PDA

View Full Version : Should Matt be re-instated



antichrist
10-02-2005, 06:21 PM
As it appears that Matt causing as much trouble off the BB than on and we are all for democracy why not have a poll if Matt should be re-instated. I hope this is not the second poll on this issue.

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2005, 06:24 PM
What trouble is Matt causing off the BB?

Are we all for democracy in this case?

EDIT: The poll is silly because the option "that Matt be barred" requires that the voter also accept that discussion about Matt be banned, which is a silly idea. Therefore I'm not voting in the poll until it is amended, and will consider the result completely useless.

antichrist
10-02-2005, 06:27 PM
What trouble is Matt causing off the BB?

Are we all for democracy in this case?

The trouble referred to is the never-ending debate re Matt.

Somehow you managed to jump the gun, because as soon as I posted you had already replied.

I think he should be at least be able to make special guest appearances with his humour. There is no one close to replacing him.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 06:40 PM
It does not offer an option which represents what appears to be the actual current situation:
i.e. Matt is baned and any lifting of the ban is at the discretion of the Moderators/Admin.
As such as usual its just another of your useless polls.

Cat
10-02-2005, 06:46 PM
The trouble referred to is the never-ending debate re Matt.

Somehow you managed to jump the gun, because as soon as I posted you had already replied.

I think he should be at least be able to make special guest appearances with his humour. There is no one close to replacing him.

What a great poll! this is the best poll I've seen since the poll I did, maybe even better. I wish we could have more polls like this!

Thanks Antichrist!

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 06:49 PM
What a great poll! this is the best poll I've seen since the poll I did, maybe even better. I wish we could have more polls like this!

Thanks Antichrist!
Yes, well we would all expect you to be in favour of a clearly flawed poll.

Anyway apart from yourself and one or two others there is no mass groundswell from the "masses" complaining about Matt being banned.

firegoat7
10-02-2005, 07:19 PM
Hi antichrist,

Good work. I voted for 2 sections at the same time 1.for Matt to be re-installed and 4. for a public kiss with BG

Lets face it the guy is a living legend and the BB is much more enjoyable and lively with him on it.

Cheers FG7

JGB
10-02-2005, 10:42 PM
Where is the option ... Matt be barred and posts concerning him remain???

Fact: As far as the forum goes, number wise, we have seen an explosion in active users in the post Matt era.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2005, 11:04 PM
Where is the option ... Matt be barred and posts concerning him remain???

Fact: As far as the forum goes, number wise, we have seen an explosion in active users in the post Matt era.Exactly.

firegoat7
10-02-2005, 11:14 PM
Fact: As far as the forum goes, number wise, we have seen an explosion in active users in the post Matt era.

JGB mate, It may be a fact, but I think you would have a hard time proving that it was causally related to Matt.

Cheers Fg7

JGB
10-02-2005, 11:19 PM
JGB mate, It may be a fact, but I think you would have a hard time proving that it was causally related to Matt.

Cheers Fg7

Hi Mate, I would not even try to prove this as it would be impossible. Just as it would be exeedingly difficult to prove that a different atmosphere has not arisen in the post Matt era in which new posters (and readers) feel more welcome.

Cat
10-02-2005, 11:50 PM
Hi Mate, I would not even try to prove this as it would be impossible. Just as it would be exeedingly difficult to prove that a different atmosphere has not arisen in the post Matt era in which new posters (and readers) feel more welcome.

We'd need to do a cross-over trial. Maybe we could reinstate Matt, ban Bill for a couple of months & get Starter to count the posts?

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2005, 12:04 PM
We'd need to do a cross-over trial. Maybe we could reinstate Matt, ban Bill for a couple of months & get Starter to count the posts?
Unlike Matt my behaviour has not been an issue with the Moderators.
You should be thankful they dont automatically ban fools and geese.

Cat
11-02-2005, 05:17 PM
Unlike Matt my behaviour has not been an issue with the Moderators.
You should be thankful they dont automatically ban fools and geese.

But your behaviour is troubling to many, and many may see you to be a significant contributor to the troubles leading up to Matt's ex-communication. Maybe a 'Is Bill Guilty?' poll is coming.

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2005, 06:48 PM
But your behaviour is troubling to many,Name, names.
I would suggest that your "many" only includes the likes of yourself, Matt and fg7. It may include BD and starter. Antichrist would probably join you just for the hell of it.

and many may see you to be a significant contributor to the troubles leading up to Matt's ex-communication.Many may see you as a contributor for not criticising his crude and vulgar behaviour. You did absolutely nothing to curb it.
Unlike Matt I wasnt crude or vulgar.
I didnt post drunk, he did.
I didnt ask for his banning when he posted drunk. The decision to ban him was taken by a moderator.
I just supported their action after the event.

Maybe a 'Is Bill Guilty?' poll is coming.Fortunately mob rule isnt a feature of the board.
Banning or otherwise is determined by the Moderators not the users and certainly not by a fool like you.

