? :P

antichrist
02-12-2013, 09:08 AM
maybe my two month ban from politics expired a few weeks ago, was dated 15th September - regards

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2013, 10:34 AM
Access should be restored now.

antichrist
26-12-2013, 01:52 PM
I hereby request mods to delete the thread I created re the enigma. But those second on the card are most welcome to continue in their own thread.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
20-02-2014, 06:02 PM
Greetings,

I would like to know who requested two of my shouts to be removed from the shoutbox yesterday and who removed them.

Thanks,
Count D.

Rincewind
20-02-2014, 07:27 PM
There was no request but I removed them as they were legally questionable.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
21-02-2014, 01:24 AM
There was no request but I removed them as they were legally questionable.

I disagree.

It is obvious that Coreys music videos are clearly breaching some sort of criminal code and deserve to be banned but I cannot accept that "the goonies" is also legally questionable.

I honestly think it was a reasonable movie for its day.

More importantly those 2 shouts were part of important campaign brand awareness material and my success depends on its distribution.

Rincewind
21-02-2014, 10:08 AM
I disagree.

...which is your prerogative, but you are wrong. Links to the piratebay are legally questionable at best given that site has been subject to a number of legal actions for copyright infringement.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
21-02-2014, 08:45 PM
...which is your prerogative, but you are wrong. Links to the piratebay are legally questionable at best given that site has been subject to a number of legal actions for copyright infringement.

Surely we are treading in dangerous waters by pandering to the interests of corporate america.

How is it possible that a simple web link imputes criminal intention ?
I could inform members of the address of my local outlaw motorcycle club with known criminal elements but how would this imply my involvement in this particular organisation ?

I can only deduce after the polling fiasco that has recently occurred in the current election, that this is a heinous and malicious act perpetrated in order to prevent my ascension to moderator at oz.chess and generally a concentrated smear against my political aspirations.

This may be another unnecessary obstacle but I will not live in silence, I will not in fear. We are the voice, try and understand it !!:hand:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
22-02-2014, 03:11 AM
Rincewind what you must remember is that we're all someones daughter, we're all someones son.

How long can we look at each other down the barrel of a gun ?

This time we know we can stand together with the power to be powerful, believing we can make it better.

I hope these sentiments can be echoed. :hmm:

Adamski
03-10-2014, 02:28 PM
Since other moderation threads are locked, using this one to say I agree with KB's moderation of Gnostic Bishop today in locking a silly thread.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2014, 02:55 PM
Since other moderation threads are locked, using this one to say I agree with KB's moderation of Gnostic Bishop today in locking a silly thread.

This one isn't locked! I removed the 2004 moderation thread that you (quite amazingly) found, very odd that wasn't rounded up and taken offline earlier, and moved your post here.

Adamski
03-10-2014, 02:57 PM
Weird that my search on the word "Moderation" in the title did not find this thread - which I have often read in the past.

antichrist
04-10-2014, 06:35 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14760-2014-Laws-Changes-General-Discussion-Thread-(was-Changes-Deferred-to-2014)&p=384541#post384541

In this thread post 175 I think it is unnecessarily rude for a gentleman, Keong Ang an IA, to have his views described as delusional, rubbish, babbling. This is how personal fights and falling outs begin when the victim takes justifiable offence and retaliates. Not a good look.

antichrist
22-11-2014, 11:20 AM
KB: This thread is not up to adequate standard. C-F may reply to the above post today if he wishes, and after that the thread will be locked. antichrist is banned from further posting to the thread. Any discussion of this notice can occur in the Help and Feedback section only.

AC: that last post was only a temporary one to be later deleted as have done. If you had not rebadged it as Waffle it would not have gone so far off the deep end. If you keep it open and remove the Waffle label it will improve and keep myself out of more serious science threads. But I am not hopeful.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2014, 01:42 PM
AC: that last post was only a temporary one to be later deleted as have done. If you had not rebadged it as Waffle it would not have gone so far off the deep end.

It was already a hopeless case before I rebranded it, which I did so readers were not deceived into thinking it contained serious scientific content.


If you keep it open and remove the Waffle label it will improve and keep myself out of more serious science threads.

We don't need your help keeping you out of more serious science threads since if you are posting stupid stuff in them we can just kick you out of the "Religion and Science" section.

