PDA

View Full Version : Rules of thread splitting- basic rights



firegoat7
25-01-2005, 10:56 AM
Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid? Hopefully this will kickstart the conversation.

I also want to ask two other major questions in this debate.

1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

If you believed in the latter arguement insted of the former, under what circumstances would you split a thread? What would be your 100% rule, to be viewed as a basic right!

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
25-01-2005, 11:29 AM
Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

<snip>

Cheers FG7

fg7

There is a priceless example of this debate from January 2004 vintage. But all the same players are in different chairs.

I refer you to

angst aplenty (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=182&page=1&pp=15)

and in particular posts 6-13, 19, 20 and 24.



starter

firegoat7
25-01-2005, 12:07 PM
Starter,

Your an absolute gem, your post deserves two exclamation masks.

:clap:

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2005, 02:50 AM
firegoat, this is another example of what I referred to on another thread as your communist-monkey-court style. I acknowledge firstly that you are probably not a communist but rather some other kind of delusional ultra-leftie, and secondly that you are probably not a monkey either, but still the phrase seems to sum you up very nicely.

This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%. :lol:


I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid?

Duh.


1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

It's just a matter for moderator judgement. Usually a thread's gone off-topic where a lengthy discussion about something completely irrelevant to the original point (in our view) breaks out, or where it gets into irrelevant flamewars best split to the non-chess section. Leave the theory at home; you don't understand it, no one else cares about it, it doesn't work.


2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

Yes, and what happens when you have a "100% rule" and then a case is discovered that clearly should be an exception to it? There is no need for rules on threadsplitting, you are the only one I can recall who has ever got angsty about it and this is probably because of your grievances with me and not any merit your case might have.

100% rules and forum management generally don't mix very well.

firegoat7
26-01-2005, 10:04 AM
This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%. :lol:

"We" do have rules when interacting on a personal basis, its just that most are either unaware of the idea that they exist or are not consciously thinking about them. The latter is a reasonable position since having grown up in specific cultures people intuitively know what these "rules" are.

As a general analogy from everyday life most people don't spit on each other when engaged in normal discussion. Of course this rule is not kept 100% (no-one is suggesting a rule should be absolute) of the time, but it would be highly unusual for an individual to begin spitting on people when introducing themselves, wouldn't it. This is what we call a social fact. In this particular example, a social fact based on a rule of ettiquette when dealing with people.

Which brings me to my point. This thread is not about "Police states" or "inflexible rule governance", nor is it a witch hunt against moderators. It is simply an open call to people asking them to express what they think about thread splitting. Nobody is seriously suggesting that your melodramatic "western democracy" analysis is an issue here, nor does starters postcount have anything to do with the thread.

And lets drop the tautology about this "private" board and its alleged lack of rules. You know it makes no sense to talk in such a fashion.

The issue here is what you and others find acceptable in post splitting, you have already answered that, which helps fulfill the agenda of the thread.

For what it is worth, my 100% rule would be

all thread splits should only be done after a democratic vote from the participants

simply place a notice on the thread and ask people whether the thread should be split.

Cheers FG7

P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda ;)

ursogr8
26-01-2005, 10:59 AM
<snip>
This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%. :lol:



<snip>.

Slightly disparaging of you Kev?
Somewhat alleviated by the emoticon?

My personal profile lists an interest in Mathematics. It is accepted in the company I keep that mathematicians are renowned for arguing about the definition of words. This is an important part of their search for objectivity in that discipline.
Many of the posts on rules and definitions are just part of that predilection (or affliction as SWMBO calls it).

Now, normally, I would not bother to say 'ouch', your disparagement was uncalled for....but Bill hounds me to not condone certain behaviour. Therefore I could not lt your remark 'go through to the keeper'.
Thus Kevin....slightly disparaging of you.

regards
starter

Spiny Norman
26-01-2005, 11:38 AM
Is thread splitting valid?

Yes, in my experience it is an accepted form of control in a bulletin board environment.


Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting.

Yes. Otherwise one can not know, based on the topic of a thread, what one is likely to find when reading that thread. Some (many?) do not want to invest the time in reading every thread ... they may have a specific topic of interest.


Who has the right to measure the validity?

Moderators have that right. Its up to them to act with integrity. The general rule I follow as a moderator is this:

If it goes off-topic either (1) delete the offending posts, or (2) split the thread at the point it went off-topic, or (3) move individual posts to other threads, or (4) if you really can't be bothered, do nothing. :P

In cases #1-#3 I would usually give a reason by leaving behind a placeholder post so that people know what has been done and why.

At the end of the day we can complain if we choose, but my advice there would be this: couch your arguments in as positive a light as you can, and never EVER start a fight with a moderator ... you'll never win. :wall: I'm a participant here and a moderator elsewhere, so I've seen this from both sides of the fence (as I'm sure others have here).

Alan Shore
27-01-2005, 12:56 PM
Personally I don't care about thread drift.. see how we hijacked that Dumb and Dumber thread with religious debate, hehe.

eclectic
27-01-2005, 01:21 PM
Personally I don't care about thread drift.. see how we hijacked that Dumb and Dumber thread with religious debate, hehe.

Christianity, with all its denominations, heresies, etc is possibly the prime example of thread drift and splitting.

;)

Mark

Alan Shore
27-01-2005, 01:25 PM
If you think about it Christianity, with all its denominations, heresies, etc is possibly the prime example of thread drift and splitting.

;)

Mark

Hahaha! Thread drift until the reformation, then split.. now there's so many threads it's almost lost all objective meaning..

antichrist
27-01-2005, 04:48 PM
[QUOTE=firegoat7.

P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda ;)[/QUOTE]



What are gelato type personalities?? Those in Articilico Determino thread??

Or are they different coloured, depending on flavour of the week or how you are going to use them?

Or do they go sloppy if you don't lick them often?

firegoat7
27-01-2005, 09:26 PM
What are gelato type personalities?? Those in Articilico Determino thread??

Or are they different coloured, depending on flavour of the week or how you are going to use them?

Or do they go sloppy if you don't lick them often?

LOL

antichrist
27-01-2005, 10:32 PM
LOL

What is LOL?

Little Old Lady

Lick oh lick

eclectic
27-01-2005, 10:36 PM
What is LOL?

Little Old Lady

Lick oh lick

Lecherous Old Lothario

;)

Mark

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2005, 10:09 PM
"We" do have rules when interacting on a personal basis, its just that most are either unaware of the idea that they exist or are not consciously thinking about them. The latter is a reasonable position since having grown up in specific cultures people intuitively know what these "rules" are.

In that case, new "rules" develop culturally over time rather than from the intervention of someone complaining about something and calling on some national summit on the need to invent a new standard of manners. So what you are doing on this thread is highly artificial and not comparable to the above.


Nobody is seriously suggesting that your melodramatic "western democracy" analysis is an issue here,

Actually that was a satire of your melodrama and the way you carry on as if things like this are major political issues worthy of mis-applying all the theory you seem to have half-slept through in university. Are you normally this slow?


nor does starters postcount have anything to do with the thread.

An obvious flippancy, in part because I can't believe you expect people to take your suggestions seriously, and I think that light relief is the best that we can hope to extract from the usual wreckage.


And lets drop the tautology about this "private" board and its alleged lack of rules. You know it makes no sense to talk in such a fashion.

I know no such thing. See above.


For what it is worth, my 100% rule would be

all thread splits should only be done after a democratic vote from the participants

This would be a waste of moderator time and would frequently lead to off-topic debates marring good threads for longer than was necessary. And who is a "participant"? Everybody who's posted on the thread even if all they did was post one silly post to give them the right to vote on future threadsplits? Or everyone on the BB even if they haven't actually read the thread, or even if they are actually a hydra identity of another user who thereby gets two votes while being one person? You just don't think these things through.

(Some threads get what they deserve though - BD is right about Dumb and Dumber.)


P.S this should stop overzealous gelato type personalities from hijacking threads for their own agenda ;)

Hmmm, perhaps it should be hijacked onto a discussion of bad writing and unconvincing metaphors instead. :owned:

firegoat7
28-01-2005, 10:50 PM
In that case, new "rules" develop culturally over time rather than from the intervention of someone complaining about something and calling on some national summit on the need to invent a new standard of manners. So what you are doing on this thread is highly artificial and not comparable to the above.



Actually that was a satire of your melodrama and the way you carry on as if things like this are major political issues worthy of mis-applying all the theory you seem to have half-slept through in university. Are you normally this slow?



An obvious flippancy, in part because I can't believe you expect people to take your suggestions seriously, and I think that light relief is the best that we can hope to extract from the usual wreckage.



I know no such thing. See above.



This would be a waste of moderator time and would frequently lead to off-topic debates marring good threads for longer than was necessary. And who is a "participant"? Everybody who's posted on the thread even if all they did was post one silly post to give them the right to vote on future threadsplits? Or everyone on the BB even if they haven't actually read the thread, or even if they are actually a hydra identity of another user who thereby gets two votes while being one person? You just don't think these things through.

(Some threads get what they deserve though - BD is right about Dumb and Dumber.)



Hmmm, perhaps it should be hijacked onto a discussion of bad writing and unconvincing metaphors instead. :owned:

Should I or should I not respond to this post. :hmm:

It dosen't actually look like a debate, it looks more like some trolling. Maybe I need to look at the 3rd Umpire to be sure.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2005, 11:02 PM
Should I or should I not respond to this post. :hmm:

Whether you respond or not, you should learn to quote. A full post for three lines of reply is ludicrous. Once upon a time that was one of those agreed online social "rules" you refer to. Seems to have been forgotten since people with too little initiative (and too little capacity for thought before posting) to do anything but hit reply and start dribbling rubbish migrated to the net in enormous numbers.


It dosen't actually look like a debate, it looks more like some trolling. Maybe I need to look at the 3rd Umpire to be sure.

That would make a change from looking at your navel when you should be looking in the mirror. :lol:

antichrist
29-01-2005, 12:30 AM
They estimate that playing chess produces more sadness than happiness because people who lose are more effected than those who win, and for a longer time. I think it was in "The Psychology of Chess". I am asking you genuinely: Does "educating" many on the BB bring you more pleasure or pain?

I get a plus out of it.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2005, 02:06 AM
I think it was in "The Psychology of Chess". I am asking you genuinely: Does "educating" many on the BB bring you more pleasure or pain?

Never really tried to tally it up. Possibly doing the "educating" brings me more pleasure but the fact that it is needed brings me more pain. :lol:

Garvinator
29-01-2005, 02:10 AM
Never really tried to tally it up. Possibly doing the "educating" brings me more pleasure but the fact that it is needed brings me more pain. :lol:
and you receive more pain when you realise that your 'educating' normally doesnt achieve the results you desire ;)

Woodstocker
29-01-2005, 10:29 AM
Mr Bonham,

As an umpire on this board it is cricket for you to be as punctilious as you show yourself to be in the quote below.


Whether you respond or not, you should learn to quote. A full post for three lines of reply is ludicrous.

It is not cricket for the umpire to give an out and then habitually engage in monotonous insults of the players such as in the quote below.



Once upon a time that was one of those agreed online social "rules" you refer to. Seems to have been forgotten since people with too little initiative (and too little capacity for thought before posting) to do anything but hit reply and start dribbling rubbish migrated to the net in enormous numbers.

Be polite and you may find Mr Firegoat returning the gesture.


IW

Alan Shore
29-01-2005, 12:51 PM
It is not cricket for the umpire to give an out and then habitually engage in monotonous insults of the players such as in the quote below.

Hehe.. Woodstocker's new around here.. KB doing just that is what he does best! Just keep in mind he's from Tasmania.. :D


Be polite and you may find Mr Firegoat returning the gesture.

It's what I keep saying.. (to Bill mostly).

Rincewind
29-01-2005, 01:09 PM
Hehe.. Woodstocker's new around here.. KB doing just that is what he does best! Just keep in mind he's from Tasmania.. :D

I think Kevin has made it abundantly clear that he was not born in Tasmania. He (or his family) chose to live there. Of course that might possibly be worse. ;)

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 01:09 PM
Mr Bonham,

As an umpire on this board it is cricket for you to be as punctilious as you show yourself to be in the quote below.



It is not cricket for the umpire to give an out and then habitually engage in monotonous insults of the players such as in the quote below.
No, incricket if the player then argued/abused the umpire the match referee would end up fining/banning the player from future participation.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 01:10 PM
It's what I keep saying.. (to Bill mostly).
Yes, well I'm generally returning a serve I've already received.

Spiny Norman
29-01-2005, 01:13 PM
I think Kevin has made it abundantly clear that he was not born in Tasmania. He (or his family) chose to live there. Of course that might possibly be worse. ;)

:lol: I think that might well be worse. I say this as a person who lived in Tasmania myself for 2 years as a child (one year in Devonport, one in Hobart). So I'm the pot calling the kettle black I guess...

Woodstocker
29-01-2005, 01:54 PM
No, incricket if the player then argued/abused the umpire the match referee would end up fining/banning the player from future participation.

Mr Gletsos,

You have not understood my point. I do not think that an umpire would "give an out and then habitually engage in monotonous insults of the players such as in the quote below".

Regardless of ill-bred behavior by such as your loutish Mr McGrath, Dicky Bird would not have told him to cease "dribbling rubbish".

This is the second time you have injected your objectionable interjections into an illusory hiatus in one of my propositions.

Please refrain from further gauche faux pas as you will confirm in the minds of readers your opine of underarm bowling being by the rules and thereby well mannered.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2005, 03:28 PM
Mr Gletsos,

You have not understood my point.
I understood your point exactly.
I just dont agree with it.


I do not think that an umpire would "give an out and then habitually engage in monotonous insults of the players such as in the quote below".

Regardless of ill-bred behavior by such as your loutish Mr McGrath, Dicky Bird would not have told him to cease "dribbling rubbish".
Your wouldnt have a clue.
Moderators are also posters.
As such your analogy is rubbish.


This is the second time you have injected your objectionable interjections into an illusory hiatus in one of my propositions.
Well what do you expect when you post rubbish.
A pat on the back and a "well done old chap".
I dont think so.


Please refrain from further gauche faux pas as you will confirm in the minds of readers your opine of underarm bowling being by the rules and thereby well mannered.
Well we can all speculate exactly what you have confirmed in the minds of readers what you are.

Only a either a complete goose or a pompus ass would suggest that not following the rules is ill mannered.

Seeing as I'm a reasonable fellow I'll let you choose which of those is applicable in your case.

Woodstocker
29-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Your wouldnt have a clue.


Must you abuse any person with whom you disagree?

Your argument ought to be sufficient to make your point without making an enemy.




Moderators are also posters.


In no sphere have I known the referees to play in the same game as they are controlling.

Whether in law sport or academia a person wishing to do both will go to great lengths to avoid such conflicts of interest.

Dr Bonham ought to keep his moderator and poster contributions utterly separate.

Perhaps going by a different logon name is the answer.



As such your analogy is rubbish.

The personal rancor reflected in your comment I do not intend to dignify with a response.




Well what do you expect when you post rubbish.
A pat on the back and a "well done old chap".
I dont think so.

I am a "well gone young chap".



Well we can all speculate exactly what you have confirmed in the minds of readers what you are.

You have not speculated at all and have shown no manners whatsoever.

You have attempted to malign me at every turn and ranked me as a "clueless" "pompous ass".



Only an either a complete goose or a pompous ass would suggest that not following the rules is ill mannered.

If we remove all those double negatives we can see exactly your point.

"Only either a complete goose or a pompous ass would suggest that following the rules is [well] mannered."



Seeing as I'm a reasonable fellow

Self-praise is no recommendation and certainly not somthing in which a chap engages.

skip to my lou
29-01-2005, 07:00 PM
Welcome back Matt. Your other username has been unbanned so you can use that instead of pretending to be someone you're not.

firegoat7
29-01-2005, 08:16 PM
In that case, new "rules" develop culturally over time rather than from the intervention of someone complaining about something and calling on some national summit on the need to invent a new standard of manners. So what you are doing on this thread is highly artificial and not comparable to the above.

Stick to your biological darwinism, it has nothing to do with any analysis of culture. Power of course is in conflict, which helps us to understand "who" is calling standards artificial. Let me reiterate it quite clearly...I know of no specific cultural group of people who thinks it is fine to abuse people for the sake of abuse




Actually that was a satire of your melodrama and the way you carry on as if things like this are major political issues worthy of mis-applying all the theory you seem to have half-slept through in university. Are you normally this slow? Satire is generally funny. I wouldn't call your abuse funny, I would call it tragedy.




An obvious flippancy, in part because I can't believe you expect people to take your suggestions seriously, and I think that light relief is the best that we can hope to extract from the usual wreckage. At least you don't have to put up with abuse before enjoying your light relief.
By the way how has this thread just turned into another Bonham-Gletsos behavioural arguement. Let me guess, both played the porcupine defense for the umpteenth time. Isn't that the usual pattern of thread drift that seems to destroy most threads on this bulletin board???







This would be a waste of moderator time and would frequently lead to off-topic debates marring good threads for longer than was necessary. And who is a "participant"? Everybody who's posted on the thread even if all they did was post one silly post to give them the right to vote on future threadsplits? Or everyone on the BB even if they haven't actually read the thread, or even if they are actually a hydra identity of another user who thereby gets two votes while being one person? You just don't think these things through. I applaud you for finally engaging in the thread in a constructive way. So lets deconstruct your objections.
1. splitting threads is a waste of a moderators time, period.
2. Who is deciding that a thread has degenerated or is good or bad? Clearly this is a subjective experience by the participants. You should show people some courtesy by admitting that they can decide that for themselves. If a thread has expired its use by date, most people simply wont bother with it anymore.
3. A lot of people have voiced their concerns about you and Bill destroying some threads. Clearly there is currently no way in which the rest of us can prevent both of you from continually to behave in such a manner.
4. Why shouldn't all thread posters on the thread be allowed a vote? Isn't that democracy?
5. People who do not post in the thread, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
6. One registration one vote- whats wrong with that idea?