Paul S
11-02-2005, 08:18 PM
Name, names.
I would suggest that your "many" only includes the likes of yourself, Matt and fg7. It may include BD and starter. Antichrist would probably join you just for the hell of it.

Bill

Your BB behaviour is troubling to more people than you think. I'm not going to name names (as these people have told me privately and would not appreciate me naming them without their prior permission), but several people have told me in recent months that they disapprove of your abusive manner on the BB. Occasionally one of them will act on it - I believe that one of them recently sent you an email complaining about a recent post of yours where you attacked me in a manner not befitting someone who holds the offfice of NSWCA President.

Now, to be fair, some of the abuse you put on people on this BB is justified and "they were asking for it" (and I'll even admit that on occasions your criticism of me has been understandable!). Also, IMHO you are overall more in the right than Matt (although you are far from blameless) in your feud with him.

I have considerable respect for your chess admin contributions (in particular with the Ratings, in which you are doing a superb job), and you are a worthy recipient of the 2004 Koshnitsky medal. However, you really need to act on this BB in a manner more befitting a NSWCA President!

antichrist
11-02-2005, 08:34 PM
Name, names.
I would suggest that your "many" only includes the likes of yourself, Matt and fg7. It may include BD and starter. Antichrist would probably join you just for the hell of it.


I am notorious for doing radical things just for the hell of it, but I enjoy you going off. You are all in quicksand together as far as I am concerned. Get yourselves out of the mess.

Come on Libby, let's go off and enjoy ourselves in the woods while they are having S & M!

Bill Gletsos
11-02-2005, 11:26 PM
Bill

Your BB behaviour is troubling to more people than you think. I'm not going to name names (as these people have told me privately and would not appreciate me naming them without their prior permission), but several people have told me in recent months that they disapprove of your abusive manner on the BB.It works both ways. I've had a number of people send me messages of support for my standing up to Matt last year.

Occasionally one of them will act on it - I believe that one of them recently sent you an email complaining about a recent post of yours where you attacked me in a manner not befitting someone who holds the offfice of NSWCA President.Yes, he suggested to me that my tone was insulting to you in my response to you in the NSW January Weekender thread. He is entitled to his opinion but I suggested to him that perhaps you should have considered what you posted as I considered ythe tone of yoir post as insulting to start with. This was especially true of your point about not being sure if you would be able to play and therefore did not pre-enter but this would mean you would have yo pay the $75 entry fee which you thought unreasonable. This statement of yours made no sense as I knew you were well aware that you could have simply pre-entered and actually pay the $55 early entry fee on the day of the tournament. You knew full well you did not have to pre-pay. I therefore saw your statement as deliberately misleading and said so.

Now, to be fair, some of the abuse you put on people on this BB is justified and "they were asking for it" (and I'll even admit that on occasions your criticism of me has been understandable!). Also, IMHO you are overall more in the right than Matt (although you are far from blameless) in your feud with him.

I have considerable respect for your chess admin contributions (in particular with the Ratings, in which you are doing a superb job), and you are a worthy recipient of the 2004 Koshnitsky medal. However, you really need to act on this BB in a manner more befitting a NSWCA President!I dont see why I should have to take rubbish/abuse from the likes of Matt or DR or anyone else just because one of the hats I wear is that of NSWCA President.
If they are going to misrepresent the facts then I am going to say so.
If they continually make false claims I'm going to say so.
If someone continually makes the same claim even though its been shown the claim is false and has no basis in fact then I sorry but that either means they are just being deliberately stubborn, trolling or just plain stupid. If thats the case then I'm going to say so.

If people ask questions in a reasonable and polite manner, they get reasonable and polite answers. If they carry on in an unreasonable manner, continually misrepresenting the facts and acting like ratbags then they dont deserve to be treated politely.

No one from CV posts here. No one from the CAQ. No one from CAWA. No one from SACA in an official capacity (George did but stopped). No one from the ACTCA (Denis hasnt in his roles as ACTCA President). Rarely has Kevin posted in any official capacity on behalf of the TCA.
No one on behalf of the NSWJCL except occasionally Kerry made a comment and more recently when members of the NSWJCL committee responded to Bruce's claims re NSWJCL Coaches selections.

This is undoubtedly due to the crap posted by a number of posters.

If I'm supposed to just sit back and take crap from the likes of Matt and DR then to me thats unacceptable.
I can just sit back like those from the other state associations and post absolutely nothing on the BB and watch the lunatics run free.

No more rules information/discussions.
No tournament results/crosstables, you can wait for the ACF bulletin.
No rating reports or answering rating questions.
No nothing.
Then the likes of DR can discuss there rubbish re juniors and maturation factors as much as he likes. It wont have any impact or effect on the rating system anyway so why should I bother. If anyone is silly enough to believe him thats their problem.