I think that those threads in the section that are clearly or ostensibly science-related shouldn't just be rubbish threads.

antichrist
07-12-2014, 08:03 AM
http://ww2history.com/experts/David_Cesarani/Alternatives_to_the_Final_Solution

Where can I safely post this link in thread? I prefer not to have smothered permanently in SB. thanks in anticipation

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2014, 11:06 AM
http://ww2history.com/experts/David_Cesarani/Alternatives_to_the_Final_Solution

Where can I safely post this link in thread? I prefer not to have smothered permanently in SB. thanks in anticipation

That link may actually be interesting to some people. You can post it in a new thread on the strict condition that you do not make any reference whatsoever to modern day events including the history of the Israel/Palestine situation, post any analogies whatsoever, or post any silly stuff.

antichrist
07-12-2014, 05:09 PM
That link may actually be interesting to some people. You can post it in a new thread on the strict condition that you do not make any reference whatsoever to modern day events including the history of the Israel/Palestine situation, post any analogies whatsoever, or post any silly stuff.

thanks, strictly speaking there should be a history forum not just lumping in politics. How about? thanks in antici

antichrist
09-12-2014, 06:57 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15713-AC-s-Charity-Shags-in-Skittles-Games-(sf-Big-Chess-Upset)/page3

I loved the title but maybe sufficient muck has gone under the bridge

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
09-12-2014, 05:26 PM
Can we please rename that thread "Further confirmation of A/c's monopoly on misplaced immodesty".

I never ceases to amaze me how boastful our resident silly sausage can be.

Agent Smith
09-12-2014, 11:10 PM
Yah... he's a terminal idiot alright. Even Vlad was quoting Dostoevesky in exasperation.

antichrist
10-12-2014, 08:35 PM
Yah... he's a terminal idiot alright. Even Vlad was quoting Dostoevesky in exasperation.

On past history it does not take too much to get Vlad in orbit. He reminds me of Jono, just quoting things without any comment, which is actually against site rules.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2014, 08:53 PM
On past history it does not take too much to get Vlad in orbit. He reminds me of Jono, just quoting things without any comment, which is actually against site rules.

Not in Vlad's case. Quoting without comment is only against site rules if the quoted text is by a banned poster and written during their ban, or if the quote is of copyright text and no fair dealing provision applies. Quoting Dostoyevsky cannot breach copyright as he died in 1881; in any case I would rule that the quote in that context was fair usage anyway.

antichrist
10-12-2014, 10:13 PM
Usually if they cannot bother using their own words I do not bother reading or just skim through. Accordingly I was not even sure whom it was aimed at if anyone. I wanted to reply from another famous book from antiquity but blast if I could remember it's title. By Castilli or Zwiegler.

antichrist
11-12-2014, 09:03 AM
Can I dob Mr Jono in for post 1430 here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?8990-Same-sex-marriage&p=388452#post388452

Those items listed that their own designated thread

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2014, 10:03 AM
Can I dob Mr Jono in for post 1430 here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?8990-Same-sex-marriage&p=388452#post388452

Those items listed that their own designated thread

I had already deleted it before seeing your complaint.

FM_Bill
18-12-2014, 10:39 PM
Agree that that the people trying to outdo each other in the IM Masters thread was over the top.

MichaelBaron
18-12-2014, 11:55 PM
Agree that that the people trying to outdo each other in the IM Masters thread was over the top.

thanking people right and left is pointless reading...personally I would prefer reading humorous responses than pointless congratulations and wishes

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
19-12-2014, 12:17 AM
thanking people right and left is pointless reading...personally I would prefer reading humorous responses than pointless congratulations and wishes

Yes but you've clearly not succeeded in stopping Adamskis natural inclinations. If anything I'd hazard a guess that the overall level of people thanked has risen due to your participation in the whole charade.

Adamski may have reduced his output slightly but you are mirroring everything he does thus making the problem worse.

Michael, as a gesture of goodwill you should really post some of your games so that I can annotate them.

Do not overlook this opportunity as the Lada Niva is a surprisingly versatile vehicle !!

Think of it as a precious Christmas gift to you !!

Agent Smith
19-12-2014, 07:35 AM
If you weren't such a Bubble head, you could find plenty of Michael's games in Ozbase. :)
There's a great win over Solo at the 2002 Aus Masters, Arianne beat him with a knight+bishop at the same tournament, and an impressive loss to Guy West when Michael was only 16.