Thie idea of a discussion is to talk and think through ideas. Furthermore, that is why human beings are social creatures- they learn from each other. I don't understand why you think that it is necessary or even desirable for an individual to control and plan everything when engaging in discussion with others.




(Some threads get what they deserve though - BD is right about Dumb and Dumber.)



Hmmm, perhaps it should be hijacked onto a discussion of bad writing and unconvincing metaphors instead. :owned:

Again, isnt it about participation by all people??? Stop abusing people!

Cat
30-01-2005, 08:32 AM
Isn't that democracy?


The BB isn't a democracy, it's the Bill & Bon Show, stop raining on their parade!

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 10:44 AM
Must you abuse any person with whom you disagree?

Your argument ought to be sufficient to make your point without making an enemy.
Your comments demonstrated you had no clue.
Your real identity confirms it.


In no sphere have I known the referees to play in the same game as they are controlling.
Using a BB isnt a game, as such your analogy as usual is worthless.


Whether in law sport or academia a person wishing to do both will go to great lengths to avoid such conflicts of interest.

Dr Bonham ought to keep his moderator and poster contributions utterly separate.
He does.


Perhaps going by a different logon name is the answer.
Or in your case pretending to be something you are not.


The personal rancor reflected in your comment I do not intend to dignify with a response.
Only a fool like you would describe my referring to your analogy as rubbish as personal rancour.


I am a "well gone young chap".
Yes, too bad you arent completely gone.


You have not speculated at all and have shown no manners whatsoever.

You have attempted to malign me at every turn and ranked me as a "clueless" "pompous ass".
Thats because you demonstrated those attributes.



If we remove all those double negatives we can see exactly your point.

"Only either a complete goose or a pompous ass would suggest that following the rules is [well] mannered."
Yes you are right, one to many not's there.
It should have said "Only a either a complete goose or a pompus ass would suggest that following the rules is ill mannered."


Self-praise is no recommendation and certainly not somthing in which a chap engages.
I see it not as praise but as a simple statement of fact.
However being reasonable only goes so far especially when dealing with fools especially those who are repeat offenders.

firegoat7
30-01-2005, 10:57 AM
Welcome back Matt. Your other username has been unbanned so you can use that instead of pretending to be someone you're not.

I also disagree with this administrative sentiment. Outing a registered bulletin board identity seems poor form. It would have been far more interesting to see if Matt could have pulled off the Woodstocker character charade. A private message would have been enough to inform Matt about his banned name.

Cheers FG7

skip to my lou
30-01-2005, 11:13 AM
He has evaded his ban, he is just lucky that I didn't permanently ban him.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 11:17 AM
I also disagree with this administrative sentiment. Outing a registered bulletin board identity seems poor form. It would have been far more interesting to see if Matt could have pulled off the Woodstocker character charade. A private message would have been enough to inform Matt about his banned name.

Cheers FG7
Given the Woodstocker account was created used originally whilst Matt was banned then if as STML claims that Woodstocker is Matt then he should be penalised for deliberately evading the ban.

Woodstocker
30-01-2005, 11:48 AM
I also disagree with this administrative sentiment. Outing a registered bulletin board identity seems poor form.

Outed?

How could I be outed as someone whom I am not?

It is mere speculation as proof is there not?


IW

Cat
30-01-2005, 11:52 AM
Outed?

How could I be outed as someone whom I am not?

It is mere speculation as proof is there not?


IW


Come on, how could this be Matt. 24 posts & not a swear word. Impossible!

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 11:53 AM
Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid? Hopefully this will kickstart the conversation.

<snip>
Cheers FG7

hi fg7

Thanks for your first post on this thread which I found to be well-constructed and thought-provoking.
Personally, I don't regard 'thread-splitting' as top of my priority list for attention and discussion. But I have read your points and discussion with KB anyhow.
Had you dedicated the thread to the other part of your para's above I would have been a little more energetic. What I am watching in recent threads is the principle of tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye, and measured retaliation. For what reasons, perplexes me; but it seems to be catching on. We fail to go back and see if the first salvo was justifiable, and seemly. Added into the mix is escalation, and the pre-emptive strike in abuse terms.
I guess these are matters you will perhaps start a thread on down track. Good luck with this thread.

regards
starter

Woodstocker
30-01-2005, 12:17 PM
Your comments demonstrated you had no clue.
Your real identity confirms it.

My identity is Ian Woodstocker.

I am a person who tries to be civil.

I would ask of you the same respectful behaviour.


Using a BB isnt a game, as such your analogy as usual is worthless.

If this board is not a game to you then it must be part of real life.

Your behaviour on this board could be excused if you were treating it like a game.

Unfortunately for you your behaviour as a habitually unseemly abuser must be your natural state.

Such a state's acerbic demur is only exceeded by its tragedy


Or in your case pretending to be something you are not.

A person is what he does.

I am a person asking you to desist from abusing anyone with whom you disagree.

I am what I do and not what you wish to portray me as.




Only a fool like you would describe my referring to your analogy as rubbish as personal rancour.

Is there no end to your diatribe.


Yes, too bad you arent completely gone.

This type of unnecessarily caustic comment may lead others to echo them to you.


However being reasonable only goes so far especially when dealing with fools especially those who are repeat offenders.

I object to being called a fool.

I would ask that you withdraw the slur or at the very least not do so again.


IW

skip to my lou
30-01-2005, 12:22 PM
Username: Woodstocker
Search Depth: 2
Positive Matches: Matthew Sweeney

:hand:

Cat
30-01-2005, 12:30 PM
Username: Woodstocker
Search Depth: 2
Positive Matches: Matthew Sweeney

:hand:

Why has this account been banned? I thought it was agreed that his ban was temporary?

skip to my lou
30-01-2005, 12:33 PM
His main account is still not banned. Wow, look who suddenly logged on...

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 12:38 PM
Why has this account been banned? I thought it was agreed that his ban was temporary?

Doc DR

It usually takes a while to get the reason behind a ban. I suggest you just sit and wait patiently.

Perhaps he was standing on high moral ground and out of reach. ;)

starter

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2005, 12:54 PM
Dr Bonham ought to keep his moderator and poster contributions utterly separate.

Perhaps going by a different logon name is the answer.

If anyone is in any doubt about whether a comment was made as a poster or as moderator, they can always ask.

Generally it's obvious because the ones made as a moderator are about ... well, I would say "you tell me" had you not been banned. :hmm:


The personal rancor reflected in your comment I do not intend to dignify with a response.


All shades of Matt's previous troll, Uncle John I think the name was, from the 2002 ACF BB, which used the same blend of mock politeness with bristly criticism.

David: Matt is not permitted to use alternate accounts to evade bans. He used the Woodstocker account while banned. Hence the ban on the Woodstocker account. I have also proposed that his main account be again banned because he evaded the ban on it.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 12:59 PM
My identity is Ian Woodstocker.
Not according to the Admin.


If this board is not a game to you then it must be part of real life.

Your behaviour on this board could be excused if you were treating it like a game.
That is simply rubbish.
My point was your analogy between likening a game of cricket or football to this board was an incorrect analogy.


Unfortunately for you your behaviour as a habitually unseemly abuser must be your natural state.
Only when responding to fools.


Such a state's acerbic demur is only exceeded by its tragedy
The tragedy is that you saw fit to pretend to be someone you are not.


A person is what he does.

I am a person asking you to desist from abusing anyone with whom you disagree.

I am what I do and not what you wish to portray me as.
If you dont wish to be portrayed in a particular way then dont bejave in that manner.



Is there no end to your diatribe.
Not when you post rubbish.


This type of unnecessarily caustic comment may lead others to echo them to you.
Let them.



I object to being called a fool.
Then dont behave like one.


I would ask that you withdraw the slur or at the very least not do so again.
I suspect you will give me reasons to continue doing so in future.

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2005, 01:25 PM
Stick to your biological darwinism, it has nothing to do with any analysis of culture.

Do you have any evidence I am a Darwinist? Define "darwinist".


Power of course is in conflict,

Is it? That would seem to entail you thinking that if you play your cards right you will acquire some.


which helps us to understand "who" is calling standards artificial. Let me reiterate it quite clearly...I know of no specific cultural group of people who thinks it is fine to abuse people for the sake of abuse

But if it was solely for the sake of abuse I would abuse indiscriminately, which I don't.


Satire is generally funny. I wouldn't call your abuse funny, I would call it tragedy.

Of course being on the receiving end and being a frothy person with a deficient sense of humour when the joke is on you, that is exactly the response I would expect.

You are right though that "satire" was not quite the most exact word there. Perhaps "mockery" would be closer. :owned:

I also suspect you are using the word "tragedy" in the silly manner so common in the modern media (ie tragedy = disaster).

[cut meaningless blather and skip to]


I applaud you for finally engaging in the thread in a constructive way.

Yes but you initially tried to say that it looked like trolling. That seemed to blow up in your face remarkably quickly so where is the admission that you were wrong about that? (firegoat tries to call others for never admitting they are wrong but his own form on this is dodgy.)


So lets deconstruct your objections. [.quote]

Again firegoat uses a big word that he doesn't understand. Deconstruction is a method of so-called analysis that attempts to expose underlying psychological motives and cultural biases. What firegoat is engaging in is not deconstruction but an attempt at rebuttal - and a very poor one.

[quote]1. splitting threads is a waste of a moderators time, period.

Clearly not the view of many posters who request that threads be split.


2. Who is deciding that a thread has degenerated or is good or bad? Clearly this is a subjective experience by the participants. You should show people some courtesy by admitting that they can decide that for themselves. If a thread has expired its use by date, most people simply wont bother with it anymore.

If the thread splits we made were more often contentious we would receive more complaints about them. This is the first time anyone has complained about a thread split on this board that I can recall, and the complaint should be ignored because of your grudge against me and it being an obvious case of you picking a fight over nothing.


3. A lot of people have voiced their concerns about you and Bill destroying some threads. Clearly there is currently no way in which the rest of us can prevent both of you from continually to behave in such a manner.

Irrelevant to thread splitting issue and in any case most of those who have made such claims are trolls who engage in real thread-trashing and are just trying to divert attention from their defeat in debates by saying that we "destroyed" them.

Of course, if I destroyed this thread, that would be a humane act of euthanasia performed upon a rabid animal. :owned:


4. Why shouldn't all thread posters on the thread be allowed a vote? Isn't that democracy?
5. People who do not post in the thread, shouldn't be allowed to vote.
6. One registration one vote- whats wrong with that idea?

4. Democracy in and of itself is not an intrinsic good and in any case this is a private board where its owner determines the political structure as he sees fit.
5. + 6. Previously addressed - you have not answered my objections.


Thie idea of a discussion is to talk and think through ideas. Furthermore, that is why human beings are social creatures- they learn from each other. I don't understand why you think that it is necessary or even desirable for an individual to control and plan everything when engaging in discussion with others.

I don't understand why you think I think that. Actually I suspect that you don't.


Again, isnt it about participation by all people??? Stop abusing people!

Hippy.

ursogr8
30-01-2005, 01:32 PM
Why has this account been banned? I thought it was agreed that his ban was temporary?

Dave
I think I have decoded the da Vinci code.

skip to my lou


s to my lou


software option lock out




starter

Rincewind
30-01-2005, 02:46 PM
Username: Woodstocker
Search Depth: 2
Positive Matches: Matthew Sweeney

:hand:

Of course it is possible that Matt cancelled his connection, and his ISP reallocated the IP address to Woodstocker. A little unlikely but possible. :lol:

skip to my lou
30-01-2005, 03:00 PM
Of course it is possible that Matt cancelled his connection, and his ISP reallocated the IP address to Woodstocker. A little unlikely but possible. :lol:

Look at the IP ranges, 144 and 203, identical to Matt's range.

Rincewind
30-01-2005, 03:08 PM
Look at the IP ranges, 144 and 203, identical to Matt's range.

Relax, I was making a joke, Mr skip to my lou. ;)

antichrist
30-01-2005, 06:16 PM
Relax, I was making a joke, Mr skip to my lou. ;)

If JC seen fit to re-appear to his apostles after three days I at least expect a
guest appearance from Matt on "Matt Sweeney RIP 2002-2004" thread. He has proved Mark Twain correct.

skip to my lou
30-01-2005, 06:20 PM
Relax, I was making a joke, Mr skip to my lou. ;)

:uhoh:

firegoat7
31-01-2005, 01:02 AM
Do you have any evidence I am a Darwinist? Define "darwinist". Wrong questions all your doing is deflecting your analysis of culture, which was clearly wrong. Stop your narcissism.




Is it? That would seem to entail you thinking that if you play your cards right you will acquire some. Again no understanding of conflicting power. All people have power, how can you take what you already have?




But if it was solely for the sake of abuse I would abuse indiscriminately, which I don't. Its quite clear your pattern of discrimination -Anybody who objects to your abusive tendencies- wake up to yourself. Abuse is not justifiable, you can claim no morality with abuse, even to suggest that its justified through discrimination is illogical. All your abuse as a moderator does is set a standard- a standard of abuse.




Yes but you initially tried to say that it looked like trolling. That seemed to blow up in your face remarkably quickly so where is the admission that you were wrong about that? (firegoat tries to call others for never admitting they are wrong but his own form on this is dodgy.)

Its impossible to engage in any discussion with you Bonham. If you examine your initial post carefully you will clearly see that the abuse comes first, before any arguement. It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation within that context.



Again firegoat uses a big word that he doesn't understand. Deconstruction is a method of so-called analysis that attempts to expose underlying psychological motives and cultural biases. What firegoat is engaging in is not deconstruction but an attempt at rebuttal - and a very poor one.

It is strange that somebody who is engaged in an arguement with someone else would actually be arrogant enough to presume that they know all the answers already. Seems to defeat the purpose of a bulletin board dosen't it. For what its worth how could anybody rely on your definition of deconstruction. You define deconstruction in the negative then use it as a measurement of a post. Silly reasoning.






If the thread splits we made were more often contentious we would receive more complaints about them. This is the first time anyone has complained about a thread split on this board that I can recall, and the complaint should be ignored because of your grudge against me and it being an obvious case of you picking a fight over nothing. Drop the narcissism- Listen to the wise man Starter- Its about principles of engagement.




Irrelevant to thread splitting issue and in any case most of those who have made such claims are trolls who engage in real thread-trashing and are just trying to divert attention from their defeat in debates by saying that we "destroyed" them.

Of course, if I destroyed this thread, that would be a humane act of euthanasia performed upon a rabid animal. :owned:

Stop lying to yourself. Look at the truth. This is my challenge to you, Let us appoint a jury. Let us agree on finding ten reasonable posters to examine this thread in a linear fashion. Post by Post. Let us objectively investigate, who are the real thread trashers!! I will let you veto as many posters as you like for the jury provided I get the same right of reply. I want this ended Bonham, your claims are clearly ridiculous. I will abide by the democratic decision of the jury and agree to apologise to you if your claims are correct. I feel confident enough in my position to truly believe that your claims are false and that you are being nothing more then belligerent. In fact I will give you my word that I will never post on this bulletin board again if your case is proven to be correct. Can't get much fairer then that can you? Prepared to accept the challenge?




4. Democracy in and of itself is not an intrinsic good and in any case this is a private board where its owner determines the political structure as he sees fit.

Interesting. Let us all remember that you said "democracy in and of itself is not an intrinsic good". Let it also be noted that you believe that this is a private bulletin board and that inherent in that statement is an understanding that you know which political structure the "private owner" - "sees fit with". Maybe you could enlighten us mere mortals as to what exactly that structure is?




I don't understand why you think I think that. Actually I suspect that you don't. Again, for the record. A discussion does not presuppose accuracy. The discussion is the point not your initial opinions or pre-conceived notions.




Hippy. I object to you using this insulting word when addressing me. I do not belong to one of the most selfish generations of people this planet has ever produced. Please refrain from using this disgusting and vulgar insult again.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2005, 12:48 AM
(unsubstantiated drivel ignored)

"Abuse is not justifiable", you hypocritical dunce.


Again no understanding of conflicting power. All people have power, how can you take what you already have?

There are situations in which an individual has absolute legal power over another. Actually analysis of what the word "power" really means (especially in situations where individuals have legal powers but are disinclined to use them because of personal sanctions) is a fascinating topic in pol. phil., one in which even seasoned academics are often unconvincing, but it's one I'm reluctant to get into with one as poorly equipped, personally resentful and frothheaded as yourself.


Its quite clear your pattern of discrimination -Anybody who objects to your abusive tendencies- wake up to yourself.

I think you would find there would be people here who have objected to the level of abuse who I have not flamed but simply stated that I disagree with.


you can claim no morality with abuse

At least you got that bit right. All morality is subjective therefore claiming objective morality through abuse would be as futile as claiming it through anything else.

(skip points previously refuted)


Its impossible to engage in any discussion with you Bonham.

For you it certainly is, you're not good enough.


If you examine your initial post carefully you will clearly see that the abuse comes first, before any arguement. It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation within that context.

I'm not aiming at a meaningful conversation because this thread is a total joke. The order abuse/argument is unimportant.


It is strange that somebody who is engaged in an arguement with someone else would actually be arrogant enough to presume that they know all the answers already. Seems to defeat the purpose of a bulletin board dosen't it.

The purpose of a BB is not solely to debate but also, perhaps primarily, to impart information. Incidentally, in the post I am replying to, you made statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact continually, so you are the know-all you would like to portray me as, except that you don't.


For what its worth how could anybody rely on your definition of deconstruction. You define deconstruction in the negative then use it as a measurement of a post. Silly reasoning.

This is insane gibberish - I did not define deconstruction in the negative.


Drop the narcissism

It's a sad sign of your deluded condition that you mistake a statement of board history for a psychological condition you probably know nothing relevant about.