Paul S
12-02-2005, 12:10 AM
Yes, he suggested to me that my tone was insulting to you in my response to you in the NSW January Weekender thread. He is entitled to his opinion but I suggested to him that perhaps you should have considered what you posted as I considered ythe tone of yoir post as insulting to start with. This was especially true of your point about not being sure if you would be able to play and therefore did not pre-enter but this would mean you would have yo pay the $75 entry fee which you thought unreasonable. This statement of yours made no sense as I knew you were well aware that you could have simply pre-entered and actually pay the $55 early entry fee on the day of the tournament. You knew full well you did not have to pre-pay. I therefore saw your statement as deliberately misleading and said so.

I'll readily admit that my initial January Weekender post "was not one of my better posts". Maybe my tone in that post "was not the best" and you have partial justification for your insulting response. However, its not just this post where you have responded to me in your usual robust style - just have a look at the NSWCA AGM (28/11/04) thread where you continually rubbished my ideas on things like a NSWCA newsletter and Club Delegates meeting.

I made it clear in my initial post that due to not knowing until 27/1/05 whether or not I would have that weekend free, I could not pre-register before 25/1/05 (to get $55 discounted entry fee).

Furthermore, the NSWCA entry forms imply that you have to pre-pay to get the discounted rate - go have a read of them (not just the January Weekender ones, but the City of Sydney as well). Why would the NSWCA send an entry form with its tournament flyer instructing people to post to NSWCA PO Box and make cheques payable to NSWCA? In fact a few days ago at St George, Leo Soto told me and Charles Z that he would like to play in the City of Sydney at the discounted rate but did not have a cheque account and asked if he could pay his entry fee in cash to one of us! When I was on NSWCA Council in 2003 I put in a fair bit of effort to improve the layout (and remove ambiguities) of NSWCA tournament entry forms, but these were ignored (although Peter Cassetari told me that he liked what I had done and intended to use what I had done as a shell for 2004 tournaments, but somehow this never eventuated). If anything the ambiguity of the issue of pre-payment and pre-registration with respect to NSWCA tournament entry forms has got worse in recent months. How is someone like myself (who does not play in all that many weekenders) to know whether or not NSWCA policy has changed if the forms and flyers are ambiguous with respect to pre-payment and pre-registration? I suggest the NSWCA cleans up the areas of ambiguity in its flyers and entry forms.


I dont see why I should have to take rubbish/abuse from the likes of Matt or DR or anyone else just because one of the hats I wear is that of NSWCA President.
If they are going to misrepresent the facts then I am going to say so.
If they continually make false claims I'm going to say so.
If someone continually makes the same claim even though its been shown the claim is false and has no basis in fact then I sorry but that either means they are just being deliberately stubborn, trolling or just plain stupid. If thats the case then I'm going to say so.

If people ask questions in a reasonable and polite manner, they get reasonable and polite answers. If they carry on in an unreasonable manner, continually misrepresenting the facts and acting like ratbags then they dont deserve to be treated politely.

No one from CV posts here. No one from the CAQ. No one from CAWA. No one from SACA in an official capacity (George did but stopped). No one from the ACTCA (Denis hasnt in his roles as ACTCA President). Rarely has Kevin posted in any official capacity on behalf of the TCA.
No one on behalf of the NSWJCL except occasionally Kerry made a comment and more recently when members of the NSWJCL committee responded to Bruce's claims re NSWJCL Coaches selections.

This is undoubtedly due to the crap posted by a number of posters.

If I'm supposed to just sit back and take crap from the likes of Matt and DR then to me thats unacceptable.
I can just sit back like those from the other state associations and post absolutely nothing on the BB and watch the lunatics run free.

No more rules information/discussions.
No tournament results/crosstables, you can wait for the ACF bulletin.
No rating reports or answering rating questions.
No nothing.
Then the likes of DR can discuss there rubbish re juniors and maturation factors as much as he likes. It wont have any impact or effect on the rating system anyway so why should I bother. If anyone is silly enough to believe him thats their problem.

As I have previously acknowledged, some of your abuse of other posters is deserved and justified. However, some of it is NOT!!! I also think you should take the advice of Brian Jones who made a post along the lines of that "Bill should talk (post) less and listen more"!

You add value to this forum due mainly to your position of ACF Ratings Officer (and to a lesser extent as NSWCA President). A lot of your posts have been informative and helpful (although sadly you have a tendency to get too involved in slanging matches). Overall I think it would be a significant loss to this forum if you ever decided to leave it.

Garvinator
12-02-2005, 12:17 AM
No one from the CAQ.
this is a little harsh ;)

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 12:51 AM
I'll readily admit that my initial January Weekender post "was not one of my better posts". Maybe my tone in that post "was not the best" and you have partial justification for your insulting response. However, its not just this post where you have responded to me in your usual robust style - just have a look at the NSWCA AGM (28/11/04) thread where you continually rubbished my ideas on things like a NSWCA newsletter and Club Delegates meeting.I dont think I was anymire robust in my comments than you were in yours. I simply pointed out on the board at the time that although you were in favour of it others were against it. As for the club delegates meeting all I pointed out to you was that when previously held they were poorly attended. That wasnt speculation it was a statement of fact. It will be interesting to see how many club delegates other than those who are also NSWCA Council members attend this one.