Michael - Did you beat DJ in this game !, or lose on time ?
http://www.365chess.com/view_game.php?g=145549
The result seems recorded incorrectly, and it is also in my db with the same 1-0 result

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
19-12-2014, 03:30 PM
If you weren't such a Bubble head, you could find plenty of Michael's games in Ozbase. :)


I do have Ozbase and am aware of one particular player who enjoys playing ...b6 in response to 1.e4, but would prefer Michael to give me his blessing to annotate one of his games.

I have many new ideas and improvements for him to consider !! :D

antichrist
19-12-2014, 09:51 PM
Sounds like not so much a joke but pseudoscientific rubbish to me. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the others were dodgy too.

I intended to post in Gotta Put Somewhere but the gods were not smiling - hint hint

antichrist
31-12-2014, 12:17 PM
Thread locked for at least a week

...because antichrist pointlessly posted a comment relevant to another thread to this thread instead of just posting it on the thread in question.

AC: hint hint, trying to keep potential waffle out of main thread he was

And: GOTTA PUT SOMEWHERE is also in labour

jammo
31-12-2014, 02:18 PM
Thread locked for at least a week

...because antichrist pointlessly posted a comment relevant to another thread to this thread instead of just posting it on the thread in question.

AC: hint hint, trying to keep potential waffle out of main thread he was

And: GOTTA PUT SOMEWHERE is also in labour

OMG Antichrist. Ur so evil! Ur definitely gojng straight to hell.

Kevin Bonham
31-12-2014, 09:34 PM
Thread locked for at least a week

...because antichrist pointlessly posted a comment relevant to another thread to this thread instead of just posting it on the thread in question.

AC: hint hint, trying to keep potential waffle out of main thread he was

And: GOTTA PUT SOMEWHERE is also in labour

And on account of your "hint hint" implying I'm so stupid as to be missing the obvious (which I'm not) both can stay locked for another month.

antichrist
01-01-2015, 09:04 AM
Hi mods awake, maybe delete the shouts this morning that are distasteful. Not nice for our female viewers

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2015, 11:07 AM
Hi mods awake, maybe delete the shouts this morning that are distasteful. Not nice for our female viewers

Frankly your suggestion that they are any less nice for female viewers than male is a level of sexism 5000 times as distasteful as any of the shouts. Nonetheless there are limits to how crude/abusive shouts can be, especially when directed at a poster not actively provoking them in the shoutbox, and I did delete about five of them. Unfortunately for technical reasons I cannot edit shouts, only delete them; otherwise I would have just edited some of the language.

ElevatorEscapee
01-01-2015, 05:15 PM
On the strength of A/C's post here this morning, I actually logged in (rather than just lurk), to find out what all the fuss was about.

Unfortunately, instead of it being something controversial, it only turned out to be some profanity from a poster who had sampled some early New Year's Eve bubbles... I see worse on comments to Youtube videos.

antichrist
03-01-2015, 12:45 PM
Dear Mod Hierarchy, the final post of mine here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?7058-Pro-Or-Anti-Gun-Control&p=389570#post389570 is it in the approp thread please, or should be in Creationism type thread or Off Topic?

antichrist
11-01-2015, 10:24 AM
HI boss, have absoluteley no idea where you prefer this post http://www.chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=15643

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2015, 11:51 AM
HI boss, have absoluteley no idea where you prefer this post http://www.chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=15643

I can't even get that link to work.

antichrist
11-01-2015, 01:35 PM
I can't even get that link to work.

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15643-Political-Uplifting-Subject-Line
sorry about that, now redundant anyway and I am still in the ring.

antichrist
28-03-2015, 11:22 AM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is banned from this thread for three months for attempting to engage in backseat moderation. antichrist is also permanently banned from attempting to tell other posters that they are breaking CC rules, as he has persistently showed that he does not understand them. If he believes another poster is breaking the rules he may state this only on the moderation comments thread in the Help and Feedback section and absolutely not in any other post under any circumstances.

AC: damn, I posted 890 on about 5th Feb 15 - front seat moderating this time

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2015, 12:15 PM
AC: damn, I posted 890 on about 5th Feb 15 - front seat moderating this time

I was away on fieldwork at the time so you escaped.

antichrist
29-03-2015, 01:06 PM
I have no memory in what thread that 666 day lock out was applied - now that was artistic moderating!

antichrist
31-03-2015, 10:45 AM
And on account of your "hint hint" implying I'm so stupid as to be missing the obvious (which I'm not) both can stay locked for another month.