Stop lying to yourself. Look at the truth. This is my challenge to you, Let us appoint a jury. Let us agree on finding ten reasonable posters to examine this thread in a linear fashion. Post by Post. Let us objectively investigate, who are the real thread trashers!!

You are so incredibly stupid. I just can't believe you didn't get my point. This thread is not representative of general conduct on the BB because it is a stupid thread transparently started by you to start a fight with me. Of course I am trashing it, and I already said so, and you are my partner in what would be crime if this thread actually had any point. So all that stuff about a jury was just more of your silly frothing.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(is deeply astonished at the true stupidity of firegoat)


Interesting. Let us all remember that you said "democracy in and of itself is not an intrinsic good". Let it also be noted that you believe that this is a private bulletin board and that inherent in that statement is an understanding that you know which political structure the "private owner" - "sees fit with". Maybe you could enlighten us mere mortals as to what exactly that structure is?

Broadly libertarian but with power vested in a single owner, and put in place by an oligarchy who he has veto over. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have made the completely libertarian decision to join.


Again, for the record. A discussion does not presuppose accuracy. The discussion is the point not your initial opinions or pre-conceived notions.

In other words if you blather insincerely, it doesn't matter because at least you are wasting your time talking and being in love with the sound of your own voice.


I object to you using this insulting word when addressing me. I do not belong to one of the most selfish generations of people this planet has ever produced.

Hahahahahaha. You should feel right at home. Tryhard selfless types are frequently so selfish at heart.

As for insulting words, you not merely ignored my objections to "clown" but also flamed me for them, so I reckon you can just sit and sulk and be offended on this one.

Hippy. :lol:

firegoat7
01-02-2005, 11:52 AM
You are so incredibly stupid. I just can't believe you didn't get my point. This thread is not representative of general conduct on the BB because it is a stupid thread transparently started by you to start a fight with me. Of course I am trashing it, and I already said so, and you are my partner in what would be crime if this thread actually had any point. So all that stuff about a jury was just more of your silly frothing.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(is deeply astonished at the true stupidity of firegoat)

And there we have it folks, straight from the horses mouth. Kevin Bonham thread trasher!! It seems all threads that Kevin Bonham deems personal will be trashed by him. He refuses to engage in any mediating between 3rd parties, when offered. He argues that he has the right to behave like this because he is exactly what, compared to the rest of humanity?

Cheers FG7
P.S So the question remains will other people be allowed to post here, hopefully engaging in fruitful discussion, without Kevin Bonham trashing threads, if he deems it necessary?
P.P.S What is your opinion on this Bill Gletsos? Is this behaviour justified?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:17 PM
P.P.S What is your opinion on this Bill Gletsos? Is this behaviour justified?
Yes.
The BB is not a democracy and anyone believeing so is deluding themselves.
The Admins rule supreme. If users dont like it they can lump it.
Although one can disagree with the Admin, whatever one does, dont back yourself into a corner. Its a fight you cant win.

The Moderators rule as they see fit. Any consensus is between them and not the general users. Deleting posts, modifying them, splitting them is all at their discretion. There are times when I havent agreed with splitting of some threads and have said so. However I havent carried on about it. I accept it as part and parcel of the BB.

firegoat7
01-02-2005, 12:21 PM
Hello,

So again we go full circle with a discussion. Another thread goes of on tangents then returns to its initial premises. Thankfully, this one was not split by any moderator involved in the discussion. Did it need to be after drifting? Personally I think no, but others may have different opinions. Which brings me to back my original point.

Thread splitting is an exercise of power by the moderator. But who regulates the moderators behaviour? All human beings have faults, not just Kevin Bonham or Firegoat7. A badge of authority, such as a moderators badge, does not protect all bulletin board members from posting without harrassment. Especially if that harassment comes from the moderator themselves. That is why I believe that all thread splitting ought to involve a democratic poll from the thread participants(kudos to Bonham for refining that idea)

I also understand that there are administrators above moderators in the hierarchy of this bulletin board. These people simply do not have the time to deal with every little spat that occurs on the bulletin board, nor is this such a good idea for free speech. One simple solution is to allow for greater democracy from the participants themselves, following clear protocol. The current protocol is flawed.

Please introduce a vote on thread splitting to both prevent the misrepresentation of threads, arguements and people and to bring in safety checks for moderator and participant behaviour. Or at the very least more discussion followed by a vote on whether we ought to have a vote for thread splitting.

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
01-02-2005, 12:27 PM
Yes.
The BB is not a democracy and anyone believeing so is deluding themselves.
The Admins rule supreme. If users dont like it they can lump it.
Although one can disagree with the Admin, whatever one does, dont back yourself into a corner. Its a fight you cant win. is this official policy from the administrator or your interpretation of the administrators policy?


The Moderators rule as they see fit. Any consensus is between them and not the general users. Deleting posts, modifying them, splitting them is all at their discretion. There are times when I havent agreed with splitting of some threads and have said so. However I havent carried on about it. I accept it as part and parcel of the BB.

Clearly a lie.

Remember? it was you more then anybody who advocated a return to the old bulletin board when the new one was brought online. How much carrying on did you do then? more then anyone else me thinks.

Cheers FG7

Cat
01-02-2005, 12:28 PM
The Admins rule supreme. If users dont like it they can lump it.
Although one can disagree with the Admin, whatever one does, dont back yourself into a corner. Its a fight you cant win.

The Moderators rule as they see fit. Any consensus is between them and not the general users. Deleting posts, modifying them, splitting them is all at their discretion. There are times when I havent agreed with splitting of some threads and have said so. However I havent carried on about it. I accept it as part and parcel of the BB.

So this is your philosophy on life, these are the premises that explain your irrational behaviour? Being an administrator justifies everything.The fact that Australian Chess is in the doldrums and can't raise 2 farthings for it's Olympiad Team doesn't sway you from that unerring vision that being an administrator gives you permission to declare finally, totally, incontravertably what is & isn't right. I think there is a name for this kind of delusion!

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:29 PM
Please introduce a vote on thread splitting to both prevent the misrepresentation of threads, arguements and people and to bring in safety checks for moderator and participant behaviour. Or at the very least more discussion followed by a vote on whether we ought to have a vote for thread splitting.
Can you please explain to me what part of "the BB isnt a democracy" you dont understand.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:45 PM
is this official policy from the administrator or your interpretation of the administrators policy?
Its the general policy on most BB's.
Argue with the Admin at your own risk.


Clearly a lie.
No, just a misrepresentaion by you.


Remember? it was you more then anybody who advocated a return to the old bulletin board when the new one was brought online. How much carrying on did you do then? more then anyone else me thinks.
Yes I along with virtually all the others complained because the ACF BB was moved here without consulation with the ACF Council and there was a clash of BB cultures. The Moderation culture on the board here was much stricter than on the previous ACF BB.
That left three options: 1) Go back to the old ACF BB, 2) Accept the new moderation rules 3) Get the old ACF moderation rules implemented here.
The decision ultimately came down to the Admin. he agreed to option 3) he could have just as easily stuck refused to change the moderation rules, in which case the ACF users would have had to choices, accept them or go back to the old ACF BB.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 12:50 PM
So this is your philosophy on life, these are the premises that explain your irrational behaviour?
No you goose.
Its my philosophy on BB.


Being an administrator justifies everything.
Dont try and twist things.You know full well i was talking about BB.
I said a BB admin can do as he pleases and only a fool would get into a no win situation with an Admin.


The fact that Australian Chess is in the doldrums and can't raise 2 farthings for it's Olympiad Team doesn't sway you from that unerring vision that being an administrator gives you permission to declare finally, totally, incontravertably what is & isn't right. I think there is a name for this kind of delusion!
The only one deluded as usual is you.
My comment re Admins and Mods was explicitly related to BB.

Cat
01-02-2005, 01:06 PM
No you goose.
Its my philosophy on BB.



Ah, so if I met you in real life I wouldn't recognise you! In real life you are the paradigm of virtue, a very reasonable person indeed, charming, social and well mannered. It's only on the BB that you appear a complete prat!

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 01:16 PM
Ah, so if I met you in real life I wouldn't recognise you! In real life you are the paradigm of virtue, a very reasonable person indeed, charming, social and well mannered. It's only on the BB that you appear a complete prat!
But is it only on the BB you are a complete goose.

However once again you try and twist what I said.
I was referring to my philosphy that on bulletin boards there is no democracy, the Admins rule supreme and Moderators can moderate as they see fit.

Cat
01-02-2005, 01:35 PM
But is it only on the BB you are a complete goose.


No, I'm a goose in real life too.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 01:38 PM
No, I'm a goose in real life too.
I'm sure that admission will come back to haunt you. :lol:

firegoat7
01-02-2005, 01:40 PM
Yes.

The Moderators rule as they see fit. Any consensus is between them and not the general users. Deleting posts, modifying them, splitting them is all at their discretion. There are times when I havent agreed with splitting of some threads and have said so. However I havent carried on about it. I accept it as part and parcel of the BB.

Hello Bill,
By your admission, you "carried on', for want of a better word, until the old BB rules were implemented. Thus changing the culture of this bulletin board. Thus producing a clear example of democratic reform.

Using your own arguement as a reference point for future understanding. One could quite seriously ask you "Why?'" Surely, the principles are exactly the same. "Why didn't you just accept the new admins position, in regards to the old BB?"

Moreover Starter, in his gem of a post, at the beginning of this thread clearly showed both you and Bonham arguing the exact same principles from different sides of the arguement. Where is your consistency BG? Which defensive postion is the true Bill Gletsos' position?

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
01-02-2005, 01:49 PM
No, I'm a goose in real life too.

:) :clap: and disarming (in the short term). But you may regret it later.

ursogr8
01-02-2005, 01:57 PM
Hello Bill,
By your admission, you "carried on', for want of a better word, until the old BB rules were implemented. Thus changing the culture of this bulletin board. Thus producing a clear example of democratic reform.

Using your own arguement as a reference point for future understanding. One could quite seriously ask you "Why?'" Surely, the principles are exactly the same. "Why didn't you just accept the new admins position, in regards to the old BB?"

Moreover Starter, in his gem of a post, at the beginning of this thread clearly showed both you and Bonham arguing the exact same principles from different sides of the arguement. Where is your consistency BG? Which defensive postion is the true Bill Gletsos' position?

Cheers FG7

fg7

A fairly good post by you.
But maybe it is not consistency that is the issue.
Perhaps root-cause is 'geographic tyranny'.

What you and I need to do is take K. out and wine and dine him. We need to break bread with him. We need to introduce him to your lovely renovated premises. Then he will be on-side.

Until we can do that .... I will watch with interest Bill's response to your well-written post.

(in neutral, just an interested bystander)
starter

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 02:03 PM
Hello Bill,
By your admission, you "carried on', for want of a better word, until the old BB rules were implemented. Thus changing the culture of this bulletin board. Thus producing a clear example of democratic reform.
Democracy had nothing to do with it.
The ACF BB users were moved to this board without the Admins here being aware of the moderation policies of the old ACF BB.
The Admins here therefore had a choice. Accept the old ACF Moderation policies or not. If they didnt the ACF Bb users had a choice. Accept the new modertion policies or go back to their old ACF BB.
The Admins chose to accept the ACF Modertion policy for the ACF Forums.


Using your own arguement as a reference point for future understanding. One could quite seriously ask you "Why?'" Surely, the principles are exactly the same. "Why didn't you just accept the new admins position, in regards to the old BB?"
Simple. The situation is totally different.
The move of the users of the old ACF BB was unilateraly done by Paulb. No consultaion was done with the ACF Council regarding the move of its BB here
The Admins here had no understanding of the ACF BB moderation policy.


Moreover Starter, in his gem of a post, at the beginning of this thread clearly showed both you and Bonham arguing the exact same principles from different sides of the arguement.
starters so called gem has no relevance.
The ACF BB users were forcibly moved to this BB.
As I said above the choice of changing moderation policy here was up to the Admins here.


Where is your consistency BG? Which defensive postion is the true Bill Gletsos' position?
Its totally consistent.
As was noted at the time the move of the ACF BB here was done unilaterally by Paulb, without apparently making the Admins here aware of the differences in moderation policy.

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 02:06 PM
fg7

A fairly good post by you.
But maybe it is not consistency that is the issue.
Perhaps root-cause is 'geographic tyranny'

What you and I need to do is take K. out and wine and dine him. We need to break bread with him. We need to introduce him to your lovely renovated premises. Then he will be on-side.

Until we can do that .... I will watch with interest Bill's response to your well-written post.
There was nothing well written about it at all.
fg7 was just being self serving.
There is no commonality between the situation when we were forcibly migrated here and the general running of the BB now.


(in neutral, just an interested bystander)
Rubbish.

firegoat7
02-02-2005, 11:05 AM
Hello,

Would appreciate some feedback on post 56, if anyone can be bothered.

Furthermore, I think over time I have observed a pattern with Bill Gletsos. It appears to me that when ever anybody makes any inroads towards an actual discussion that Bill disagrees with. He responds by taking the thread down an irrelevent line for about 10 posts. I have noticed this happen on at least 4 occassions. Has anyone else noticed this? Does this pattern actually exist or is it just coincidence?

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2005, 11:15 AM
Hello,

Would appreciate some feedback on post 56, if anyone can be bothered.

Furthermore, I think over time I have observed a pattern with Bill Gletsos. It appears to me that when ever anybody makes any inroads towards an actual discussion that Bill disagrees with. He responds by taking the thread down an irrelevent line for about 10 posts. I have noticed this happen on at least 4 occassions. Has anyone else noticed this? Does this pattern actually exist or is it just coincidence?

Cheers FG7
The answer is simple.
You asked me a direct question in post #56.
I responded.
You just dont like my respons.
You tried to divert it by suggesting the situation when we all first moved here was similar to the current situation with regards moderation.
I rejected that claim.

All you are attempting now is to divert it again.

firegoat7
02-02-2005, 01:00 PM
The answer is simple.
You asked me a direct question in post #56.
I responded.
You just dont like my respons.


Thats right, true it is partly my fault for asking you one direct question amongst a multitude of other questions.
True I don't like your answer.
It is also true that I should have known better then to expect that you would ever reflect on your (hehe) flip flopping.



You tried to divert it by suggesting the situation when we all first moved here was similar to the current situation with regards moderation.

Actually false, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your answer. There was a choice of answers to a plethora of questions, it is clear which questions you choose to answer and your reasons why.


I rejected that claim.

All you are attempting now is to divert it again.

The diversion is part of the thread, don't worry it will comeback full circle again. It dosen't have to progress in a linear fashion. Of course it is debatable who is diverting it isn't it Bill. I see little effort on your behalf to actually engage in the core thread issues, but hey what else is new.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2005, 01:06 PM
Thats right, true it is partly my fault for asking you one direct question amongst a multitude of other questions.
True I don't like your answer.
It is also true that I should have known better then to expect that you would ever reflect on your (hehe) flip flopping.
No flip flop at all as the situations are different.


Actually false, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your answer. There was a choice of answers to a plethora of questions, it is clear which questions you choose to answer and your reasons why.
No hypocrisy at all since the situations are different.


The diversion is part of the thread, don't worry it will comeback full circle again. It dosen't have to progress in a linear fashion. Of course it is debatable who is diverting it isn't it Bill. I see little effort on your behalf to actually engage in the core thread issues, but hey what else is new.

You asked a specific question in post #56. I responded.
It was obvious to anyone of the meanest intellect that you would disagree even before you replied as my response would not suit your purpose.

firegoat7
02-02-2005, 01:23 PM
No flip flop at all as the situations are different.


No hypocrisy at all since the situations are different.


You asked a specific question in post #56. I responded.
It was obvious to anyone of the meanest intellect that you would disagree even before you replied as my response would not suit your purpose.

Please be more exact,you partly responded. You chose to answer one particular question from post 56. We can safely leave that answered by noting that you believe you have not flip flopped, while I believe you have flip flopped.

Which brings me to my point, what about answering the other questions on post 56? Let me predict, they don't specifically mention your name therefore your not interested.

cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
02-02-2005, 01:32 PM
Please be more exact,you partly responded. You chose to answer one particular question from post 56. We can safely leave that answered by noting that you believe you have not flip flopped, while I believe you have flip flopped.

Which brings me to my point, what about answering the other questions on post 56? Let me predict, they don't specifically mention your name therefore your not interested.
Its simple.
I agree with Kevins view:

This thread is not representative of general conduct on the BB because it is a stupid thread transparently started by you to start a fight with me.

firegoat7
02-02-2005, 01:40 PM
Nice discussion Bill Bonham

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2005, 02:09 AM
It seems all threads that Kevin Bonham deems personal will be trashed by him.

Not at all, you are generalising from a single example, which is extremely poor technique whether as argument or trolling.


He refuses to engage in any mediating between 3rd parties, when offered.

Unsubstantiated so I have no idea what you're dribbling about.


He argues that he has the right to behave like this because he is exactly what, compared to the rest of humanity?

Why would I bother comparing myself to the rest of humanity? They're not here, but you are. :lol:


P.S So the question remains will other people be allowed to post here,

Of course they're allowed to post.


P.P.S What is your opinion on this Bill Gletsos? Is this behaviour justified?

Hahaha. I bet you'll be wishing you hadn't invited Bill into this very very soon.

Now, firehippy, because you love demockery so much, let me ask you this: Suppose that at the worst of your infamy on this board or its predecessor, we had started a vote "should firegoat be banned?" I think there are times that vote would have been comfortably passed. Would you have then accepted such a vote as reasonable? I suggest that you may be still only here because the board is not more democratic.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2005, 02:32 AM
So again we go full circle with a discussion. Another thread goes of on tangents then returns to its initial premises. Thankfully, this one was not split by any moderator involved in the discussion. Did it need to be after drifting? Personally I think no, but others may have different opinions.

No one requested a split and no moderator thought one was necessary, so no split. These trashier threads in non-chess are often permitted to wander where they will, they're generally just not worth the effort.