I made it clear in my initial post that due to not knowing until 27/1/05 whether or not I would have that weekend free, I could not pre-register before 25/1/05 (to get $55 discounted entry fee).You knew full well you could pre-enter NSWCA events and not pay until the day of the tournament as we had discussed this in person previously.
As such even if you did not know if you would have had the weekend free until the 27/1 you could have pre-entered prior to the 25th and been eligible for the $55 fee and if after the 27th found you were unavialable simply contacted Peter C or myself with that information prior to the start of the event on the 29/1.

Furthermore, the NSWCA entry forms imply that you have to pre-pay to get the discounted rate - go have a read of them (not just the January Weekender ones, but the City of Sydney as well).That is irrelevant to this disussion because you were giving an explicit reason why you did not enter. You knew that you could pre enter and not pay until the day of the event.

Why would the NSWCA send an entry form with its tournament flyer instructing people to post to NSWCA PO Box and make cheques payable to NSWCA? In fact a few days ago at St George, Leo Soto told me and Charles Z that he would like to play in the City of Sydney at the discounted rate but did not have a cheque account and asked if he could pay his entry fee in cash to one of us! When I was on NSWCA Council in 2003 I put in a fair bit of effort to improve the layout (and remove ambiguities) of NSWCA tournament entry forms, but these were ignored (although Peter Cassetari told me that he liked what I had done and intended to use what I had done as a shell for 2004 tournaments, but somehow this never eventuated). If anything the ambiguity of the issue of pre-payment and pre-registration with respect to NSWCA tournament entry forms has got worse in recent months.Perhaps they are more ambiguous, perhaps not.
Instead of explicitly offering a $10 reduction in entry fee for an early entry we are now explicitly stating the actual amounts.

How is someone like myself (who does not play in all that many weekenders) to know whether or not NSWCA policy has changed if the forms and flyers are ambiguous with respect to pre-payment and pre-registration?You knew explicitly that you could pre-enter and not pre-pay because I explained it to you on at least two occasions, the last occasion being the NSWCA AGM.

I suggest the NSWCA cleans up the areas of ambiguity in its flyers and entry forms.I'll raise it at the next meeting.

As I have previously acknowledged, some of your abuse of other posters is deserved and justified. However, some of it is NOT!!! I also think you should take the advice of Brian Jones who made a post along the lines of that "Bill should talk (post) less and listen more"!I think its fairly obvious when I'm posting as the ACF Ratings Officer, as an ACF Council member, as the NSWCA President or as just a simple poster.

You add value to this forum due mainly to your position of ACF Ratings Officer (and to a lesser extent as NSWCA President). A lot of your posts have been informative and helpful (although sadly you have a tendency to get too involved in slanging matches). Overall I think it would be a significant loss to this forum if you ever decided to leave it.
I'm sure some would disagree with you.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 12:53 AM
this is a little harsh ;)
Out of your 4088 posts how many have you made in any official capacity as a member of the CAQ Council?
Of those posts how may did you make last year?

Garvinator
12-02-2005, 12:59 AM
Out of your 4088 posts how many have you made in any official capacity as a member of the CAQ Council?
Of those posts how may did you make last year?
the posts about the caq tournaments and answering arrogant one trolling about organisers making a fortune out of players. I was giving my view as tournament officer on how prizes are structured etc etc.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 01:02 AM
the posts about the caq tournaments and answering arrogant one trolling about organisers making a fortune out of players. I was giving my view as tournament officer on how prizes are structured etc etc.With regards the CAQ tournaments I would agree however I dont think it is obvious that you are responding to the Arrogant One in your capacity as CAQ Tournaments Officer.

Paul S
12-02-2005, 01:25 AM
I dont think I was anymire robust in my comments than you were in yours.

Yes, I can be "robust" at times on this BB! And fair enough, some "robust" comments not surprisingly elicit a "robust" response a lot of the time! I guess it adds a bit of life to this forum (which can be a bit dull at times).


I simply pointed out on the board at the time that although you were in favour of it others were against it. As for the club delegates meeting all I pointed out to you was that when previously held they were poorly attended. That wasnt speculation it was a statement of fact.

That was not quite the impression I got from some of your posts!


It will be interesting to see how many club delegates other than those who are also NSWCA Council members attend this one.

I guess we will find out in a few days time!


You knew full well you could pre-enter NSWCA events and not pay until the day of the tournament as we had discussed this in person previously.

As I recall that was quite some time ago. At the time of the January weekender I was unsure if this was still the case due to the wording of the flyer and entry form.


As such even if you did not know if you would have had the weekend free until the 27/1 you could have pre-entered prior to the 25th and been eligible for the $55 fee and if after the 27th found you were unavialable simply contacted Peter C or myself with that information prior to the start of the event on the 29/1.