Easter time is famous for resurrections

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2015, 11:02 AM
Easter time is famous for resurrections

I've unlocked both. Try not to be too much of an April fool on them.

antichrist
03-04-2015, 12:25 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15834-Was-Jesus-Christ-a-historical-person&p=393353#post393353
post 39 here "still no takers" if put on a breathalyser must register a .05 whiff of triumphalism

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2015, 12:52 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15834-Was-Jesus-Christ-a-historical-person&p=393353#post393353
post 39 here "still no takers" if put on a breathalyser must register a .05 whiff of triumphalism

No; typically if Rincewind gets no takers to a point he makes it is because no one can refute it while if you get no takers it is because no one can be bothered with whatever inane/inappropriate/insane point you're attempting to make.

Rincewind
03-04-2015, 08:42 AM
Actually the no takers was slightly successful as it seemed to have prompted Jono to make a a reference to a series of three blog posts on rightreason.org. The author is not a historian and repeats well-known apologetic lines of argument regarding the partial validity of Testimonium Flavianum but it is a start.

antichrist
05-04-2015, 10:58 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14837-Miscellaneous-same-sex-issues-thread-No-SSM-posts-here-please/page13
Wedding Cake Fascists Beat Up an Old Lady

Our mate Jono has not provided one single word of comment here - I reckon it is time to beat him up and don't give him any Crissie cake

antichrist
05-04-2015, 11:11 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?13956-Definition-of-racism-sf-gun-control&p=393503#post393503
My last post here relies on analogies because they are my forte - clear, strong and to the point - you could attempt analogies to refute this

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2015, 11:45 AM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14837-Miscellaneous-same-sex-issues-thread-No-SSM-posts-here-please/page13
Wedding Cake Fascists Beat Up an Old Lady

Our mate Jono has not provided one single word of comment here - I reckon it is time to beat him up and don't give him any Crissie cake

That is acceptable when the section quoted is short. A guideline is three paragraphs or less but the length of paragraphs varies because some news sites put each sentence as a distinct paragraph.

I have trimmed some of his recent copy-and-pastes that were too long.

Desmond
12-04-2015, 12:49 PM
Should the Pell thread be in religion subforum rather than politics? [thread moved - mod]

antichrist
23-05-2015, 11:11 AM
Somewhere some time I was barred from using red highlight for a year - must be up by now

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2015, 12:45 PM
Somewhere some time I was barred from using red highlight for a year - must be up by now

It was less than a year ago, and it was permanent. (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15307-Chess-makes-you-live-longer!&p=382616&viewfull=1#post382616)

AC's post above uses a red-like colour called "Fire Brick"; I almost fell into the trap of rebanning him for using red. But it's not as glary so for now I don't think it's a problem.

antichrist
08-06-2015, 10:07 AM
May I bring The Black Cat Analogy into Does God Exist thread from a non chess site?

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2015, 11:27 AM
Yeah OK but try to quote something decent and not just rip off some post from another internet forum.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2015, 06:29 PM
Yeah OK but try to quote something decent and not just rip off some post from another internet forum.

I see complying with that simple request was too hard for you, so post deleted.

antichrist
10-06-2015, 04:06 PM
from What you dont know thread:

Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee View Post
¿Ss el elefante llamado pedantería?

AC: I want to complain that such posts are not in the national language - if they must post in this manner they should compulsory include an English translation, they could be gossiping about other posters whom are unaware of.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2015, 05:56 PM
from What you dont know thread:

Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee View Post
¿Ss el elefante llamado pedantería?

AC: I want to complain that such posts are not in the national language - if they must post in this manner they should compulsory include an English translation, they could be gossiping about other posters whom are unaware of.

Complaint dismissed. Anyone can easily look up Google translate. I would take action against a poster who was doing it a lot of the time just to be annoying.

Rincewind
10-06-2015, 06:33 PM
Complaint dismissed. Anyone can easily look up Google translate. I would take action against a poster who was doing it a lot of the time just to be annoying.