Please introduce a vote on thread splitting to both prevent the misrepresentation of threads, arguements and people and to bring in safety checks for moderator and participant behaviour. Or at the very least more discussion followed by a vote on whether we ought to have a vote for thread splitting.

I have a short attention span and may have missed the part of your post where you explained the financial remuneration I would receive from you from providing these luxury services that would sooth your clearly battered soul but otherwise contribute absolutely nothing to the board but confusion and delays.

I also have a challenge for you: find me five other, or even any other, bulletin boards of comparable size and post volume to this one where the users vote on whether to split threads rather than the mods simply doing it.


The voice of the majority is no proof of justice


By your admission, you "carried on', for want of a better word, until the old BB rules were implemented. Thus changing the culture of this bulletin board. Thus producing a clear example of democratic reform.

Democratic? Where the hell was the voting in that?

Cat
03-02-2005, 07:01 AM
Now, firehippy, because you love demockery so much, let me ask you this: Suppose that at the worst of your infamy on this board or its predecessor, we had started a vote "should firegoat be banned?" I think there are times that vote would have been comfortably passed. Would you have then accepted such a vote as reasonable? I suggest that you may be still only here because the board is not more democratic.

What about a vote to ban the Bonham? - I reckon that would be a landslide! We could have a BB Survivor, who'll be voted off next? Better than the moderators choosing individuals, just because they're annoying! Cordover, Matt, who'll be next? Such intrigue. We could find more exciting ways to eliminate them - we could call it BB Suicide, BB Demise or BB End of Story.

firegoat7
03-02-2005, 11:48 AM
Hello,

... you are generalising from a single example, which is extremely poor technique ... Keep deluding yourself


Why would I bother comparing myself to the rest of humanity? You actually have to ask that question?



Hahaha. I bet you'll be wishing you hadn't invited Bill into this very very soon. Absolutely, I get confused with Bills behaviour which oscillates between generous encourager and stubborn belligerent.


Now, firehippy, because you love demockery so much, let me ask you this More unwarranted abuse


Suppose that at the worst of your infamy on this board or its predecessor, we had started a vote "should firegoat be banned?" I think there are times that vote would have been comfortably passed. Would you have then accepted such a vote as reasonable? I suggest that you may be still only here because the board is not more democratic. A tedious and stupid analogy. There is nothing democratic about banning people. Even if there was, which there isn't (since democracy presumes participation) it would only be justified with 100% agreement.

If you want to use a real life example on this bulletin board, consider the case of Matt, the bulletin board is duller without him, his enthusiam helped make the board interesting. When you banned him (Im not judging whether it was justifeid or not), you destroyed part of the dynamics of the BB community. People who enjoyed Matts posting (like myself) lose out. And yes of course we should have a say in it. If you want, start another thread on this point because I think it is an interesting discussion you have proposed. Furthermore, if everybody disagreed with my behaviour on the original board then of course I should be banned, if people want that.

Importantly however, we are not talking about people in this thread, we are talking about procedure. The procedure of thread splitting is undemocratic. The problems with that are obvious.

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
03-02-2005, 12:25 PM
Hello,



I have a short attention span and may have missed the part of your post where you explained the financial remuneration I would receive from you from providing these luxury services that would sooth your clearly battered soul but otherwise contribute absolutely nothing to the board but confusion and delays. What are you talking about? I don't understand your point.



I also have a challenge for you: find me five other, or even any other, bulletin boards of comparable size and post volume to this one where the users vote on whether to split threads rather than the mods simply doing it. Not interested. Its like saying "show me a current Australian Prime Minister, who disagrees that locking away refugees is a good thing" Its an irrelevent arguement isn't it. It is no proof of merit or value, instead it is just an example of current practice.






Democratic? Where the hell was the voting in that?
Freedom of expression is democratic. You and Bill both expressed your opinions about the old bulletin board.

Karthick, in a truly amazing and wonderful decision actually changed his mind, agreeing that there was some merit in yours and Bills arguement, which of course there was. Karthick at least showed, balance, Im not so sure that you would have been able to behave in the same manner.

The problem is that thread splitting is a manipulation of arguement. There can be no freedom of expression when this is happening. Besides, voting is a part of democracy, not the only part as you are undoubtly aware.

We are allowed to have polls for thread starts, why not have polls for thread splits. Polls were not originally on the bulletin board in the beginning. They were introduced, much as I am arguing that they ought to be introduced for thread splits.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 12:50 PM
Polls were not originally on the bulletin board in the beginning. They were introduced,
As far as I recall there were polls on this board from the day we first moved here.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 01:53 PM
A tedious and stupid analogy. There is nothing democratic about banning people. Even if there was, which there isn't (since democracy presumes participation) it would only be justified with 100% agreement.
Since when has democracy ever demanded a 100% vote. In fact under this scenario a perenial offender could be saved from banning by another perenial offender voting against his banning. That is simple stupidity being taken to the extreme.


If you want to use a real life example on this bulletin board, consider the case of Matt, the bulletin board is duller without him, his enthusiam helped make the board interesting. When you banned him (Im not judging whether it was justifeid or not), you destroyed part of the dynamics of the BB community. People who enjoyed Matts posting (like myself) lose out.
Yes, we lose out getting more rude, crude and vulgar language from Matt.
That is no loss at all.


And yes of course we should have a say in it.
No, banning should be at the total discretion of the admins and moderators.


If you want, start another thread on this point because I think it is an interesting discussion you have proposed. Furthermore, if everybody disagreed with my behaviour on the original board then of course I should be banned, if people want that.
Everyone has nothing to do with it. In the hypothetical situation all it would require is a majority.


Importantly however, we are not talking about people in this thread, we are talking about procedure. The procedure of thread splitting is undemocratic.
The running of a bulletin board has nothing to do with democracy.


The problems with that are obvious.
What is obvious is that you have virtually no support on the thread topic except from the usual suspects.

So far there have been 85 posts in this thread.

You have made 18 posts.
Kevin has made 9.
Woodstocker (aka Matt) made 5.
DR made 7.
I made 18 mostly in reply to Matt, DR and you (in your case only after being directly asked to comment).

Now apart from the expected support for you by Matt and DR who would do so if for no other reason than to bash Kevin, there has been virtually no support from the remaining posters in the thread who either didnt support you or posted off the thread topic.

The other postsers were:
starter 7 (hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence)
frosty 2 (does not support you, see post #7)
Bruce 3 (doesnt have a problem with thread splitting, see post #8)
Skaro 2 (off topic)
antichrist 4 (off topic)
gg 1 (off topic)
Barry Cox 3 (off topic)
skip to my lou 6 (off topic)

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2005, 02:42 PM
Keep deluding yourself

No evidence, so I take that as a forfeit of that point.


There is nothing democratic about banning people. Even if there was, which there isn't (since democracy presumes participation) it would only be justified with 100% agreement.

Why? See, you seem quite happy for a majority vote to decide whether a thread is split, and you call that "democratic". However when I suggest voting on something else you say voting on that would not be "democratic" and that instead it should only be done by consensus. So this proves you are not committed to democracy in all cases (in this case, presumably you think it does not protect the "rights" of minorities.) I, too, am not committed to democracy in all cases, and a case where I am not committed to it on this BB is where it would be a tedious silly cumbersome waste of time that satisfies the probably bogus whims of a single whining poster.

Either you believe democracy is an intrinsic good that applies in all cases, in which it should apply to a putative vote to ban you, or else you accept it has limitations. If you accept the latter then we are merely arguing about what those limitations are and why.


If you want to use a real life example on this bulletin board, consider the case of Matt, the bulletin board is duller without him, his enthusiam helped make the board interesting.

By analogy, one could argue that many criminals are interesting characters and that life on the outside is duller without them. However if they continue to commit offences then that should not protect them from being imprisoned.


Importantly however, we are not talking about people in this thread, we are talking about procedure. The procedure of thread splitting is undemocratic. The problems with that are obvious.

You are the only one who has made such a fuss about this and you have utterly failed to prove there is a problem. When someone says something is "obvious" without evidence it is often just a handwave.


What are you talking about? I don't understand your point.

Then I am sorry for your lack of intelligence. Try again. :lol:


Not interested. Its like saying "show me a current Australian Prime Minister, who disagrees that locking away refugees is a good thing" Its an irrelevent arguement isn't it. It is no proof of merit or value, instead it is just an example of current practice.

There is only one current Australian Prime Minister, but there are tens of thousands of BBs just like this one. If your suggestion had any merit it would very likely have been tried, succeeded, and then spread by word of mouth from BB to BB across the net.


Freedom of expression is democratic. You and Bill both expressed your opinions about the old bulletin board.

No, free expression comes from the liberal side of liberal democracy, not the democratic (voting) side. By your argument we could just as easily say that you can express your opinion about thread-splits whenever you like, therefore your democratic right has already been fulfilled and your case for votes on threadsplitting is unnecessary. You have contradicted yourself because either you lack understanding of basic political argument, or else you're just saying anything (however trashy) to keep treading water in this debate.


Karthick at least showed, balance, Im not so sure that you would have been able to behave in the same manner.

Your perceptions of me are so biased as to be worthless.


The problem is that thread splitting is a manipulation of arguement. There can be no freedom of expression when this is happening.

In that case there is no difference between you posting on a board where threadsplitting is allowed, and you being banned, so why not simply leave?

The reality is that threadsplitting has very little if any impact on freedom of expression, but often improves the flow of debate.


Besides, voting is a part of democracy, not the only part as you are undoubtly aware.

Irrelevant as this BB is not a democracy. It is not necessary in a (supposedly) democratic society at large that all structures (including trivial ones like private BBs) be democratised, and indeed this is frequently counterproductive.


We are allowed to have polls for thread starts, why not have polls for thread splits.

Misleading - you have polls on anything at the start of threads, but there isn't a requirement to have a poll on whether to start a thread before it is started. Do you think there should be? :lol:


Polls were not originally on the bulletin board in the beginning. They were introduced

This is simply false.

ursogr8
03-02-2005, 02:47 PM
<snip>
starter 7 (hard to say, ..)
<snip>



What's hard to say about that?

starter 7
starter 7
starter 7
Just rolls off the tongue.
Even got its own metric.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 02:55 PM
What's hard to say about that?

starter 7
starter 7
starter 7
Just rolls off the tongue.
Even got its own metric.
One of your more useless posts.

Perhaps you could give it some merit and comment on the later part of the sentence which said "hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence'.
So which is it. Are you a supporter of fg7's topic or a fence sitter.

ursogr8
03-02-2005, 04:38 PM
One of your more useless posts.

Perhaps you could give it some merit and comment on the later part of the sentence which said "hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence'.
So which is it. Are you a supporter of fg7's topic or a fence sitter.

Let me put it this way Bill:

1) If there is a wet afternoon one day next week, like we had last night in Melbourne, then I will read the thread from start to finish and give a score at the end.

2) If fg7 would guarantee to get an MCC rep. at the next CV AGM, (or field 3 teams in the Winter Interclub), then I will read the thread from start to finish and give a score at the end.

But if there is nothing like that about to happen then I will degrade to trading flippant posts with *Caketin*. :cool:

mmm ..kewl.. nice to sea Amiel bak saf and sound init?



Btw, nice to see you on the Competitive thread giving a few judgements. ;)




regards
starter

firegoat7
03-02-2005, 05:01 PM
Hello BG,

Since when has democracy ever demanded a 100% vote.
True, representational democracy has never demanded a 100% vote. However, most democratic decisions in real life are basically agreed to by everyone. If you want I will give you examples, but only if you listen with open ears.


In fact under this scenario a perenial offender could be saved from banning by another perenial offender voting against his banning. Yes quite true, it could happen. Equally as likely is that you might have a heart attack in response to Matts next post. Why must you focus on extreme examples? Im sure people will be able to deal with it in a democratic way if perenial offenders formed cliques.


That is simple stupidity being taken to the extreme. As I just pointed out it is you who is being extreme, I won't call you stupid, I will simply say maybe you didn't think about your answer properly.



Yes, we lose out getting more rude, crude and vulgar language from Matt.
That is no loss at all. Im really not interested in your personal grudges, please discuss it on a related thread. "We" is not you and me.



No banning should be at the total discretion of the admins and moderators.
I agree totally!! absolutely none, nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking.



The running of a bulletin board has nothing to do with democracy.
I cannot take this statement seriously, and the more you repeat it the more I lose respect for any of your arguements. I don't see how our society has shifted from being a democracy and Im sure your extreme view is not one that is shared by the administrators.



What is obvious is that you have virtually no support on the thread topic except from the usual suspects.

So far there have been 85 posts in this thread.

You have made 18 posts.
Kevin has made 9.
Woodstocker (aka Matt) made 5.
DR made 7.
I made 18 mostly in reply to Matt, DR and you (in your case only after being directly asked to comment).

Now apart from the expected support for you by Matt and DR who would do so if for no other reason than to bash Kevin, there has been virtually no support from the remaining posters in the thread who either didnt support you or posted off the thread topic.

The other postsers were:
starter 7 (hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence)
frosty 2 (does not support you, see post #7)
Bruce 3 (doesnt have a problem with thread splitting, see post #8)
Skaro 2 (off topic)
antichrist 4 (off topic)
gg 1 (off topic)
Barry Cox 3 (off topic)
skip to my lou 6 (off topic)

What is obvious is this....

1. You regard support for my arguement as Kevin bashing. On what grounds would you base this evidence, in this thread?

2. Most posts are off topic- which just goes to show you how arbitary thread splitting is.

3. Your contribution of 18 posts has contributed very little debate.
Frostys contribution of 2 posts seemed to offer much more food for thought.

4. You also seem to think that quantitative measurement is more legitimate then qualitative measurement. A position which even Bonham wouldn't support on principle ( although he will in all likely-hood say something about the nature of certain peoples qualitative posts, (well that is his usual MO))

5. People don't have to agree to have a discussion, it seems pretty pointless to want to quantify that, we discuss what we don't agree on not the other way around.

Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 05:42 PM
Hello BG,
True, representational democracy has never demanded a 100% vote. However, most democratic decisions in real life are basically agreed to by everyone. If you want I will give you examples, but only if you listen with open ears.
Knock yourself out.
Just look at the main example of democracy, parlimentary elections.
All thats required is a majority.


Yes quite true, it could happen. Equally as likely is that you might have a heart attack in response to Matts next post. Why must you focus on extreme examples? Im sure people will be able to deal with it in a democratic way if perenial offenders formed cliques.
Stop wasting time.
If anyones example was extreme it was your demand for a 100%.


As I just pointed out it is you who is being extreme, I won't call you stupid, I will simply say maybe you didn't think about your answer properly.
If anyone isnt thinking about their answers its you.
You were the one who demanded the extreme of a 100% agreement.


Im really not interested in your personal grudges, please discuss it on a related thread. "We" is not you and me.
Well this whole thread is basically an attack by you on KB is just a personal grudge.


I agree totally!! absolutely none, nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking.
Nice attempt to twist my words.
So that even you cannot misunderstand I restate it.
All banning on the board should be at the total discretion of the admins and moderators.


I cannot take this statement seriously, and the more you repeat it the more I lose respect for any of your arguements. I don't see how our society has shifted from being a democracy and Im sure your extreme view is not one that is shared by the administrators.
Thats ok, I dont take most of what you write on this bulletin boards seriously.
However my view on Bulletins boards isnt extreme its a statement of fact.


What is obvious is this....

1. You regard support for my arguement as Kevin bashing. On what grounds would you base this evidence, in this thread?
Why limit it to this thread.
Its obvious Matt and DR will side with anyone attacking Kevin.


2. Most posts are off topic- which just goes to show you how arbitary thread splitting is.
So what.
Thread splitting is at the discretion of the admins/moderators.
Thats how the vast majority of bulletin baords work.


3. Your contribution of 18 posts has contributed very little debate.
No less than your 18 posts o dribble.


Frostys contribution of 2 posts seemed to offer much more food for thought.
Yes, Frosty post #7 summed it up nicley. I notice you totally ignored commenting on it. No doubt because you cannot refute it. After all if you could have, you would have.


4. You also seem to think that quantitative measurement is more legitimate then qualitative measurement. A position which even Bonham wouldn't support on principle ( although he will in all likely-hood say something about the nature of certain peoples qualitative posts, (well that is his usual MO))
My point is that only you Matt and DR support your viewpoint. Hardly a convincing group.
The vast majority of the BB couldnt care less.


5. People don't have to agree to have a discussion, it seems pretty pointless to want to quantify that, we discuss what we don't agree on not the other way around.
Other than the expected support of Matt and DR no one else is interested.
As such it isnt a discussion, its just prattling amongst yourselves.

firegoat7
03-02-2005, 06:01 PM
No evidence, so I take that as a forfeit of that point. Keep selectivly deluding yourself.




Why? See, you seem quite happy for a majority vote to decide whether a thread is split, and you call that "democratic". Lets qualify my statements and not take them to much out of context please Kevy, I believe a vote is better then current practice. Not- I believe a majority vote is best practice. Are we clear on that point?



However when I suggest voting on something else you say voting on that would not be "democratic" and that instead it should only be done by consensus. I will clarify it again in case your not sure. I believe a vote is better then no vote. Following from that I believe a majority vote is better then a minority no vote. I believe banning somebody is probably the worst punishment you can dish out to somebody on this BB. Personally I see little reason for not having 100% consensus when adopting extreme measures, such as banning.


So this proves you are not committed to democracy in all cases (in this case, presumably you think it does not protect the "rights" of minorities.) I, too, am not committed to democracy in all cases, and a case where I am not committed to it on this BB is where it would be a tedious silly cumbersome waste of time that satisfies the probably bogus whims of a single whining poster. There is no "proof" in your arguement. More likely we have opened up questions about - What exactly is democracy.