That idea did not occur to me. Probably because I don't like to commit to something and then pull out. Usually when I agree to take on a task I see it through to its completion.



That is irrelevant to this disussion because you were giving an explicit reason why you did not enter. You knew that you could pre enter and not pay until the day of the event.
Perhaps they are more ambiguous, perhaps not.
Instead of explicitly offering a $10 reduction in entry fee for an early entry we are now explicitly stating the actual amounts.
You knew explicitly that you could pre-enter and not pre-pay because I explained it to you on at least two occasions, the last occasion being the NSWCA AGM.

The wording of the form was ambiguous and implied that one had to pre-pay to get the discounted rate. It appeared to me that NSWCA policy may have changed from past practice (just like early entry fee discount had increased from $10 to $20).

I cannot recall this being explained at the AGM. However, I accept your word for it that you did. With the AGM lasting almost 4 hours, I cannot recall every detail of the meeting and there were times during those 4 hours when I menatlly "dozed off" due to length of meeting.


I'll raise it at the next meeting.

Good.


I think its fairly obvious when I'm posting as the ACF Ratings Officer, as an ACF Council member, as the NSWCA President or as just a simple poster.

Usually it is.


I'm sure some would disagree with you.

I'm sure some would agree with me. ;)

Cat
12-02-2005, 12:57 PM
Bill, your behaviour stands alone, it cannot justified as a response to the bad behaviour of others. If someone kills, that cannot be used as a justification for you killing.

Furthermore, you seem unable to differentiate between what represents criticism and what represents abuse. People are perfectly entitled to voice concerns about things they feel are important to the responsible office bearers without being abused, no matter what your personal feelings are. Because these concerns may be entirely legitimate and just because you carry a different perspective does not in any way undermine their legitimacy.

Often these are well meaning concerns with genuine insight from people on the ground, which should be treated with respect. Only by properly evaluating their concerns can you be said to have effectively executed your responsibility as an office bear.

Knee-jerk reactions smattered with abuse do not constitute an appropriate response, its simply an evasion - a denial of what may well turn out to have merit if properly considered. And you know, we all see this, so that every time you go on the war path a little respect is lost. You are your own worse enemy, you cannot diffuse doubt with denial or eliminate enquiry with evasion. It only serves to encourage discontent, problems do not go away because you say so, you cannot hold back the waves.

Since you have choosen to bring up a couple of examples, I'll take the time to expand.
Firstly, when Ian Rogers first voiced his concerns, your action was poor, ungracious and inappropriate. Ian is our premier player and when Ian speaks you must listen. You may not agree with his views, but they should be regard with reverence.
But you also committed the cardinal sin of deception, deliberately promoting what you knew was a tenuous position at best in an attempt to undermine the validity of his argument.
Secondly, in relation to your attempts to ridicule my concerns about junior ratings, you have only served to undermine confidence in your judgement further. As you know, I have offered many different options, maturation factor is just one. As Rob pointed out to you, The British use this and see no problem with its use, a nation with a long and strong chess history with a record we can only envy. So if you disagree with my solutions, say so by all means, but be man enough to acknowledge this is simply your opinion.

Alone you have repeatedly demonstrated your ability to make bad judgements. Be a little wiser, take good counsel and learn to respect the opinions of others, especially when they are at odds with your own, because maybe they just might have seen something you've missed, and for that you can owe them some gratitude.

Alan Shore
12-02-2005, 01:20 PM
So like, is anyone going to take any notice of this poll? Seems pretty obvious the users want Matt back. Give the puiblic what it wants.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 02:22 PM
So like, is anyone going to take any notice of this poll? Seems pretty obvious the users want Matt back. Give the puiblic what it wants.
The poll is flawed. You can vote for multiple options. fg7 noted he voted for two of them. If the two individuals who voted that he should remain banned (I did not vote in the poll) are excluded from the total posts then the remaining 14 votes could be the results of at worst 5 people and at best 13 people.
Given I suspect that the vast majority of postsers see the poll as a waste of time the 7 votes does not indicate that having him back is what the public wants.

Alan Shore
12-02-2005, 02:27 PM
The poll is flawed. You can vote for multiple options. fg7 noted he voted for two of them. If the two individuals who voted that he should remain banned (I did not vote in the poll) are excluded from the total posts then the remaining 14 votes could be the results of at worst 5 people and at best 13 people.
Given I suspect that the vast majority of postsers see the poll as a waste of time the 7 votes does not indicate that having him back is what the public wants.

So you're saying at worst, 5-2 for Matt.
At best, 13-2 for Matt.

Even at worst, that's more who want to see him back than those who want him banned.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 02:45 PM
So you're saying at worst, 5-2 for Matt.
At best, 13-2 for Matt.