It's hypocritical as well since the complainant's posts are more in need of translation but sadly Google Translate doesn't provide "conflicted aging hippy" as an option. :)

antichrist
10-06-2015, 09:28 PM
It's hypocritical as well since the complainant's posts are more in need of translation but sadly Google Translate doesn't provide "conflicted aging hippy" as an option. :)

If it is Italian it should come with compulsory hand gestures

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2015, 04:30 AM
If it is Italian it should come with compulsory hand gestures

It's Spanish, as can be seen by the inverted question mark at the beginning. The first word is a typo for “Es”.

antichrist
12-06-2015, 12:08 PM
Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 12-06-2015 at 09:56 AM. Reason: repair quoting

AC:I can remember one of my posts getting deleted due to incorrect quoting methods??

And for good measure Jono does not have to provide intelligent comment with his cut and paste jobs like I was asked to for Black Cat Analogy.

Desmond
12-06-2015, 02:46 PM
If it is Italian it should come with compulsory hand gesturesAnd moustache
9JhuOicPFZY

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-06-2015, 02:54 AM
It's Spanish, as can be seen by the inverted question mark at the beginning. The first word is a typo for “Es”.

gracias, loco hombre.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2015, 07:25 AM
Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 12-06-2015 at 09:56 AM. Reason: repair quoting

AC:I can remember one of my posts getting deleted due to incorrect quoting methods??.

You are a serial offender who makes nowhere near enough effort to quote properly. CF generally gets it right but just makes the odd mistake with large volumes of back-and-forth quoting.


And for good measure Jono does not have to provide intelligent comment with his cut and paste jobs like I was asked to for Black Cat Analogy.

Wrong; you were asked to use a decent source rather than just ripping what you posted off another forum. You then went ahead and ripped something off another forum, and I've already explained this.

Enough time-wasting from you. You are banned from complaining or commenting about moderation, including by inference, until the end of July, at which point your moderation quota will be one complaint per week (Monday - Sunday).

Johns
13-06-2015, 08:51 PM
Enough time-wasting from you. You are banned from complaining or commenting about moderation, including by inference, until the end of July, at which point your moderation quota will be one complaint per week (Monday - Sunday).

This makes me breath in hard. This is unbeleavable.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2015, 10:12 PM
This makes me breath in hard. This is unbeleavable.

If you bothered becoming aware of the number of times AC has breached directives, broken rules and wasted moderator time, you'd realise the only unbelievable thing is that he hasn't been given the flick for good already.

Johns
18-06-2015, 04:49 PM
If you bothered becoming aware of the number of times AC has breached directives, broken rules and wasted moderator time, you'd realise the only unbelievable thing is that he hasn't been given the flick for good already.I remember now Peter. He is a good man. Give him the flick if you want but may be people will see something new about you.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2015, 06:48 PM
I remember now Peter. He is a good man. Give him the flick if you want but may be people will see something new about you.

I've already banned him many, many times (just not permanently). I haven't appeared in the Daily Mail wall of shame yet so I suspect your concerns are unfounded.

Johns
19-06-2015, 03:14 PM
I've already banned him many, many times (just not permanently). I haven't appeared in the Daily Mail wall of shame yet so I suspect your concerns are unfounded.
The way you talk to people makes me not want to talk with you. Please never talk to me again. Ever.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2015, 06:49 PM
The way you talk to people makes me not want to talk with you. Please never talk to me again. Ever.

If you comment in a public place I am entitled to reply and will do so whenever I feel like, so I am ignoring your request immediately. If you don't like this then I suggest you not comment on my posts, and also avoid saying anything else that I might consider obviously silly.

You showed disrespect towards me by declaring one of my posts unbelievable and another careless. Yet you don't like the way I respond to you. What the hell do you expect, everyone to fawn at your feet when you are out of line?

Patrick Byrom
20-06-2015, 03:22 PM
Shouldn't the new 'Wikipedia' thread be in the main 'Non-Chess' forum, rather than the sub-forum 'Politics'? Although Capablanca-Fan seems to have a bias against it, and I've introduced a political example myself (for demonstration purposes), I wouldn't have thought Wikipedia was a political issue.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2015, 04:27 PM
Shouldn't the new 'Wikipedia' thread be in the main 'Non-Chess' forum, rather than the sub-forum 'Politics'? Although Capablanca-Fan seems to have a bias against it, and I've introduced a political example myself (for demonstration purposes), I wouldn't have thought Wikipedia was a political issue.

