PDA

View Full Version : Request: The old ACF BB be immediately restored to full func



Pages : 1 [2]

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:50 PM
ACF will be responsible totally for the forums you are moderating, I have no part in them what so ever. If they are not willing to be responsible, then I will delete all the ACF forums, and chess kit forum will go back to normal. I cannot be held responsible for something I am not allowed to moderate.

That is a very fair and reasonble point. Fair enough

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 06:20 PM
OK, I have just been through the whole thread to see if there was anything that needed to be deleted, and actually I found very little. The only thing that I removed from Matt's original post was his attempt to reroute around the censor. I would have deleted his entire post for that, except I thought it relevant to leave it up so people can see it, as it is relevant to the fracas that has ensued.

I wish to make this warning very clear. Any person who defames the ChessKit staff on forums they do not have moderator powers on will be recommended immediately for a ban of at least one month. However no defamation of this kind has thus far occurred. [EDIT] If you want to defame them in a legal sense [END OF EDIT], do it on a forum they moderate and face the consequences - I will accept no responsibility for you getting yourself banned for stuff you post outside the forums I moderate.

That should be all for now. Get back to the chess. :P

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 06:28 PM
OK, I have just been through the whole thread to see if there was anything that needed to be deleted, and actually I found very little. The only thing that I removed from Matt's original post was his attempt to reroute around the censor. I would have deleted his entire post for that, except I thought it relevant to leave it up so people can see it, as it is relevant to the fracas that has ensued.

I wish to make this warning very clear. Any person who defames the ChessKit staff on forums they do not have moderator powers on will be recommended immediately for a ban of at least one month. However no defamation of this kind has thus far occurred. If you want to bag them out, do it on a forum they moderate and face the consequences - I will accept no responsibility for you getting yourself banned for stuff you post outside the forums I moderate.

That should be all for now. Get back to the chess. :P

Fair enough.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 06:41 PM
I wish to make this warning very clear. Any person who defames the ChessKit staff on forums they do not have moderator powers on will be recommended immediately for a ban of at least one month. However no defamation of this kind has thus far occurred. If you want to bag them out, do it on a forum they moderate and face the consequences - I will accept no responsibility for you getting yourself banned for stuff you post outside the forums I moderate.

That should be all for now. Get back to the chess. :P

What do you mean by bag/defame?

I thought it was okay to be critical of the admin and moderators if you thought that the actions that they udnertook was wrong? Are you saying that we cannot post anything that criticises Gandalf for banning matt for speaking his mind? :?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 06:42 PM
What he is saying is, Gandalf and Jeo wont moderate anymore in ACF forums, and you dont bag them out, or you're out. I assume thats what hes saying.

*shrug*

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 06:43 PM
Kevin,

If they bag us in one of their forums we can get banned from the entire board if we respond there.

My concern with that is they can continue to "bag" us apparently without censure.

This would seem therefore to leave us with no option but to bag them in our forums. However you have just stated we should not do this.

This would seem to leave us in a no win situation.

Your comments please.

shaun
04-01-2004, 06:49 PM
I wish to make this warning very clear. Any person who defames the ChessKit staff on forums they do not have moderator powers on will be recommended immediately for a ban of at least one month.

If it is "defamation" is a legal sense, then surely the courts are the appropraite venue for action to take place. If however it is "defamation" of the "how dare they criticise my mighty moderating powers" then get ready to ban me.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 06:49 PM
Kevin,

If they bag us in one of their forums we can get banned from the entire board if we respond there.

My concern with that is they can continue to "bag" us apparently without censure.

This would seem therefore to leave us with no option but to bag them in our forums. However you have just stated we should not do this.

This would seem to leave us in a no win situation.

Your comments please.

You have seen Jeo's comment about any criticisms of him and Gandalf...

For your guidance and advise I ask

1. Is criticising Gandalf for suspending matt bagging?

2. Is voicing concerns about teh admin for the earlier deleted threads and locking threads bagging?

3. Given that both Jeo and Gandalf have stated that they intend to post here (which they are perfectly entitled to and which I would welcome), and given the fact that not all of us will agree with their posts, can we criticise the points that they have made or is that bagging? In the old ACF BB, I and others had robust disagreements with Forum Admin, but there was never ever any fear that Paul would suspend us for disagreeing with his views.

If any criticisms of views and actions are going to result in a 1 month suspension, then I think that is not very good at all

chesslover
04-01-2004, 06:54 PM
I wish to make this warning very clear. Any person who defames the ChessKit staff on forums they do not have moderator powers on will be recommended immediately for a ban of at least one month.

If it is "defamation" is a legal sense, then surely the courts are the appropraite venue for action to take place. If however it is "defamation" of the "how dare they criticise my mighty moderating powers" then get ready to ban me.

I have to agree 100% with Shaun

If any criticisms of their action/ views are bagging, then a lot of us will be banned.

I would understand if you said "Admin ABC (for example) has cheated on tax, wife etc etc" as that would be defamation and you could ban the user.

But saying "I think Admin ABC is wrong for banning matt, Admin XYZ's views on Israel are simplistic and wrong, Admin ABC has no clue about President Bush's policy on .." is bagging, then that is simply stifling free speach and democracy

arosar
04-01-2004, 06:55 PM
At last CL you're finally grasping the issue. It's of little consequence if G & K agree not to touch our part of the board. It is that the entire board overall is simply not compatible with us - the old BBers. From my perspective, there can be no adequate modus vivendi between CK and ourselves. We have to severe ties.