Either you believe democracy is an intrinsic good that applies in all cases, in which it should apply to a putative vote to ban you, or else you accept it has limitations. If you accept the latter then we are merely arguing about what those limitations are and why. Look, I'm sorry I can't accept this reasoning either. You are defining limits on democracy in your premises. There has been little discussion about the definition of democracy, nor has there been any serious suggestion that its utilitarian aims would be so limited as to fit into the paradigm you are suggesting. I reject your paradigm as simply an effort by you to limit the intrinsic good of democracy. There is no legitimacy in your position. Furthermore I have stated quite clearly my opinion on banning being one of 100% consensus, at least this position would be legitimate!


By analogy, one could argue that many criminals are interesting characters and that life on the outside is duller without them. However if they continue to commit offences then that should not protect them from being imprisoned.

My first point is this, please do not suggest an analogy that Matt is a criminal, Its not a legitimate claim, and Im sure you have more sense then to start using it. My second point is not related to this thread. The onus is on you to prove that banning is legitimate, not on the offender. How you prove that is another debate entirely.


You are the only one who has made such a fuss about this and you have utterly failed to prove there is a problem. When someone says something is "obvious" without evidence it is often just a handwave. It is irrelevent if I am the only one to make a fuss or not, so where is that arguement coming from? Furthermore, you seem very confident of your claims,as usual, despite the fact that the thread is still continuing.




Then I am sorry for your lack of intelligence. Try again. :lol:
Its not necessary for you to behave in this manner. I will point out, yet again. that you are a moderator.




There is only one current Australian Prime Minister, but there are tens of thousands of BBs just like this one. If your suggestion had any merit it would very likely have been tried, succeeded, and then spread by word of mouth from BB to BB across the net. Thats right!, Unless its an original idea. Furthermore if you want to make this claim then the onus is again upon you to prove that it hasn't been done before, unless of course you want to use the ridiculous arguement- I haven't heard of it therefore it must not exist!




No, free expression comes from the liberal side of liberal democracy, not the democratic (voting) side. some how I doubt your universal statement.
By your argument we could just as easily say that you can express your opinion about thread-splits whenever you like, therefore your democratic right has already been fulfilled and your case for votes on threadsplitting is unnecessary. Feel free to argue it, I will await your progress.
You have contradicted yourself because either you lack understanding of basic political argument, or else you're just saying anything (however trashy) to keep treading water in this debate. Show me the proof buddy. Much better then huffing and puffing.


Your perceptions of me are so biased as to be worthless. I think this should read "your perceptions of me are important but not as important as my perception of myself", since it is only you that wants to make this debate personal.






Irrelevant as this BB is not a democracy. See my response to your sidekick. Stop talking such utter nonsense.


It is not necessary in a (supposedly) democratic society at large that all structures (including trivial ones like private BBs) be democratised, and indeed this is frequently counterproductive. here we differ ideologically.



whether to start a thread[/i] before it is started. Do you think there should be? :lol: The usual melodrama and mis-representation.




This is simply false. Is it really? I will back my memory over your pompous assertions anyday, and boy can my memory be bad.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 06:23 PM
Is it really? I will back my memory over your pompous assertions anyday, and boy can my memory be bad.
It is easily to show that you are wrong.
The first posts on this board happened when we migrated here on 01/01/2004. There was a poll held here starting on 02/01/2004 in the thread "the race starts again " started by gg.
The poll was "how long will it take for there to be a bill v matt slanging match"

The polls show with corrupted options now because that happened when Skip to my lou migrated the board to vBulletin.

Cat
03-02-2005, 06:46 PM
Knock yourself out.
Just look at the main example of democracy, parlimentary elections.
All thats required is a majority.


Stop wasting time.
If anyones example was extreme it was your demand for a 100%.


If anyone isnt thinking about their answers its you.
You were the one who demanded the extreme of a 100% agreement.


Well this whole thread is basically an attack by you on KB is just a personal grudge.


Nice attempt to twist my words.
So that even you cannot misunderstand I restate it.
All banning on the board should be at the total discretion of the admins and moderators.


Thats ok, I dont take most of what you write on this bulletin boards seriously.
However my view on Bulletins boards isnt extreme its a statement of fact.


Why limit it to this thread.
Its obvious Matt and DR will side with anyone attacking Kevin.


So what.
Thread splitting is at the discretion of the admins/moderators.
Thats how the vast majority of bulletin baords work.


No less than your 18 posts o dribble.


Yes, Frosty post #7 summed it up nicley. I notice you totally ignored commenting on it. No doubt because you cannot refute it. After all if you could have, you would have.


My point is that only you Matt and DR support your viewpoint. Hardly a convincing group.
The vast majority of the BB couldnt care less.


Other than the expected support of Matt and DR no one else is interested.
As such it isnt a discussion, its just prattling amongst yourselves.


You know you really are becoming a great, big girl.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2005, 07:04 PM
You know you really are becoming a great, big girl.
I couldnt care less ehat a self proclaimed goose like you has to say.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2005, 01:58 AM
However, most democratic decisions in real life are basically agreed to by everyone. If you want I will give you examples, but only if you listen with open ears.

Which is an unfalsifiable promise because when we dismember your examples you will say it was because we listened with closed ears. So bring on your examples; if they are good they will assist your cause no matter how we listen. Personally, I know you're talking utter nonsense here again. Consensus is the exception not the norm and systems too skewed towards consensus or nothing soon become unworkable. Only at community-group type level is consensus normal.


Why must you focus on extreme examples?

Dealing with rare exceptions is one of the most difficult tasks in designing any system.


I cannot take this statement seriously, and the more you repeat it the more I lose respect for any of your arguements.

You goose, he was simply stating a fact. :rolleyes:


I don't see how our society has shifted from being a democracy and Im sure your extreme view is not one that is shared by the administrators.

Our society is a procedural democracy in which voting is limited to certain institutions like parliaments and local councils. Bulletin boards are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.


4. You also seem to think that quantitative measurement is more legitimate then qualitative measurement. A position which even Bonham wouldn't support on principle ( although he will in all likely-hood say something about the nature of certain peoples qualitative posts, (well that is his usual MO))

You have it completely wrong as usual. Bill's analysis does demonstrate a useful point quantatively, namely that you have no unequivocal support from anyone except your usual discredited mates. If there was serious support for your proposal from others it has had plenty of time to emerge and has not done so.


Keep selectivly deluding yourself.

Thankyou. Gladly. I delude myself that your rubbish is worthy of my time, however I'm going to get over that delusion pretty soon unless you can come up with something better than all this. :wall:


Lets qualify my statements and not take them to much out of context please Kevy, I also believe that a vote is better then current practice. Not- I believe a majority vote is best practice. Are we clear on that point?

Typical of you to post-invent a context and accuse me of taking your comments out of it. It is irrelevant; you think a majority vote is "democratic", that is all that counts for what I was arguing.

{skipped drivel}


Look, I'm sorry I can't accept this reasoning either. You are defining limits on democracy in your premises. There has been little discussion about the definition of democracy, nor has there been any serious suggestion that its utilitarian aims would be so limited as to fit into the paradigm you are suggesting.

Sooooooo sorry, I must be too used to debating this stuff with people who actually have a clue and don't need to be spoonfed definitions. :rolleyes: Democracy simply refers to a system where individuals are entitled to vote on decisions. Liberal democracy is a system where limits are placed on the power of these decisions, typically to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority" as discussed (for instance) by JS Mill. Indirect democracy is a system in which not every decision is voted on directly but the decisions are made by representatives who are elected. The arguments for this are overwhelmingly practical ("utilitarian" is a bit narrow).

As for paradigms, what paradigm was I suggesting?


I reject your paradigm as simply an effort by you to limit the intrinsic good of democracy.

But you cannot prove it is an intrinsic good because there are no intrinsic goods, so I will simply ignore that - you disagree, that is all. You cannot say:


There is no legitimacy in your position.

meaningfully because yours is completely arbitrary.


Furthermore I have stated quite clearly my opinion on banning being one of 100% consensus, at least this position would be legitimate!

It would guarantee that every banning made was "legitimate" but it would not guarantee that every legitimate banning was made. Indeed it would make banning impossible, which is perhaps why you support it. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


My first point is this, please do not suggest an analogy that Matt is a criminal, Its not a legitimate claim, and Im sure you have more sense then to start using it.

It is a completely legitimate analogy and you provided no evidence to the contrary.


The onus is on you to prove that banning is legitimate, not on the offender.

This is a private board and there is no onus on us to prove anything. However we do not ban people lightly and Matt had far, far, far more chances than he would have got on many BBs with similar rules.


It is irrelevent if I am the only one to make a fuss or not, so where is that arguement coming from?

It is relevant because it suggests that there is no serious support for your position - as a wannabe democrat you should care about this.


Its not necessary for you to behave in this manner. I will point out, yet again. that you are a moderator.

It is not necessary for you to be such an idiot so often. I will point out, yet again, that my moderator status is irrelevant. :clap:


Unless its an original idea.

There is that. It is quite possible that the reason your idea has never appeared before is that anyone else it has occurred to has immediately realised it is stupid.


some how I doubt your universal statement.

No evidence.


Feel free to argue it, I will await your progress.

Already have.


Show me the proof buddy. Much better then huffing and puffing.

Actually I think I was just exhausting all the possible explanations for your stupidity; if you have others feel free to run them past me.


I think this should read "your perceptions of me are important but not as important as my perception of myself",

Unsubstantiated, and I can actually say with evidence, delusional (since I know how unimportant what you think of me is to me.)

[moronic fibbing and unsubstantiated blather skipped]


Is it really? I will back my memory over your pompous assertions anyday, and boy can my memory be bad.

Well sunshine, in the first days of this board there was a poll on whether we should go back to the old BB. So yes, your memory is bad, but also your assertions are pompous.

This idiocy is a total waste of my time so your next response will be marked for quality of debate in determining whether I respond to the majority of it, selectively or not at all. Have fun.

firegoat7
04-02-2005, 11:05 AM
What is obvious is that you have virtually no support on the thread topic except from the usual suspects.[ /quote] Not that it matters if it were true, but this statement is nothing more then emotional nonsense. Who does have support on this thread? What does Bill mean by the usual suspects?

[Quote=Bill Gletsos]
So far there have been 85 posts in this thread.

You have made 18 posts.
Kevin has made 9.
Woodstocker (aka Matt) made 5.
DR made 7.
I made 18 mostly in reply to Matt, DR and you (in your case only after being directly asked to comment). I add this just to show the context of your analysis Bill.

Now Bill, you begin by talking with authority, tainting my position in the process, without even the slightest hint of reflecting on your own, so called, facts. What you should have done is re-read their (WS +DRs) posts first. This next statement you make is a complete lie!! It is a clear example of your own insecure psychological agenda. It has nothing to do with the thread at all. Your facts are wrong Bill, wrong,wrong,wrong.


Now apart from the expected support for you by Matt and DR who would do so if for no other reason than to bash Kevin, there has been virtually no support from the remaining posters in the thread who either didnt support you or posted off the thread topic.

If you actually bother to read any of Woodstockers or David_Richards posts on this thread. One point will become quickly apparent. Neither of them support or disagree with my position on this thread. In fact they do not engage with any issue concerning thread splitting. Therefore you are fibbing. Unless you can prove that they support my position, which you cannot! Then you owe me an apology.

You continue with




The other postsers were:
starter 7 (hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence)
frosty 2 (does not support you, see post #7)
Bruce 3 (doesnt have a problem with thread splitting, see post #8)
Skaro 2 (off topic)
antichrist 4 (off topic)
gg 1 (off topic)
Barry Cox 3 (off topic)
skip to my lou 6 (off topic)

I have already suggested that this analysis is a waste of time. Whether the majority support my ideas or not is irrelevent. What is important is that they are allowed to expressed their ideas, without fear of intimidation from anyone else, that includes you me and all the moderators!

That said, I want to further criticise your evidence, Bill Gletsos. I think your evidence is biased and unsupportive of your position.

Let us examine who is for your position, Bill.
Kevin Bonham (yes agreed), Frosty (yes agreed), Bill Gletsos (yes agreed)- 3 people.

Bruce Dickinson is claimed as a supporter. Is this claim true? Here is what he posted in the infamous post 8


Personally I don't care about thread drift.. see how we hijacked that Dumb and Dumber thread with religious debate, hehe. How would anyone interpret this evidence as support for Bills position? How? This is not evidence for your position Bill.

I have put this next question in bold letters so that Kevin Bonham doesn't miss it either.

Would you count Bruce Dickinsons 8th post as evidence that supports yours and Bills position, Bonham?

for you previously posted after Bill,




You have it completely wrong as usual. Bill's analysis does demonstrate a useful point quantatively, namely that you have no unequivocal support from anyone except your usual discredited mates. If there was serious support for your proposal from others it has had plenty of time to emerge and has not done so.

Im sorry Bonham but it is clearly you and Bill who have it completely wrong!, not me.

You as usual are very quick to come to the defence of Bill. Did you bother to check the facts. You just accept his claims without bothering to check them. Bill, you probably owe Bonham an apology aswell, since he naively believed what you claimed.

Let us investigate Bonhams claims- Who are my " discredited mates"? that support my position. Who exactly are you talking about here Bonham? Why don't you name the people you are talking about? Obviously you mean WS and DR. But It is clear, to even blind freddy, that Woodstocker and David_Richards have offered no opinion concerning thread splitting. As such Bill should have categorised their posts as (off topic), not as supporting my position. You should have picked this up and not supported Bills position before you ranted. Clearly in your own words "this is very sloppy".

For what it is worth, I would count these contributers as, for my position.
Bruce Dickinson and Starter.

I however want to qualify my statements.
Bruce dosen't believe thread drift is an issue, hence he is hardly going to suggest that thread splitting is legitimate.
Starter believes that there is inconsistency with moderating behaviour ,which infers tacid support for a more democratic process.

Neither probably agree with my position 100%, and furthermore I don't expect them to, but I would qualify my statement by suggesting their positions are closer to mine then to yours.

The score is now 3 all from my perspective, hardly no support. Maybe a conservative might call it as 5-1. But from where I stand it is definately not 4-3 as you claim Billy Bonham. And next time if you want to keep score, remember to get the starting line up sorted out before the game.



Cheers FG7

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2005, 11:50 AM
Not that it matters if it were true, but this statement is nothing more then emotional nonsense. Who does have support on this thread? What does Bill mean by the usual suspects?
The usual suspects are Matt and DR.


I add this just to show the context of your analysis Bill.

Now Bill, you begin by talking with authority, tainting my position in the process, without even the slightest hint of reflecting on your own, so called, facts. What you should have done is re-read their (WS +DRs) posts first. This next statement you make is a complete lie!! It is a clear example of your own insecure psychological agenda. It has nothing to do with the thread at all. Your facts are wrong Bill, wrong,wrong,wrong.


If you actually bother to read any of Woodstockers or David_Richards posts on this thread. One point will become quickly apparent. Neither of them support or disagree with my position on this thread. In fact they do not engage with any issue concerning thread splitting. Therefore you are fibbing. Unless you can prove that they support my position, which you cannot! Then you owe me an apology..
Woodstocker(aka Matt) attacks Kevin in his first post #21 and again in #29.
DR's first post #32 is obviously supportive of you.


You continue with

I have already suggested that this analysis is a waste of time. Whether the majority support my ideas or not is irrelevent. What is important is that they are allowed to expressed their ideas, without fear of intimidation from anyone else, that includes you me and all the moderators!
If as you suggest above that Matt and DR did not support you (a point I disagree with) then that would make your support even less than than I gave you credit for.


That said, I want to further criticise your evidence, Bill Gletsos. I think your evidence is biased and unsupportive of your position.

Let us examine who is for your position, Bill.
Kevin Bonham (yes agreed), Frosty (yes agreed), Bill Gletsos (yes agreed)- 3 people.
So far so good.


Bruce Dickinson is claimed as a supporter. Is this claim true? Here is what he posted in the infamous post 8
In correct, I never claimed him as a supporter. I said he doesnt have a problem with it.
The fact he said he didnt care means he doesnt have a problem with it. If he had a problem with it he would undoubtedly care about it.


How would anyone interpret this evidence as support for Bills position? How? This is not evidence for your position Bill.

I have put this next question in bold letters so that Kevin Bonham doesn't miss it either.

Would you count Bruce Dickinsons 8th post as evidence that supports yours and Bills position, Bonham?
Although addressed to Kevin, I'll comment.
Let me repeat it so you can understand.
I never claimed Bruce as a supporter.


for you previously posted after Bill,

Im sorry Bonham but it is clearly you and Bill who have it completely wrong!, not me.
As usual you are just in a state of denial.


You as usual are very quick to come to the defence of Bill. Did you bother to check the facts. You just accept his claims without bothering to check them. Bill, you probably owe Bonham an apology aswell, since he naively believed what you claimed.

Let us investigate Bonhams claims- Who are my " discredited mates"? that support my position. Who exactly are you talking about here Bonham? Why don't you name the people you are talking about? Obviously you mean WS and DR. But It is clear, to even blind freddy, that Woodstocker and David_Richards have offered no opinion concerning thread splitting. As such Bill should have categorised their posts as (off topic), not as supporting my position. You should have picked this up and not supported Bills position before you ranted. Clearly in your own words "this is very sloppy".
Woodstocker attacked Kevin. That counts as support for you.
DR attacked me when I stated that Kevins view was valid. that counts as support for you.


For what it is worth, I would count these contributers as, for my position.
Bruce Dickinson and Starter.
How can Bruce possibly be for your position.
He said he didnt care about thread splitting.


I however want to qualify my statements.
Bruce dosen't believe thread drift is an issue, hence he is hardly going to suggest that thread splitting is legitimate.
He does not suggest it is illegitimate either.


Starter believes that there is inconsistency with moderating behaviour ,which infers tacid support for a more democratic process.
I already suggested that starter was probably on your side.


Neither probably agree with my position 100%, and furthermore I don't expect them to, but I would qualify my statement by suggesting their positions are closer to mine then to yours.
there is no way Bruce's statement is closer to yours than Kevins.
Bruce said he didnt care.