I think it's something that is likely to get sucked into general left-right culture-warring but I've moved it to the main non-chess section for now.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
23-06-2015, 06:26 AM
Hi mods. I suspect we have a rat infestation in non chess. It appears to be quite a virulent and combative strain of rat, although it shows no signs of intelligence and is prone to paranoid behaviour.

There are a few areas I believe that are currently harbouring disease and should therefore be quarantined.

Should we start to cull their numbers as an inundation of this species would surely devalue the entire neighbourhood ?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
23-06-2015, 09:36 PM
I will go ahead and collect quotes for the rodent control.

Apparently one single rat is capable of leaving 25,000 droppings per year.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
24-06-2015, 03:54 AM
Has anybody ever consider constructing a moat outside the castles perimeter.

We could field a small flotilla in its waters to repel attacks from savages and mercenaries on our fine abode.

I know the bugdet is already under immense pressure from the pest eradication but security is clearly paramount to protect our liberties from would-be desperados.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2015, 02:12 AM
Shouldn't the thread 2015 Oceania Zonal Chess Championships - OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15782-2015-Oceania-Zonal-Chess-Championships-OFFICIAL-ANNOUNCEMENT) go in the section Oceania Chess (http://www.chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?96-Oceania-Chess)?

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2015, 02:18 AM
Shouldn't the thread 2015 Oceania Zonal Chess Championships - OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15782-2015-Oceania-Zonal-Chess-Championships-OFFICIAL-ANNOUNCEMENT) go in the section Oceania Chess (http://www.chesschat.org/forumdisplay.php?96-Oceania-Chess)?

I'm probably leaving it in the Australian tournaments section since it is being held in Australia (same was done last time this was the case).

fletch
28-06-2015, 05:29 PM
how do i challenge someone to a correspondence game

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2015, 05:34 PM
how do i challenge someone to a correspondence game

Just post a new thread in the Correspondence Matches section saying you'd like to play a game with someone and see if there are any takers.

If there's a specific person you want to play against, send them a private message.

Brian_Jones
29-06-2015, 08:28 AM
how do i challenge someone to a correspondence game

You could register to play on www.iccf.com

antichrist
24-09-2015, 06:40 AM
I may have posted in UK elections thread without realising it, about private jails

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2015, 09:52 AM
I may have posted in UK elections thread without realising it, about private jails

You didn't.

antichrist
05-10-2015, 09:43 AM
KB from SB
If you don't cut down the off-topic analogy rubbish I might ban you from using analogies of any kind on any part of the board except maybe one or two threads

AC I deleted your post from the guns thread - too much off topic content especially the bit about "bombing Arab countries"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was okiay to draw an analogy and expose the hypocrisy that those whom favour guns in the community (killing coloureds i.e. others) also favour gungho gun options abroad in foreign policy (killing Arabs i.e. others) that can have devastating results, yet the same tea party types are against taxes that pay for such foreign endeavours and the failed state they are then compelled to support. Just looking at the bigger broader picture

A further example: [QUOTE=Elliott Renzies;401569]...................(*) As a victim of an arm related violent incident during which my life was saved thanks to the effectiveness of those officers (Marrickville, Sydney September 1983) I have developed a strong (admittedly subjective) conviction for the right of citizens to be able to effectively defend themselves in times of life threatening occasions! [/QUOTE

AC: John Howard had the same experienced being in NY when 9/11 took place and subsequently got OZ involved in all sorts of terrible gun involvement in the M/E, this was also a guy against taxing rich people fairly to pay for such ventures. Issues can be related - like being gay and definitions of marriage etc that were never questioned before. They shine light on each other.

You sound like not being able to chew gun and climb stairs at the same time. Sorry to say.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2015, 11:32 AM
I thought it was okiay to draw an analogy and expose the hypocrisy that those whom favour guns in the community (killing coloureds i.e. others) also favour gungho gun options abroad in foreign policy (killing Arabs i.e. others) that can have devastating results, yet the same tea party types are against taxes that pay for such foreign endeavours and the failed state they are then compelled to support. Just looking at the bigger broader picture

I am not sure this is even true; most tea-partiers are skeptical of the bulk of recent US overseas interventions, and not just on the grounds of saving money either.

It looked like an attempt by you to smuggle a foreign policy rant into the gun control thread on a very thin pretext, something which you have a lot of form on. If you want to call out the Tea Partiers on supposed inconsistency that might be better done on the US politics thread or some thread relevant to foreign policy.