Even at worst, that's more who want to see him back than those who want him banned.
Actually I was wrong. Of the 7 to lift the ban one is fg7's vote. The remaining 6 could be from 3 posters. Therefore at worst its 4-2. That could consist of DR, fg7, antichrist and yourself. Hardly as a group representitive of the board members.
However no one would take those numbers seriously as being statistically significant as representing the views of the board.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 03:14 PM
Bill, your behaviour stands alone, it cannot justified as a response to the bad behaviour of others. If someone kills, that cannot be used as a justification for you killing.That is the most useless analogy I have heard in a long time.

Furthermore, you seem unable to differentiate between what represents criticism and what represents abuse. People are perfectly entitled to voice concerns about things they feel are important to the responsible office bearers without being abused, no matter what your personal feelings are. Because these concerns may be entirely legitimate and just because you carry a different perspective does not in any way undermine their legitimacy.You would be hard pressed to find any concern of Matts that was legitimate and not just an attempted beatup.
Matt regularly abused me since he was on the ACF BB as did you. You and he got the responses you deserved.

Often these are well meaning concerns with genuine insight from people on the ground, which should be treated with respect. Only by properly evaluating their concerns can you be said to have effectively executed your responsibility as an office bear.Matts posts were virtually all beatups.
Your behaviour hasnt been much better.

Knee-jerk reactions smattered with abuse do not constitute an appropriate response, its simply an evasion - a denial of what may well turn out to have merit if properly considered.It is interesting to note that kegless summed you up perfectly in his post http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=1267&page=1
In a later post he said "whenever you and Bill have a debate, he completely whips you. When asked to provide evidence to support your assertions, you use statistics that are completely invalid, and when Bill points this out to you, you go looking for a way to troll him.".
Starter referred to kegless's post as a good post and said he agreed.

And lo and behold what gem of a response did you give to kegless.
You replied with one of the most abusive respones far surpassing any of my comments to you or Matt when you said to kegless:
"Greg, your pitiful intellect is now on display for all to see. I've encountered some shallow souls on this BB, but you have surpassed every expectation I could possibly imagine."

As such any claims by you with regards my behaviour is hypocritical in the extreme.

And you know, we all see this, so that every time you go on the war path a little respect is lost. You are your own worse enemy, you cannot diffuse doubt with denial or eliminate enquiry with evasion.
It only serves to encourage discontent, problems do not go away because you say so, you cannot hold back the waves.You and your mate Matt represent no waves.

Since you have choosen to bring up a couple of examples, I'll take the time to expand.
Firstly, when Ian Rogers first voiced his concerns, your action was poor, ungracious and inappropriate. Ian is our premier player and when Ian speaks you must listen. You may not agree with his views, but they should be regard with reverence.Ian's skill and achievements as a chess player should be shown respect. In fact I have a lot of respect for Ian.
Respect for his opinions re the rating system should be based on the evidence at hand at the time.

But you also committed the cardinal sin of deception, deliberately promoting what you knew was a tenuous position at best in an attempt to undermine the validity of his argument.
I reject that claim entirely. There was no attempted deception on my part.
In fact Graham Saint and I said virtually the same thing in all our responses to Ian.

Secondly, in relation to your attempts to ridicule my concerns about junior ratings, you have only served to undermine confidence in your judgement further.
Only with you. When it comes to ratings you have continually demonstrated you have no credibility.

As you know, I have offered many different options, maturation factor is just one.
Yes, all flawed and without evidence to back them up.
Other than Matt no one else supported you.

As Rob pointed out to you, The British use this and see no problem with its use, a nation with a long and strong chess history with a record we can only envy.
In the thread where Rob mentioned this I think shaun's comment was telling when he said"Oh, and if there was ever a rating system that needed fixing up, the BCF's grading system would be it."

So if you disagree with my solutions, say so by all means, but be man enough to acknowledge this is simply your opinion.Its not just my opinion. The USCF has a much larger base of players than the UK and they dont do it. There is no evidence that justifies it in any ratings literature.

Alone you have repeatedly demonstrated your ability to make bad judgements.This criticism from the likes of you means nothing.

Be a little wiser, take good counsel and learn to respect the opinions of others, especially when they are at odds with your own, because maybe they just might have seen something you've missed, and for that you can owe them some gratitude.That is all well and good.
Unfortunately you and Matt dont fall into that category.

Cat
12-02-2005, 06:59 PM
So like, is anyone going to take any notice of this poll? Seems pretty obvious the users want Matt back. Give the puiblic what it wants.


Yes Skip, I think its pretty clear that general feeling is one of forgiveness. Skip, I think you really should respect the poll - if there are any legitimate objections they should be raised within the next 48hrs, thereafter unless there is something substantial, you should feel morally obliged to accept this judgement. We are the supporters of this site!

Spiny Norman
12-02-2005, 07:07 PM
Yes Skip, I think its pretty clear that general feeling is one of forgiveness. Skip, I think you really should respect the poll - if there are any legitimate objections they should be raised within the next 48hrs, thereafter unless there is something substantial, you should feel morally obliged to accept this judgement. We are the supporters of this site!

Perhaps, if reinstatement is the chosen course of action, it might be advisable to post the terms and conditions of the reinstatement?