The score is now 3 all from my perspective, hardly no support. Maybe a conservative might call it as 5-1. But from where I stand it is definately not 4-3 as you claim Billy Bonham. And next time if you want to keep score, remember to get the starting line up sorted out before the game.
At best its 3-4.
Kevin, Frosty and me Vs Matt, DR, starter and you.

If we were to accept your proposal that Matt and DR are not your supporters then its 3-2.

However what is does demonstrate is that no one else really gives two hoots about you topic.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 12:15 PM
Heh, somehow I've been dragged into this little furore.. perhaps I should clarify.


1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

I agree, it can be quite subjective.. take my thread 'value of human life' that was split for example.

Now, some of that discussion was tending toward religion instead of the original question. However, it could be deemed a 'natural progression' that evolves out of such a topic.

Suffice to say, the thread was split to cater for the Darwin discussions.

Pros
- Can get back on track with original topic
- Separates any discussion that pushes the original topic away from its intended purpose

Cons
- Subjective points at which to split can detract from further discussion on original thread
- Unnecessary if the evolving discussion still has some relevance to the original topic

As I stated previously, I don't care about thread drift, i.e. I would have been perfectly happy to have the discussion continue there, as it was starting to return to the original point anyway. Equally I'm unfazed about the split-topic itself. Yet, had I the absolute choice, I would not have split this thread.


2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

I'd suggest a rule as follows:

A thread should be split if and only if the discussion is either:

-Preventing a good discussion of the original topic by a flurry of off-topic posts. [Note, an off-topic post is something that has very little or nothing to do with original topic, not something related or on a parallel with the topic]

And/or:

-Degenerating into pointless flamewar (insults only). [That is, for example, KB's beatups that attack the person, not the topic. In those cases I'd rather the posts be deleted entirely].


If you believed in the latter arguement insted of the former, under what circumstances would you split a thread? What would be your 100% rule, to be viewed as a basic right!

So there you are.. no need for splitting, as I do not care about thread drift and in some cases provokes interesting abstract discussion. However if things get so bad as to contravene either of above rules, I am for the posts to be split/deleted.

Hope that clears things up.

firegoat7
04-02-2005, 01:38 PM
Thanks BD for clarifying your position.

Idealistically speaking I have just one more question for you.

In the case where a thread is split, ought that be done by a moderator without consensus? ,or, ought that be done by a vote from the thread participants, which includes the moderators? Or do you have a new position for us to consider?

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 04:41 PM
Thanks BD for clarifying your position.

Idealistically speaking I have just one more question for you.

In the case where a thread is split, ought that be done by a moderator without consensus? ,or, ought that be done by a vote from the thread participants, which includes the moderators? Or do you have a new position for us to consider?

I think a vote system is far too time consuming... I see no problem with moderators doing it as long as they stick to my above guidelines; surely that would keep all concerned happy? Really it should be a 'when in doubt, leave it alone' but if things get out of hand, moderate.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2005, 05:13 PM
I have put this next question in bold letters so that Kevin Bonham doesn't miss it either.

Would you count Bruce Dickinsons 8th post as evidence that supports yours and Bills position, Bonham?

Bill says he never claimed Bruce as a supporter. I'll investigate the matter and answer your question if you address it to me again in what I consider to be an appropriately civil fashion. Use of a surname alone without a correct honorific does not qualify. :D


Let us investigate Bonhams claims- Who are my " discredited mates"? that support my position. Who exactly are you talking about here Bonham? Why don't you name the people you are talking about? Obviously you mean WS and DR. But It is clear, to even blind freddy, that Woodstocker and David_Richards have offered no opinion concerning thread splitting.

By saying you had no support apart from your discredited mates I was not necessarily assuming they supported you, although it may have read that way. I couldn't be bothered reading all their rubbish to see if they had this time or not, because their opinion on any issue of this kind is irrelevant and frequently insincere.


For what it is worth, I would count these contributers as, for my position.Bruce Dickinson and Starter.

Then you can't count. Claiming someone who has not taken a clear position one way or the other as in your side is prepostrous. Looks like on this one you have no friends at all so far.


-Degenerating into pointless flamewar (insults only). [That is, for example, KB's beatups that attack the person, not the topic. In those cases I'd rather the posts be deleted entirely].

Yeah right. I do this completely out of the blue, no provocation, when the opponent is practicing perfectly reasonable debating tactics because he is the pure and noble Bruce Dickinson who would never resort to throwing psychoillogical or nazi-comparison rubbish, correct? [/sarcasm] What a joke that you complain about beatups that attack the person when your singling me out for them is a blatant example of such. You're so tiresome and transparent sometimes. Pity. :rolleyes:

Apart from that, the guidelines you give for when thread-splitting should occur are pretty close to existing practice, although I wasn't following the Darwin one closely so can't yet comment there.

The idea that you can pick a point where things start getting personal and start deleting is ridiculously naive though, and indeed if we deleted all personal attacks a lot of debate on this board would be impossible. "Personal attack" is a very subjective and difficult term to define.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 05:59 PM
Yeah right. I do this completely out of the blue, no provocation, when the opponent is practicing perfectly reasonable debating tactics because he is the pure and noble Bruce Dickinson who would never resort to throwing psychoillogical or nazi-comparison rubbish, correct? [/sarcasm] What a joke that you complain about beatups that attack the person when your singling me out for them is a blatant example of such. You're so tiresome and transparent sometimes. Pity.

-KB, often you allow yourself to be provoked.. you just have a short fuse.

-Your challenge: Show me where I ever said nazi? Commiserations in advance. :rolleyes:

-Psychoillogical.. haha. Nice try at denigration KB, your favourite tactic. Show me where I've said anything inconsistent with psychological theory?


Apart from that, the guidelines you give for when thread-splitting should occur are pretty close to existing practice, although I wasn't following the Darwin one closely so can't yet comment there.

Yeah, I imagined they would be.


The idea that you can pick a point where things start getting personal and start deleting is ridiculously naive though, and indeed if we deleted all personal attacks a lot of debate on this board would be impossible. "Personal attack" is a very subjective and difficult term to define.

Perhaps but it can be tiresome to sort through though... starter is a perfect example of someone who dosn't resort to flaming to get a point across. I'd agree some of the 'flaming' is in good sport, but if we've lost all track of the topic then... well... I remember one example of Bill and Sweeney posting one-word insults at each other and nothing more.. surely that constitutes a removal/deletion from a thread.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2005, 10:35 PM
-KB, often you allow yourself to be provoked.. you just have a short fuse.

No I just like making sure that any attempt by you to stir up rubbish is well and truly buried. I can assure you I don't have steam coming out of my ears while I do so.


-Your challenge: Show me where I ever said nazi? Commiserations in advance. :rolleyes:

Yes on having to suffer through a failed attempt to play pedant that I've already busted repeatedly. Give up. :wall:


-Psychoillogical.. haha. Nice try at denigration KB, your favourite tactic. Show me where I've said anything inconsistent with psychological theory?

You've said things and not substantiated them, including when asked to do so. A wide range of things could be consistent with someone's psycho(il)logical theory but without evidence, they're pointless. (As if there was only one unified body of psychological theory anyway. Ha.)


Perhaps but it can be tiresome to sort through though...

So can the trash that provokes it, much of which is personal abuse in itself.


starter is a perfect example of someone who dosn't resort to flaming to get a point across.

Some of his output can be equally tiresome to sort through. :lol: Or perhaps in his case "exhausting" would be a better word.


I'd agree some of the 'flaming' is in good sport, but if we've lost all track of the topic then... well...

Then...well...it's time to split it to another thread and get back to the main debate - if there's anything left of it. I think we agree on this.

firegoat's a slightly different case, because he is a frothhead and therefore flames more or less right from the start quite frequently, but usually when Matt or DR have started flaming me (if DR's clumsy attempts even qualify for that title) the discussion on the point at hand was more or less over. Matt would usually resort to flames once busted, not before.


I remember one example of Bill and Sweeney posting one-word insults at each other and nothing more.. surely that constitutes a removal/deletion from a thread.

Yes, I have moved several such slanging matches to the non-chess section.

Alan Shore
04-02-2005, 10:56 PM
No I just like making sure that any attempt by you to stir up rubbish is well and truly buried. I can assure you I don't have steam coming out of my ears while I do so.

Good to know it's not having any physical effects. Still, steam coming out of your ears is quite an amusing image!


Yes on having to suffer through a failed attempt to play pedant that I've already busted repeatedly. Give up. :wall:

The only place you've busted it up is in your mind... FG7 and DR even agree with me! If you refuse to follow the pedant line with this then you create double standards. If you do, then you'll discover the difference between terms but more importantly the context in which it was utilised!
(Note to fg7.. could we tempt KB with this sentence to thread-split?)


You've said things and not substantiated them, including when asked to do so. A wide range of things could be consistent with someone's psycho(il)logical theory but without evidence, they're pointless.

When was I asked? Did you disagree with something I said, or challenge it in relation to a psych question?


(As if there was only one unified body of psychological theory anyway. Ha.)

You don't have to tell me... however the most recent studies should be the ones that hold more validity.

firegoat7
05-02-2005, 08:08 AM
I think a vote system is far too time consuming... I see no problem with moderators doing it as long as they stick to my above guidelines; surely that would keep all concerned happy? Really it should be a 'when in doubt, leave it alone' but if things get out of hand, moderate.

Thank you for clarifying your position BD.

It seems you do support Bill Bonhams view after all, which is fine. I support your right to disagree with me. It is refreshing to be able to discuss a thread with somebody who holds a different position, without being abused. Your conduct is appreciated and serves as a role model for other posters.

Cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2005, 09:36 PM
The only place you've busted it up is in your mind... FG7 and DR even agree with me!

Talk about a gimme. Given their track record, their agreement is even stronger evidence that I am right. Almost conclusive alone, in fact. :hmm:


If you refuse to follow the pedant line with this then you create double standards.

No, because:
(i) the stereotype of me as a compulsive pedant is exaggerated to insincere.
(ii) your pedantry on this point is demonstrably irrelevant.


When was I asked? Did you disagree with something I said, or challenge it in relation to a psych question?

I do vaguely remember asking you to back up some kind of psych claim recently, and throwing in some kind of cheapo about backing it up with scientific evidence not Freud/Jung type "theory". Too lazy to look it up though.


You don't have to tell me... however the most recent studies should be the ones that hold more validity.

One would hope so.

ursogr8
05-02-2005, 09:39 PM
OK fg7.
I got some time, so as you have requested, I have started to read this thread, seriously, rather than on auto-filter as previous.

Your first post


Hello,

There has been some interesting discussion in the past few days concerning appropriate conduct amongst bulletin board users. In response I thought I would start a thread that endeavoured to clearly establish some basic rights concerning thread splitting.

I will begin with a general question- Is thread splitting valid? Hopefully this will kickstart the conversation.

I also want to ask two other major questions in this debate.

1/If thread splitting is valid, Is thread drift, or topic context, a sensible or justified excuse for thread splitting. My assumption would be that almost all threads drift or drift off topic.Therefore it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain whether any thread ought to be split according to linear arguement. Just where does the actually breakdown in the thread occur? Does a linear assesment of a thread prevent a circular learning of knowledge? ie a thread drifts for a few posts then comes back to the origiinal topic, would a split destory the thread and therefore a circle of knowledge.

2/ My second question is, 2)If thread splitting is valid?, Who has the right to measure the validity? Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement? or ought some rules be clearly defined so that all BB members can clearly ascertain whether a thread should be split?

If you believed in the latter arguement insted of the former, under what circumstances would you split a thread? What would be your 100% rule, to be viewed as a basic right!

Cheers FG7



When you ask "Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement?" I am inclined to answer unswerving yes. I can’t recall getting into an argument with a MOD. on this board. It is volunteer work and so far they have been reasonable individuals.

Let me move on to the second post, which is by Kevin.


firegoat, this is another example of what I referred to on another thread as your communist-monkey-court style. I acknowledge firstly that you are probably not a communist but rather some other kind of delusional ultra-leftie, and secondly that you are probably not a monkey either, but still the phrase seems to sum you up very nicely.

This is a private board. We don't have to have rules in meticulous points spelling out exactly how we operate on every possible case that could transpire. Nor is it the end for all prospects for democratic governance in the West if we do not. In fact, if we did, starter's post count would be cut by 40%. :lol:

<snip>


Now this one post (or part of post, because I snipped) really confused me.
Is this Kevin the poster or Kevin the moderator? I mean, the first sentence seems to be a serve at you from sins of the past (you did create a few waves with general-clowns and Kevin-is-a-clown stuff). But do you deserve this serve in response to your first post of a new thread; probably not from Kevin the MOD, but from Kevin the POSTER, you get what he wants to give you (in this case an early shot across the bows).

So, now I have a head-ache. You ask about thread-splitting; and I have only reviewed 1.5 posts and I feel like splitting to discuss whether Kevin should post under two names (like Kev_MOD and Kev_POSTER).

Think I will rest for a while.

starter

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2005, 09:49 PM
It is refreshing to be able to discuss a thread with somebody who holds a different position, without being abused. Your conduct is appreciated and serves as a role model for other posters.

How about the ability to discuss a thread with somebody who holds a different position without abusing third parties who have done nothing to deserve it? What do you think of that kind of ability?

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2005, 10:06 PM
So, now I have a head-ache. You ask about thread-splitting; and I have only reviewed 1.5 posts and I feel like splitting to discuss whether Kevin should post under two names (like Kev_MOD and Kev_POSTER).

It would be very impractical logging in and out to post under different names all the time. It would be especially a pain if I felt like I had something to say in both capacities in response to something.

On another forum I'm on, the mods have a locked moderation thread where they log announcements of things they have moderated and why (trivial and common stuff like threadmoves or threadsplits - hehehe - don't count), and there's also an open "user comments on moderation thread" where we post, clearly in the capacity of moderators, in response to suggestions or complaints about moderation (which may include complaints about threadsplitting - although like this forum, that one only has one poster who is enough of a nutter to make a really big deal about it).

I previously considered setting up something like that here but did not do so because the amount of moderation was so large - especially of bad language and crude content while Matt was here. At times I was making around 15 moderations a day, not including threadsplits, and logging that would be way too onerous. Probably now with Matt gone it would be simpler. I will strongly consider it if people think it has merit and if those prone to complain about moderation decisions (esp. yourself and firegoat) would be willing to confine their complaints to the "user comments on moderation" thread if one was established.

Alan Shore
05-02-2005, 10:32 PM
Talk about a gimme. Given their track record, their agreement is even stronger evidence that I am right. Almost conclusive alone, in fact. :hmm:

Nothing more than denigrating other users, give me a break.


No, because:
(i) the stereotype of me as a compulsive pedant is exaggerated to insincere.

I've yet to be shown otherwise.. perhaps the day you don't answer back or have the last say on a post, I'll believe you. Take it as a challenge. This message will self-destruct in five seconds. :cool:


(ii) your pedantry on this point is demonstrably irrelevant.

I note you don't say why. One word for you: context.

ursogr8
06-02-2005, 02:08 PM
<snip>
I will strongly consider it if people think it has merit and if those prone to complain about moderation decisions (esp. yourself and firegoat) would be willing to confine their complaints to the "user comments on moderation" thread if one was established.
Oi Kevin.
When have I complained about moderation decisions?
I have been careful to recogize the MODs authority.
On the few times when I would have made a different decision I have prefixed my comments with that remark. I try not to complain at all.
(K. is not a MOD in my view?)
starter

ursogr8
06-02-2005, 06:55 PM
Report #2
I have settled on so far>




When you ask "Should we just trust moderators to exercise their best judgement?" I am inclined to answer unswerving yes.

Let me move on to the fourth post, which is by Kevin.





Now this one post (or part of post, because I snipped) really confused me.
Is this Kevin the poster or Kevin the moderator? I mean, the first sentence seems to be a serve at you from sins of the past (you did create a few waves with general-clowns and Kevin-is-a-clown stuff). But do you deserve this serve in response to your first post of a new thread; probably not from Kevin the MOD, but from Kevin the POSTER, you get what he wants to give you (in this case an early shot across the bows).

So, now I have a head-ache. You ask about thread-splitting; and I have only reviewed 1.5 posts and I feel like splitting to discuss whether Kevin should post under two names (like Kev_MOD and Kev_POSTER).

starter

and Kevin’s response (#111) to my post

indicates to me that the ‘pre-emptive-salvo’ he gave you in post #4 was because he was in Kevin_POSTER mode ,where retribution for your clowns remark will colour his posting style until you recant. This is an important conclusion because it will explain his m.o. in future posts (to be examined by me) in this thread.

fg7 re-enters the thread in post #5 and wins this round hands down in my view. KB has argued in post #4 that this is a private bb and ‘ when rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it’ (my words , not his). This essentially Bill’s line too whenever K. is challenged ‘if you don’t like K.’s rules, go away and start your own'. The fallacy on KB’s and Bill’s position is that fg7 is proposing guidelines for MOD’s not ADMIN.
MOD’s could negotiate, with the chess community, the rules of engagement here; but obviously K. can’t negotiate…but being supreme he gets his way. MOD’s have a choice to negotiate. If they choose not to, then this does not dispell the fact that there was a choice. Rape was not inevitable.

This is hard yakka; time for me to hiate for a while.

starter

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2005, 07:56 PM
Oi Kevin.
When have I complained about moderation decisions?

You disagreed with the Sweeney banning, although I'm not sure whether you were serious about that or just trying to stir me into replying when I said I'd be fairly disinclined to do that very much.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2005, 08:12 PM
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]fg7 re-enters the thread in post #5 and wins this round hands down in my view.

That may be because you misconstrue my point as:


‘ when rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it’ (my words , not his).