Also, isn't CK a commercial concern, albeit perhaps an embryonic one? Who gave PaulB and GH the authority to ally with CK without consultation with the ACF Council?

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 06:58 PM
Hey AR I should thank Gandalf for suspending Matt because my defending Matt has sure helped my post count. :rolleyes:

chesslover
04-01-2004, 07:02 PM
Hey AR I should thank Gandalf for suspending Matt because my defending Matt has sure helped my post count. :rolleyes:

Like the chess clock issues for his wollongong tourney and the Chess centre issues for teh AGM, where you helped matt, once again you have helped Matt.

However like in those earleir issues it will not take him long to attack you again :D

chesslover
04-01-2004, 07:06 PM
this is the biggest thread we have had I think - more than 250 plus and counting (assuming it does not get deleted :) )

The only thing that came close was the junior selection thread, which got deleted around the 200 marks.

When you also consider that there had been about 80 plus posts in the old deleted thread, 150 posts in the Score card thread, and another 50 in the poll thread and paul's explanation thread, the total posts for the migration of BB issue stands at abput 530 posts so far - and will continue to increase

arosar
04-01-2004, 07:11 PM
It woulda been bigger if them two admins hadn't gone maniacal.

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 08:10 PM
However like in those earleir issues it will not take him long to attack you again :D
Yes, I certainly wont be holding my breath. :D

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 09:11 PM
If it is "defamation" is a legal sense, then surely the courts are the appropraite venue for action to take place. If however it is "defamation" of the "how dare they criticise my mighty moderating powers" then get ready to ban me.

I mean defo in the legal sense. Both Paul and I have worked professionally in the media and have a fair idea of the difference. Feel free [EDIT - from a moderation perspective] to criticise them in the legally acceptable manner that has so far occurred. I am concerned that the following situation could arise:

1. Someone posts material defaming Jeo or Gandalf on the ACF sections.

2. Because Jeo and Gandalf have now agreed not to moderate those bits, they can't take action against us, even though it's published on their own site. They can't ban the people who posted it either.

3. Either Paul and I, or else the ACF, then could become liable for Jeo and Gandalf being defamed on their own site, if we are not quick enough in moderating the defamatory content away. :shock:

If posters wish to make extremely strong accusations against the people who are letting us use their site, on that site, it is incumbent upon them to make sure their comments are safe before making them. If necessary, send them to me and ask "Is it OK if I say this?"

I don't think it's unreasonable that people be a bit careful about what they say in these unusual circumstances.

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 09:19 PM
What do you mean by bag/defame?

I thought it was okay to be critical of the admin and moderators if you thought that the actions that they udnertook was wrong? Are you saying that we cannot post anything that criticises Gandalf for banning matt for speaking his mind? :?

The first part is a fair point and my apologies to all others who were caused confusion by my use of "bag". I have gone back and edited it to something more accurate. Sorry, I was posting rather hurridly from my friends' house and didn't think through my wording very clearly - I was just wanting to ward off a situation I could see might develop even in the few hours while I was around there.

Feel free to criticise G+K within or somewhere near reason on the Aus chess sections, as has already been occurring. Just don't make nasty stuff up or anything like that, or make factual accusations that you can't prove are true.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 10:18 PM
The first part is a fair point and my apologies to all others who were caused confusion by my use of "bag". I have gone back and edited it to something more accurate. Sorry, I was posting rather hurridly from my friends' house and didn't think through my wording very clearly - I was just wanting to ward off a situation I could see might develop even in the few hours while I was around there.



That si fine

You take very quick and very prompt action and your responsivness is very very impressive.

Your moderator skills are an example to all. Your fairness, justness, transparency, information dissemination make you an ideal moderator. You are firm yet fair. fair yet calm. calm yet just. just yet tolerant. tolerant yet firm

I am so happy that you are our moderator, even though you may have deleted a couple of my posts unfairly :P

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 10:22 PM
Your moderator skills are an example to all. Your fairness, justness, transparency, information dissemination make you an ideal moderator. You are firm yet fair. fair yet calm. calm yet just. just yet tolerant. tolerant yet firm
:P

CL - I think we all got the picture, can you please stop now??

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 11:23 PM
Can I impart some praise of my own? I've been impressed by peanbrain's ability to argue his point (whether or not I agreed with it - though in a number of cases I did) today. It is nice to know there is reason to his existence beyond the easy game of baiting Matthew Sweeney.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 11:38 PM
Can I impart some praise of my own? I've been impressed by peanbrain's ability to argue his point (whether or not I agreed with it - though in a number of cases I did) today. It is nice to know there is reason to his existence beyond the easy game of baiting Matthew Sweeney.

Yes, I agree , peanbrain did an admirable job.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 11:49 PM
Also with chess pieces, some females may not want to be Knights, males don't (generally) want to be Queens, atheists don't want to be Bishops and nobody much wants to be a Pawn.

Well thats a valid point.

Rookie 0
Candidate Master 100
Fide Master 250
International Master 500
Grandmaster 800
International Grandmaster 1100

1400 + = Custom Status..

Ok?

So what happened to custom status.

Its obviously no longer available at 1400+.