Is there a probationary period during which Matt would be "watched like a hawk"? Or is it "forgive and forget" and we all move on?

Justice should be seen to be done (and should be open for public comment so that "community expectations" are met) if it is to be effective.

Banning him without publishing the precise reasons and duration of the ban is not helpful. But neither is reinstating him without knowledge of the conditions (if any) of the reinstatement.

Cat
12-02-2005, 07:14 PM
Perhaps, if reinstatement is the chosen course of action, it might be advisable to post the terms and conditions of the reinstatement?

Is there a probationary period during which Matt would be "watched like a hawk"? Or is it "forgive and forget" and we all move on?

Justice should be seen to be done (and should be open for public comment so that "community expectations" are met) if it is to be effective.

Banning him without publishing the precise reasons and duration of the ban is not helpful. But neither is reinstating him without knowledge of the conditions (if any) of the reinstatement.

Yes I agree, I voted for reinstatement with conditions. I think a code of conduct is warranted not only for Matt, but so that we can all recognise where the limits of acceptability have been breached. We may need some interrum rules specifically for Matt until Skip has completed his guidelines.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 07:21 PM
Yes Skip, I think its pretty clear that general feeling is one of forgiveness.All that is pretty clear is that the whole poll was bogus to start with and completely flawed.

Skip, I think you really should respect the pollSkip has more brains than to respect such a completely useless poll.

- if there are any legitimate objections they should be raised within the next 48hrs, thereafter unless there is something substantial, you should feel morally obliged to accept this judgement.There is no moral obligation involved at all.
The poll was rubbish.

We are the supporters of this site!There are 668 current users of this board. I dont see the slightest suggestion that even 5% support your view.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Perhaps, if reinstatement is the chosen course of action, it might be advisable to post the terms and conditions of the reinstatement?
I doubt the admin nor the mods will be driven into reinstatement as a course of action by the likes of DR, fg7 and a few others.


Is there a probationary period during which Matt would be "watched like a hawk"? Or is it "forgive and forget" and we all move on?

Justice should be seen to be done (and should be open for public comment so that "community expectations" are met) if it is to be effective.

Banning him without publishing the precise reasons and duration of the ban is not helpful. But neither is reinstating him without knowledge of the conditions (if any) of the reinstatement.
As I understand it he was banned for 48 hrs on 13th December for posting crude and vulgar comments whilst drunk. After the 48 period expired on the 15th December Matt then took to abusing and picking a fight with the Admin over the following 5 days. It came to light that during his 48hr ban he circumvented the ban by creating a number of other accounts. On the 20th Dec he was again banned this time indefinately. Kevin announced on the 13th January thats Matts account was no longer banned and was subject to conditions but that the mods "reserve the right to re-ban Matt at any time, for any period, with or without stating reasons".
However instead of Matt using his account, he used an account (woodstocker) that he had created in late December to circumvente the ban that came into effect on December 20th.
Once this came to light that he had been posting whilst banned on January 30th he was once again banned indefinitely.
If there are any errors in this then I'm sure the Admin or a Moderator will correct it.

The simple fact that the likes of DR, fg7, antichrist, BD and a couple of others think he should be unbanned does not mean that his current ban should be lifted.
Matt knew what the rules were especially regarding circumventing bans and he deliberately chose to break them yet again.

Bill Gletsos
12-02-2005, 08:00 PM
Yes I agree, I voted for reinstatement with conditions. I think a code of conduct is warranted not only for Matt, but so that we can all recognise where the limits of acceptability have been breached.You had no qualms about Matts behaviour back on the old ACF BB nor at any stage last year on this board. You never once criticised his behaviour. In fact you encouraged and condoned it.
As such your call for a code of conduct now is hypocritical at best.

We may need some interrum rules specifically for Matt until Skip has completed his guidelines.Matt deliberately and consistently broke the rules even after being warned by the mods on numerous occasions. He doesnt deserve another chance to break them in the short term.

What is acceptable on the board should be like it is on other BB's and be at the discretion of the Admins and moderators.

Cat
13-02-2005, 12:55 AM
Did somebody say something?

Rhubarb
13-02-2005, 09:22 AM
I didn't vote on this poll either. The idiots can continue to make polls for the idiots if they like (I guess).

Cat
13-02-2005, 11:36 AM
I didn't vote on this poll either. The idiots can continue to make polls for the idiots if they like (I guess).


Do you have any objections to Matt being reinstated, Greg? If so raise them now, lets open it up to discussion if you have something to say.

Bill Gletsos
13-02-2005, 11:42 AM
Do you have any objections to Matt being reinstated, Greg?
Any lifting of the ban should be at the discretion of the admin/mods and not just because a few posters like you want it.

In fact it is pretty much a net wide practice that moderation decisions are at the discretion of the Admin/Moderators not the users.

firegoat7
13-02-2005, 02:44 PM
Therefore at worst its 4-2. That could consist of DR, fg7, antichrist and yourself. Hardly as a group representitive of the board members.
However no one would take those numbers seriously as being statistically significant as representing the views of the board.