I am saying that the fact that this is a private board also means there is no reason why the mods should have to take silly requests on board unless they feel so inclined. You seem to be taking me as saying that it would be nice to be overdemocratised to the point of dysfunction if only the board was not privately owned. Actually I think it would be completely silly on any board and am glad that the board being privately owned saves us from having to take the idea seriously. (Come to think of it, I've known of some government run BBs that were completely autocratic in their management. Wonder what firegoat makes of that?)

As it happens I do negotiate rules of engagement when I think it is worthwhile - examples include my tentative offer a few posts up this thread and my arranging for calls for votes on how postcounts should be registered and on whether there should be an uncensored section (of course each of these would have been subject to K.'s approval.) I just think this particular call by frothgoat is a total waste of time.

Therefore your analysis is silly. As for comparing not being able to vote on the splitting of a thread to rape, even as a joke ... words fail me. :doh:

ursogr8
06-02-2005, 08:54 PM
You disagreed with the Sweeney banning, although I'm not sure whether you were serious about that or just trying to stir me into replying when I said I'd be fairly disinclined to do that very much.

KB

This is unfair of you. Three times in the past week I have been careful to draw the distinction between disagreeing with a MODs decision and complaining. I have been very careful to highlight that I simply would have made a different decision, but respect yours (as a MOD). This is not complaining.
I simply disagreed with 'permancy'.
It is your choice whether you want to respond at any stage.
As for stirring.........I have only sledged you over the 100-post forensic because you set the challenge, and we met it.

regards
starter

ursogr8
06-02-2005, 08:58 PM
That may be because you misconstrue my point as:



I am saying that the fact that this is a private board also means there is no reason why the mods should have to take silly requests on board unless they feel so inclined. You seem to be taking me as saying that it would be nice to be overdemocratised to the point of dysfunction if only the board was not privately owned. Actually I think it would be completely silly on any board and am glad that the board being privately owned saves us from having to take the idea seriously. (Come to think of it, I've known of some government run BBs that were completely autocratic in their management. Wonder what firegoat makes of that?)

As it happens I do negotiate rules of engagement when I think it is worthwhile - examples include my tentative offer a few posts up this thread and my arranging for calls for votes on how postcounts should be registered and on whether there should be an uncensored section (of course each of these would have been subject to K.'s approval.) I just think this particular call by frothgoat is a total waste of time.

Therefore your analysis is silly. As for comparing not being able to vote on the splitting of a thread to rape, even as a joke ... words fail me. :doh:

KB

OK. I retract the non-negotiable conclusion if you say that negotiation is possible.

Lighten up on the 'rape' cliche my friend. It is colloquial. It means inevitable. Perhaps it is not a Tasmanian 'figure of speech'.

starter

Cat
06-02-2005, 10:56 PM
DR's first post #32 is obviously supportive of you.



I think you're reading too much into that one, I'm with Fg7 there!

ursogr8
07-02-2005, 07:56 AM
It would be very impractical logging in and out to post under different names all the time. It would be especially a pain if I felt like I had something to say in both capacities in response to something.

On another forum I'm on, the mods have a locked moderation thread where they log announcements of things they have moderated and why (trivial and common stuff like threadmoves or threadsplits - hehehe - don't count), and there's also an open "user comments on moderation thread" where we post, clearly in the capacity of moderators, in response to suggestions or complaints about moderation (which may include complaints about threadsplitting - although like this forum, that one only has one poster who is enough of a nutter to make a really big deal about it).

I previously considered setting up something like that here but did not do so because the amount of moderation was so large - <snip> I will strongly consider it if people think it has merit and if those prone to complain about moderation decisions (esp. yourself and firegoat) would be willing to confine their complaints to the "user comments on moderation" thread if one was established.

Kevin
This is an excellent post of yours. Thank you for taking the time to explain; and I think I agree with most of your points.

From my view, I do sometimes get confused by which mode you are in. For example ...my post #6 was in response to you making MOD comments but together with a POSTER-salvo. My dilemma is that if I respond to the salvo (you made as a POSTER) then I get labelled as a complainer against MODs.

But it is not a big deal, just an observation of mine at the moment.

regards
starter

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2005, 01:22 AM
This is unfair of you. Three times in the past week I have been careful to draw the distinction between disagreeing with a MODs decision and complaining. I have been very careful to highlight that I simply would have made a different decision, but respect yours (as a MOD). This is not complaining.

I see this distinction as invalid. One can complain respectfully or disrespectfully. You complained respectfully.


As for stirring.........I have only sledged you over the 100-post forensic because you set the challenge, and we met it.

This is rubbish, my terms were not met, but I imagine you think that if you repeat it often enough it will someday be believed by someone.


OK. I retract the non-negotiable conclusion if you say that negotiation is possible.

Negotiation is possible on those matters worth negotiating. Not otherwise.


From my view, I do sometimes get confused by which mode you are in. For example ...my post #6 was in response to you making MOD comments but together with a POSTER-salvo. My dilemma is that if I respond to the salvo (you made as a POSTER) then I get labelled as a complainer against MODs.

When I take a moderation action, decline to take a proposed moderation action, or state that something is an intended moderation action in the future I'm doing so in the capacity of moderator. When I just engage in debate about the correctness or otherwise of a moderation action you can assume I'm doing so in the capacity of poster - at least unless I decide to set up a moderators' thread of the type discussed. So your post #6 was not criticising the moderation in any way, but your statements of disagreement with the Sweeney indefinite banning were.

Still waiting for firegoat's comments on the idea of having a moderation thread and a comments about moderation thread. If he wouldn't use it in the intended fashion there would be no point having it.

ursogr8
09-02-2005, 06:47 AM
I see this distinction as invalid. One can complain respectfully or disrespectfully. You complained respectfully.

KB
That makes it clear. We don't agree on the meaning of the word 'complain'. This is an OKness. There are plenty of words we don't agree on; for example 'white coffee'. I would expect it be made with hot water and a dash of milk added, but at Sorrel or Salamanca it would be hot milk.
Unfortunately your use of 'complain' takes away most of the middle ground of debate so I will be muffled in future.




This is rubbish, my terms were not met, but I imagine you think that if you repeat it often enough it will someday be believed by someone.
I think we are referring to different challenges. I am referring to the one where Greg and Libby and Baz and Bill helped me out. I don't recall you setting any pre-conditions on that one.




Negotiation is possible on those matters worth negotiating. Not otherwise.

Pass; as you are defining the middle ground to be where you are standing.




When I take a moderation action, decline to take a proposed moderation action, or state that something is an intended moderation action in the future I'm doing so in the capacity of moderator. When I just engage in debate about the correctness or otherwise of a moderation action you can assume I'm doing so in the capacity of poster - at least unless I decide to set up a moderators' thread of the type discussed.

Thanks.


So your post #6 was not criticising the moderation in any way, but your statements of disagreement with the Sweeney indefinite banning were.

It will not happen again. :silenced:

<snip>



starter

ursogr8
09-02-2005, 07:59 PM
Whether you respond or not, you should learn to quote. A full post for three lines of reply is ludicrous. Once upon a time that was one of those agreed online social "rules" you refer to. Seems to have been forgotten since people with too little initiative (and too little capacity for thought before posting) to do anything but hit reply and start dribbling rubbish migrated to the net in enormous numbers.

My guess it was kevin_poster on this one. Your point is probably valid...but was a protocol I was unaware. Do we have a knowledge reposiory of these 'best practices'?




That would make a change from looking at your navel when you should be looking in the mirror. :lol:

Probably gratuitous. (Not a complaint against a MOD., btw, because you were in kevin_poster mode.

regards
starter

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 10:10 AM
Report #3

By post #21 this thread has become a bit typical of other threads where KB v fg7 occurs and old scabs are picked at again. We know this can cause thread drift; there is nothing new in this finding.

But what is new (to me) is the observation that thread drift can be caused by various posters confusing KB’s role as both MOD and POSTER (let us call this mode-confusion). Personally I would argue that RESPECT for MODs decisions is a key protocol for our BB, because they are voluntary and hold their position by way of consensus of our opinion. Very rare is the dispute by other posters on this principle.

However, if there is lack of clarity on which mode is being used in a post (by a MOD) then there is clearly the ingredient for the discussion to sour and to diverge back to old battles.

Post #21 is an example of a poster asking about which mode is being used.


And then, by the time we get to post #28 the heat had evinced lines like
Moderators are also posters.
As such your analogy is rubbish.


This brings our focus to role of mode-confusion as being one causes of thread-splitting.
If we agreed that it was one of the causes, then we could move to discussing whether we want to do anything about it. Maybe. Maybe not

KB offers one solution in #111.
fg7 does not appear to have responded to the offer(s) as yet.


starter

firegoat7
10-02-2005, 11:27 AM
Hello,



Still waiting for firegoat's comments on the idea of having a moderation thread and a comments about moderation thread.

You can keep waiting until the end of this post


If he wouldn't use it in the intended fashion there would be no point having it. Unless of course it was a good idea. One minute your saying,
I do negotiate rules of engagement when I think it is worthwhile then you follow up with
Only one poster who is enough of a nutter to make a really big deal about it Either my opinion matters or it does not matter. In reality it should matter very little in the context of the bulletin board, well as little as your own anyway. So why the qualification. Either it is a good idea or not, its not dependent on my behaviour, if it serves no purpose for the community.

But if you want my answer to you post. Which has nothing really to do with thread splitting (your claim post 111), the answer is I dont care one way or the other if there is a moderation complaint section. However, I am suspicious of anything that requires even more moderation since this cedes even more control to you.

What I would like is this no "dysfuntion" or "overdemocratisation" no being saved by the " privately owned thoughts" of people like yourself.

I would like to see this- a)An anouncement from the moderator that they are going to split the thread.
b) A 24-48 hour wait to allow comment on the thread split
c) A vote for 1)yes you should split the thread. 2)no you shouldnt split the thread.
d) a more objective decision by the moderator on whether the thread ought to be split.


I dont want increased moderation from a moderator, your job ought to be easier not more complicated. I simply want that moderator to be accountable to the wishes of the bulletin board participants, not their own will, and own egotistical delusions about best practises for the masses.

When "you" thread split, "you" judge the arguement, until we get some acceptence on that point there can be little movement in this debate. Only then might we consider, What is our ontological understanding of this "you"? and who is "you" responsible to? Whos duty is "you" serving?

Cheers FG7

P.S why don't you try some ideas out on practise dummy threads to see if they can stand up to reality.

ursogr8
10-02-2005, 12:28 PM
Then, like a bolt from the blue, another off-topic post, at #30.

This off-topic post, like so many others, could have been placed in an existing thread of much more relevance. It would have saved the current thread being diverted for the period of #33-#54 posts.

The culprit of the off-topic post was not a MOD. but perhaps perplexing all the same.

Finally, on post #31, fg7 gets an engagement on the topic that he acknowledges. In itself, this is a goodness. But by my count we seem to have only 4 of the first 54 posts passing the relevance test. Lest you think that my previous interest in post-counts is coming to the fore (its own irrelevancy), I point out that for the topic thread-splitting…the timing/criteria/approval, then the evidence of this thread alone supports Kevin’s suggestion that an unreasonable load could be placed on MODs (if we pursued fg7s nascent protocols). Let us hold-off on this judgement until fg7’s later post on criteria is examined in detail.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 12:39 PM
But what is new (to me) is the observation that thread drift can be caused by various posters confusing KB’s role as both MOD and POSTER (let us call this mode-confusion). Personally I would argue that RESPECT for MODs decisions is a key protocol for our BB, because they are voluntary and hold their position by way of consensus of our opinion. Very rare is the dispute by other posters on this principle.

However, if there is lack of clarity on which mode is being used in a post (by a MOD) then there is clearly the ingredient for the discussion to sour and to diverge back to old battles.
Its fairly obvious which mode KB is posting in.


Post #21 is an example of a poster asking about which mode is being used.
No, its a case of Matt deliberately trying to start an argument.


And then, by the time we get to post #28 the heat had evinced lines like
Moderators are also posters.
As such your analogy is rubbish.


This brings our focus to role of mode-confusion as being one causes of thread-splitting.
If we agreed that it was one of the causes, then we could move to discussing whether we want to do anything about it. Maybe. Maybe not
There was no mode confusion at all, only some deciding to act confused.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 12:47 PM
Then, like a bolt from the blue, another off-topic post, at #30.Post #30 was relevant to the thread as it highlighted that Matt was masquerading as Woodstocker just to have an argument with KB.

This off-topic post, like so many others, could have been placed in an existing thread of much more relevance. It would have saved the current thread being diverted for the period of #33-#54 posts.
Therefore if #30 was relevant the following posts were also on topic,

The culprit of the off-topic post was not a MOD. but perhaps perplexing all the same.This is just another example of your apparent ongoing disagreement with the Admin.

Finally, on post #31, fg7 gets an engagement on the topic that he acknowledges. In itself, this is a goodness. But by my count we seem to have only 4 of the first 54 posts passing the relevance test. Lest you think that my previous interest in post-counts is coming to the fore (its own irrelevancy), I point out that for the topic thread-splitting…the timing/criteria/approval, then the evidence of this thread alone supports Kevin’s suggestion that an unreasonable load could be placed on MODs (if we pursued fg7s nascent protocols). Let us hold-off on this judgement until fg7’s later post on criteria is examined in detail.The whole of this post is off topic.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2005, 04:43 PM
One minute your saying, then you follow up with Either my opinion matters or it does not matter. In reality it should matter very little in the context of the bulletin board, well as little as your own anyway. So why the qualification. Either it is a good idea or not, its not dependent on my behaviour, if it serves no purpose for the community.

Its purpose would be to contain your whinges and those of anyone who might have legitimate concerns about moderation to a single thread. There is no point creating a thread for user comments about moderation if the person most prone to comment (albeit, thus far, invariably without merit as far as I can recall) does not use it. See comment at bottom of this post.


However, I am suspicious of anything that requires even more moderation since this cedes even more control to you.

The increase in moderation would be that any new threads started to complain about moderation (plus posts complaining about it in other threads) would be merged with the existing "user comments about moderation" thread.


I would like to see this- a)An anouncement from the moderator that they are going to split the thread.
b) A 24-48 hour wait to allow comment on the thread split
c) A vote for 1)yes you should split the thread. 2)no you shouldnt split the thread.
d) a more objective decision by the moderator on whether the thread ought to be split.

There is no way I am going to do this. I have explained it several times and you just don't listen. By the time a call has been made for comments on a thread split and comments have been made, a thread could easily accumulate 100+ irrelevant posts and who knows how many more arguing about the thread split. The process of threadsplitting is laborious enough for a long thread as it is; indeed we have locked some very long threads precisely becauise splitting them is too laborious. It involves going through the thread and picking each post to be split and checking a box for it (there is an option to batch split posts that are replies to the same section of the thread, however). It is obviously better for threads to be split quickly and decisively. You should also be aware that all thread splits are reversible so there is no reason whatsoever not to split right away.

A better way to do it (if it was worth doing at all) would be to have posters free to start votes on whether to reverse the threadsplit. The moderators could then act on these votes subject to conditions like the following: sufficient time to vote (say 48 hrs), open voting to prevent hydras, minimum quota in favour of reversing threadsplit required for vote to be carried (say, seven votes in favour).

This is only a proposal - comments welcome.


I simply want that moderator to be accountable to the wishes of the bulletin board participants, not their own will, and own egotistical delusions about best practises for the masses.

At this stage the only egotistical delusions are yours that your ideas have any real support.


When "you" thread split, "you" judge the arguement

That is nonsense, I judge what the argument is about, not who is winning.


P.S why don't you try some ideas out on practise dummy threads to see if they can stand up to reality.

Because a fake thread is not a model for a real thread - participants do not behave in the same way.

I note that you said you would provide comments on having a moderation thread and a user comments about moderation thread, but did not do so. What I want to know is whether you would be largely willing to restrict comments on moderation to such a user comments about moderation thread. If not there is no point considering the idea further.

firegoat7
10-02-2005, 07:32 PM
That is nonsense, I judge what the argument is about, not who is winning.



You know Mr Bonham what I dislike about you the most is your inability to understand that you too are a human being and that any discussion you engage in with other humans has personal bias.

When you make such an arrogant statement as the one above, you merely highlight the fact that you seem to believe that your conduct is better then anyone elses in recorded history.

There has never been such a thing as a 100% objective human being and you are no different from anyone before in history.
Why should anyone have faith in your judgement?

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
11-02-2005, 03:23 PM
<snip>
If the thread splits we made were more often contentious we would receive more complaints about them. This is the first time anyone has complained about a thread split on this board that I can recall, and the complaint should be ignored because of your grudge against me and it being an obvious case of you picking a fight over nothing.

<snip>

^
A really good point this one by KB.


And one that Libby should go back and read the whole of post #47 on this thread. You see Lib, you will be convinced that it is necessary to dig a lot of lime-stone in order to find a few opals.



And maybe it is around this time that fg7 starts to really consider he would have been better with a thread title more akin to 'terms of engagement' or 'thread-trashing'. Certainly post #54 is strong on this point.

starter

Spiny Norman
12-02-2005, 11:33 AM
A better way to do it (if it was worth doing at all) would be to have posters free to start votes on whether to reverse the threadsplit. The moderators could then act on these votes subject to conditions like the following: sufficient time to vote (say 48 hrs), open voting to prevent hydras, minimum quota in favour of reversing threadsplit required for vote to be carried (say, seven votes in favour). This is only a proposal - comments welcome.

I would only support such a proposal if:
1) Voting happened in a completely separate forum; and
2) The board software offered me the ability to block out all sight of activity in that forum, as I have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter.

My preference is 'status quo'.

Apologies in advance to fg7 and those who support the opposite point of view in this discussion, but the moderation model employed here is pretty much bog-standard as Internet discussion forums go and its a tried-and-true model that works ... its also much easier for the moderators themselves to manage.

If I'm having a discussion in a certain location and someone in authority says "go have your discussion over THERE because you're disturbing the people having a discussion over HERE" then simple courtesy dictates that I accept that decision and move to where I am directed.

ursogr8
12-02-2005, 08:57 PM
In post #55, thread trashing comes the theme for a while. It arises because fg7 complains about the preponderance of KB posts that are abuse_followed_by_argument.
KB defends by saying the thread has no purpose so normal polite protocols do not apply. And extending even further to argue that there is almost a duty to trash the thread.
From my viewpoint KB has posted as a poster, not a mod. in #55.
#55 is clearly incendiary, if fg7’s response in #56 is anything to judge by. In a completely left field tactic, fg7 calls on Bill to pass judgement on the provocative #55. And for good measure, anyone else interested in reading the thread. Within the hour Bill has responded, but not to the thread-trashing component that was the firelighter. In fact Bill’s content takes the whole debate in direction that I am sure was not fg7’s preference (although fg7 continued to be a participant in this Bill_diversion).

After many posts (right through to #72, from #57), fg7 finally jerks on the reins and brings attention back to post #56. And in passing, complains about Bill’s skill level in creating long diversions.
My next report will look at fg7’s attempts to get thread-trashing on the agenda.

starter

firegoat7
13-02-2005, 02:59 PM
Dear Starter,

I am finding your analysis interesting. Would it be right to call your interpretations historical phenomenology?

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
13-02-2005, 06:29 PM
Dear Starter,

I am finding your analysis interesting. Would it be right to call your interpretations historical phenomenology?

Cheers FG7

fg7

I once paraphrased Bill back in May 2002, and he jumped right down my throat.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

I tried them on for size but they didn't go well with the Mclaren Vale Dowie Doole 2002 Merlot I am just finishing off.

So, in a word, buggered if I know.

regards
starter

ursogr8
14-02-2005, 12:54 PM
Perhaps you could give it some merit and comment on the later part of the sentence which said "hard to say, he could be supporting you or sitting on the fence'.
So which is it. Are you a supporter of fg7's topic or a fence sitter.

Bill

Seems as though fg7 sees me as an interpreter of historical phenomenology.

This sounds a bit more sophisticated than your black or white 'with me or against me' which you share with George W.

starter

ursogr8
14-02-2005, 05:00 PM
firegoat asked

So the question remains will other people be allowed to post here, hopefully engaging in fruitful discussion, without Kevin Bonham trashing threads, if he deems it necessary?
P.P.S What is your opinion on this Bill Gletsos? Is this behaviour justified?


Bill declined to answer



firegoat pressed the issue in #77



Bill now quoted Kevin’s position in response

“This thread is not representative of general conduct on the BB because it is a stupid thread transparently started by you to start a fight with me.”

------------------------
starter view: One can deduce that our two longest regular posters are comfortable trashing a thread under certain conditions that they determine.
------------------------
#80……….KB re-enters but doesn’t take up this trashing question.
#81………..KB moves from the trashed threads (terminology) to trashier threads a subtle but important weasel device.

At this point fg7 is on weak ground on the

thread splitting


democratic BB

arguments, but certainly had the high moral ground on appropriate BB behaviour in regard to respecting the intellectual question raised as 'thread-trashing.

In fact the summary by fg7 at the foot of post#91 shows he has a clear sight of the issues that are part of his focus, and a clear sight of the strength of some arguments that support his focus.
What is not so clear is why he allows the two experienced protagonists to sidetrack fg7's aim to issues where he is weaker, and in some cases indefensible. He seems to respond to jibes/insults/diversions like a blue heeler trying to get unruly sheep into a pen.


Can fg7 get the debate onto 'the legitimacy of deliberate trashing'? Hopefully this comes out in later posts.

starter

ursogr8
15-02-2005, 07:28 AM
As if the magic hand of the great Counter_in_the_sky intervened, the post count moved from #99 to #100, and to celebrate this BD posts a definitive statement in the debate.
If you really want a succinct view of 99 posts, read #100 by BD. Well done. :clap: :clap: The diversions stripped out; a reasonable summary; and a well-phrased conclusion; no provocations for further retaliation. A must-read for all aficiandos of this thread started by fg7. Even fg7 says thanks even though the central argument has gone against his thesis.

starter

ps
It is not all over.
Deliberate 'thread trashing' is still on the agenda.

ursogr8
15-02-2005, 07:36 AM
Some of his output can be equally tiresome to sort through.


KB

I think some evidence is called for here. Please detail. :confused:

I hope it does not contain the 'competitive thread' because this quarantined and you go there at your own risk; whats more.....I have asked (sic) both Bill and Matt off the thread when they have threatened diversion.

I hope it does not refer to support of 'unpopular causes', like the Guru's use of titles awarded to him as credentials in marketing brochures. It would be unreasonable to expect an 'unpopular cause' to become an 'accepted consensus' in any short time.

starter

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2005, 10:20 PM
I think some evidence is called for here. Please detail. :confused:

It was not a reference to any particular thread but more a reference to your ability to create enormous volumes of forensic tedia about practically nothing, to the point where even an alleged arch-pedant like me suspects that you have too much time on your hands. :lol:

ursogr8
21-02-2005, 07:02 AM
It was not a reference to any particular thread but more a reference to your ability to create enormous volumes of forensic tedia about practically nothing, to the point where even an alleged arch-pedant like me suspects that you have too much time on your hands. :lol:

KB

So, a reasonable conclusion is that you have no evidence. :owned:


starter

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2005, 12:20 AM
A reasonable conclusion is that I have more evidence than the S11 hearings but there is no point me gathering it together just to support a subjective perception. I simply offer these characterisations of your posting style for others to agree with or disagree with as they feel inclined based on what they have seen.

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 07:46 AM
A reasonable conclusion is that I have more evidence than the S11 hearings but there is no point me gathering it together just to support a subjective perception. I simply offer these characterisations of your posting style for others to agree with or disagree with as they feel inclined based on what they have seen.

KB

(Disclaimer; Presume this post of yours is as a poster, not a MOD).

Your post is clearly then in the wrong thread. If noticed by TCN, he will move. If noticed by other MODS they will delete since it meets Bills #8 on http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=46879#post46879

starter

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 10:56 AM
Hello,

The basic rule currently operating is: It is to be determined by the moderators will.

So, what happens if the patrons disagree with the moderators decision, How do they challenge these decisions without being deemed, in the negative, as whingers?

Next, Who are the moderators accountable to? How is any moderators behaviour to be checked in a publically accountable way? In representational democracy we at least have the sham of elections. On the BB it seems as if moderators and their rights are permanent. Any problem with that?, well ummm of course, most people are aware of the benign dictator scenario, (ie problems with monarchy) aren't they?

In considering these answers we might want to consider if this site is the unofficial ACF bulletin board page. I certainly think that it does fulfill some magnificent functions for the ACF. It dosen't bother me if it is privately owned. What does bother me is that most moderator behaviour, in regards to bb functioning, is measured by the moderator themselves or if they can be bothered an admin. Hardly seems the right approach for the ACF if they want to be inclusive of the community.

Of course we have to measure the claim, Is this the unofficial ACF bulletin page or not? Only then can the rules of engagement be defined. I see problems with the current rules. Thread splitting is a perfect example of how arbitrary those rules really are.

Cheers FG7

Trent Parker
22-02-2005, 11:22 AM
KB

(Disclaimer; Presume this post of yours is as a poster, not a MOD).

Your post is clearly then in the wrong thread. If noticed by TCN, he will move.

Starter.
You are a [edit] No i shall refrain from calling people names........
The only thing i have threatened to move is the rubbsh that is your "competitiveness Index". Nothing Else

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 11:27 AM
Hello,

The basic rule currently operating is: It is to be determined by the moderators will.

So, what happens if the patrons disagree with the moderators decision, How do they challenge these decisions without being deemed, in the negative, as whingers?

Next, Who are the moderators accountable to? How is any moderators behaviour to be checked in a publically accountable way? In representational democracy we at least have the sham of elections. On the BB it seems as if moderators and their rights are permanent. Any problem with that?, well ummm of course, most people are aware of the benign dictator scenario, (ie problems with monarchy) aren't they?

In considering these answers we might want to consider if this site is the unofficial ACF bulletin board page. I certainly think that it does fulfill some magnificent functions for the ACF. It dosen't bother me if it is privately owned. What does bother me is that most moderator behaviour, in regards to bb functioning, is measured by the moderator themselves or if they can be bothered an admin. Hardly seems the right approach for the ACF if they want to be inclusive of the community.

Of course we have to measure the claim, Is this the unofficial ACF bulletin page or not? Only then can the rules of engagement be defined. I see problems with the current rules. Thread splitting is a perfect example of how arbitrary those rules really are.

Cheers FG7

fg7

There is another possible view on the rules of engagement. It could be argued that acceptance of commission by a MOD. (from Karthick) may have been accompanied by some general guidelines to each MOD.
The guidelines may have changed over time as a result of
> various 'episodes'
>> MODs joining the governing elite at different times.

But, it is certain that this BB does not represent the ACF, officially nor unofficially.

So, none of the fine words you use publically accountable , representational democracy , the benign dictator scenario, apply.
It pupports to be none of these.

You have no influence, save what you can obtain by dialectic, while holding up a shield to reduce the rain of oppobrium echoing from a clowns remark.

Move on fg7.
MODs rules.


starter

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 11:41 AM
Starter.
You are a [edit] No i shall refrain from calling people names........
The only thing i have threatened to move is the rubbsh that is your "competitiveness Index". Nothing Else

TCN

I must have misunderstood. I thought you offered to move the posts.

I see now you want to threaten. :rolleyes:





Btw, will you be moving all your posts, with your comments on the CI, to my long-running CI thread? Like this post #145, for example?


starter

Trent Parker
22-02-2005, 12:12 PM
TCN

I must have misunderstood. I thought you offered to move the posts.

I see now you want to threaten. :rolleyes:





Btw, will you be moving all your posts, with your comments on the CI, to my long-running CI thread? Like this post #145, for example?


starter

i don't have time for smart a**es, starter

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 12:27 PM
Dear Starter,

Your wise advice has been noted and yes it might just be time to move on.


But, it is certain that this BB does not represent the ACF, officially nor unofficially.

But I do find this comment strange. What is the ACF if it is not the Australian Chess community? Where is the space for expression within that community? It seems that their are significant numbers from the Australian Chess community expressing their opinions here, so how is this not an unofficial channel of communication for the ACF? What was the Mt Buller thread space, culturally if it was not an ACF initiative, or was it?

Cheers FG7

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 01:01 PM
i don't have time for smart a**es, starter

Well I suggest TCN, if you are short of time, you just hurry along to where you are going.

Fortunately, I have a bit of time on my hands to able to remind you that you have not tabled a single argument against CIs. You have just used descriptors such as 'rubbish'. These are not substititutes for good reasons and evidence.
You could take a leaf of Bill's book where he engages in argument to fully understand the concept; and then if he thinks it is rubbish I have to accept the epithets in the spirit he means them.

Btw, all these asterisked words that you are hurling my way.....you as a poster, or a MOD?




feeling harassed,
starter

Bill Gletsos
22-02-2005, 01:06 PM
Well I suggest TCN, if you are short of time, you just hurry along to where you are going.

Fortunately, I have a bit of time on my hands to able to remind you that you have not tabled a single argument against CIs. You have just used descriptors such as 'rubbish'. These are not substititutes for good reasons and evidence.Many reasons were discussed on your CI thread.
However Chess Nuts point was that you should restrict posts with CI indexes in them to your CI thread.

You could take a leaf of Bill's book where he engages in argument to fully understand the concept; and then if he thinks it is rubbish I have to accept the epithets in the spirit he means them.Yes that your concept is rubbish. ;)

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Dear Starter,

Your wise advice has been noted and yes it might just be time to move on.

[quote=Starter]But, it is certain that this BB does not represent the ACF, officially nor unofficially.[ /quote]

But I do find this comment strange. What is the ACF if it is not the Australian Chess community? Where is the space for expression within that community? It seems that their are significant numbers from the Australian Chess community expressing their opinions here, so how is this not an unofficial channel of communication for the ACF? What was the Mt Buller thread space, culturally if it was not an ACF initiative, or was it?

Cheers FG7

A good question fg7

Not only are the rules of engagement a bone of contention, but also the engagement of various parts of chess community are under-represented.
Few juniors seem engaged here; and apart from Kaitlin's cc games, very few junior girls at all. It thus cannot be viewed as an unofficial channel for the ACF.


starter

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 01:15 PM
Many reasons were discussed on your CI thread.

TCN admits to not having read that thread.


Yes that your concept is rubbish. ;)

Bill

I will accept that as your opinion, because you at least participated in debate. And I will not react to your epithet because you have earned the right to make a conclusion.

But TCN has not even read the thread. But that doesn't stop him taking an initiative to be thread police. And it certainly doesn't mean that I will accept his derisive terms.

We have some MODS who serve as good models.


starter

Bill Gletsos
22-02-2005, 01:24 PM
But TCN has not even read the thread. But that doesn't stop him taking an initiative to be thread police. And it certainly doesn't mean that I will accept his derisive terms.Perhaps TCN is basing his decision on the opinion of others. ;)
Anyway wasnt his pont with regards you cluttering other threads with CI numbers as opposed to the CI thread itself.

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 02:13 PM
Perhaps TCN is basing his decision on the opinion of others. ;)

Are you saying he can't think for himself. :eek:

:hmm:

Explains why he had to get a vote to get some courage.



Anyway wasnt his pont with regards you cluttering other threads with CI numbers as opposed to the CI thread itself.

No Bill. This is not a weasel way out for the Nut in this case..
He called the concept rubbish and crap without reading the thread.
Your sentence is only half the story.

starter

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2005, 02:34 PM
Your post is clearly then in the wrong thread.

No more so than your question.


If noticed by TCN, he will move. If noticed by other MODS they will delete since it meets Bills #8 on http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=46879#post46879

Rubbish. It was not written to deliberately provoke, stop wasting time.

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2005, 02:42 PM
So, what happens if the patrons disagree with the moderators decision, How do they challenge these decisions without being deemed, in the negative, as whingers?

Contact the admin via PM. Either that or just lump it. You are one of the biggest online whingers I have ever encountered and should be done for high fraud if you even attempt to dodge the label. :lol:


Next, Who are the moderators accountable to? How is any moderators behaviour to be checked in a publically accountable way?

The moderators are accountable to the admin. If you don't like our behaviour and the admin brings you no satisfaction either then start your own BB and go whine to yourself over there. Welcome to the internet, I've never seen someone spend so long on it without getting a clue how it works.


In considering these answers we might want to consider if this site is the unofficial ACF bulletin board page. I certainly think that it does fulfill some magnificent functions for the ACF. It dosen't bother me if it is privately owned. What does bother me is that most moderator behaviour, in regards to bb functioning, is measured by the moderator themselves or if they can be bothered an admin. Hardly seems the right approach for the ACF if they want to be inclusive of the community.

This is not an ACF BB as the ACF has no legal control over it whatsoever. So the above is all totally irrelevant.


Is this the unofficial ACF bulletin page or not?

No it isn't, just get over it. Your obsession with threadsplitting is even more ridiculous and, dare I say it, pedantic, than starter's little "metrics".

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2005, 02:47 PM
Where is the space for expression within that community?

It is the ACF's official weekly newsletter, to which people can write letters should they wish.

firegoat7
22-02-2005, 05:46 PM
Hello,

A new representation of the word "whinger" has been created- Somebody who objects to the behaviour of Bill Bonham.

It seems you and I have been painted with the same brush Starter, hope you don't lose to much sleep over it.

Still Starter, It must have given you some insight into the little box in which square pegs are put into round holes. The nature of classification has always been a strange one with humanity.

Cheers Fg7

Cat
22-02-2005, 07:49 PM
It is the ACF's official weekly newsletter, to which people can write letters should they wish.


Paulb is going to hate you for this.

ursogr8
22-02-2005, 08:01 PM
Hello,

A new representation of the word "whinger" has been created- Somebody who objects to the behaviour of Bill Bonham.

It seems you and I have been painted with the same brush Starter, hope you don't lose to much sleep over it.

Still Starter, It must have given you some insight into the little box in which square pegs are put into round holes. The nature of classification has always been a strange one with humanity.

Cheers Fg7

hi fg7

Yes; I have been down this epithet track....but I copped complainer...whereas you copped 'whinger'.

It is a little bit learning body-language. For example, when someone crosses their arms it means they are rejecting your ideas....you know the sort of thing.
In the BB_posting case...when they start with the name-calling it just means they are signalling the end of points in favour of their case. Look on it positively in that light.


starter

Trent Parker
22-02-2005, 10:43 PM
Hey Starter. I have read enough to know that your CI is rubbish.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2005, 02:02 AM
In the BB_posting case...when they start with the name-calling it just means they are signalling the end of points in favour of their case.

Ironically, this statement seems to signal an end of points in favour of itself before any have even been made. Scarcely surprising given that none exist.

ursogr8
23-02-2005, 06:41 AM
Hey Starter. I have read enough to know that your CI is rubbish.

NUT, in case of you having a point to make why don't you post on the CI thread and put your arguments up for scrutiny instead of just posting adjectives/nouns.


starter

Trent Parker
23-02-2005, 08:10 AM
Quit fighting a loosing battle starter. I don't like you competitiveness index Infecting the bb other than you competitiveness index thread. I have read enough about it and i have read the arguements against it. I would just be repeating what has already been said.

You will not get any further reply from me in regards to this issue.
:hand:

firegoat7
23-02-2005, 08:34 AM
Hello,

Quit fighting a loosing battle starter.

Firegoat defines a loosing battle as a new style of fight, one in which the participant, notably Starter in this case, attempts to loosen the constraints of a thread by engaging with a plethora of postings over many themes. The idea is for people to chill out when they fight, not to worry about the constraints of one particular thread. Character is recognised as being a subjective individual trait that ought not be supressed by mindless rule enforcement.

Cheers FG7 ;)

firegoat7
23-02-2005, 08:37 AM
weird what is happening?