Despite having a majority of votes, which Bill in other threads has suggested is a good thing, Bill now argues it is a bad thing because its not representative of the majority.

Let us investigate.

KB and possibly JGB are the only people here who have given us legitimate reasons on why they did not vote, let it be noted two people. One ought to presume then that the rest of the board members don't really give a toss whether Matt is banned or not. As such I would be happy to accept this poll over their apathy. Even if the poll is flawed at least it is an effort towards a legitimate position, well one that is better then "who cares".

We are not sure if Bill has voted. Have you voted Bill?

So after some consideration Bill then arrogantly asserts "this is not representative of the majority". Well where's your evidence Bill? Have you polled the majority? Have you consulted with all Bulletin board posters. I think not.

Nevertheless you may be right, but then again you may be wrong. I can say with as much confidence as you " This is the will of the majority" , that is until the majority choose to exercise their will. That is until the majority don't remain so apathetic we won't actually know will we.

So, who is this poll representative of. Well, it is representative of a core majority of people in this thread who want Matt re-instated. In this context your clearly in the minority. So accept your unpopular opinions as being just that. Your unpopular opinion. Whether that is good or bad is another question.

Cheers FG7

Rhubarb
13-02-2005, 03:08 PM
Do you have any objections to Matt being reinstated, Greg? Not personally, no, but if I was a moderator (god forbid) and I was trying to maintain a G rating for this website, I would have no choice but to ban him for repeat offences and a total lack of contrition. Having said that, the moderators around here are pretty damn tolerant. Hell, they haven't even given me so much as a warning point.


If so raise them now, lets open it up to discussion if you have something to say. Kevin has already pointed out that Antichrist's poll options are so ridiculous that, apart from being skewed to the pro-Matt side, they don't even have the current state of affairs as an option.

firegoat7
13-02-2005, 03:13 PM
Kevin has already pointed out that Antichrist's poll options are so ridiculous that, apart from being skewed to the pro-Matt side, they don't even have the current state of affairs as an option.

So why don't you create a better thread?

Bill Gletsos
13-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Despite having a majority of votes, which Bill in other threads has suggested is a good thing, Bill know argues it is a bad thing because its not representative of the majority.I dont believe (although I could be wrong) I have suggested that a majority of votes in any of the polls in BB threads are significant. Can you please provide a reference to support your assertion.

Let us investigate.

KB and possibly JGB are the only people here who have given us legitimate reasons on why they did not vote, let it be noted two people. One ought to presume then that the rest of the board members don't really give a toss whether Matt is banned or not.False assumption.
They could simply see the poll as Greg said, a poll by idiots for idiots.
They also probably correctly assume that the Admin/Mods are not gong to act on such a poll.

As such I would be happy to accept this poll over their apathy.But of of course you would.

Even if the poll is flawed at least it is an effort towards a legitimate position, well one that is better then "who cares".If the poll is flawed its flawed.

We are not sure if Bill has voted. Have you voted Bill?You should learn to pay attention. I already said above I didnt voted.

So after some consideration Bill then arrogantly asserts "this is not representative of the majority". Well where's your evidence Bill? Have you polled the majority? Have you consulted with all Bulletin board posters. I think not.No need as any fool can tell that at most 8 people voted to lift the ban. Thats an insignificant number compared to the users of the board.

Nevertheless you may be right, but then again you may be wrong. I can say with as much confidence as you " This is the will of the majority" , that is until the majority choose to exercise their will. That is until the majority don't remain so apathetic we won't actually know will we.[/quote
Perhaps the majority see no need to vote in such a stupid poll as they have faith in the Mods to ignore it.
[QUOTE=firegoat7]So, who is this poll representative of. Well, it is representative of a core majority of people in this thread who want Matt re-instated.It is representative of those who support Matt and/or have an axe to grind against Kevin.
One would hardly describe that as a representative group of the BB.

In this context your clearly in the minority.
Of course I'm in a minority in this thread. The rest of the board cannot be bothered wasting their time on such am idiotic poll/thread. Greg summed it up perfectly.

So accept your unpopular opinions as being just that. Your unpopular opinion. Whether that is good or bad is another question.
I accept my opinion differs with yours and DR.
I dont agree that it is unpopular.

Bill Gletsos
13-02-2005, 03:34 PM
So why don't you create a better thread?
Because the whole idea is stupid.
The admin/mods determine what is moderated and who is banned, not the users.
That is a netwide standard for discussion boards like this one.

Rhubarb
13-02-2005, 03:55 PM
So why don't you create a better thread?
Because I have no objection to the decision by the mods/admins to ban Matt. I do, however, object to bogus and inherently skewed polls. They offend my mathematical sensibilities.

Rincewind
13-02-2005, 05:51 PM
Because I have no objection to the decision by the mods/admins to ban Matt. I do, however, object to bogus and inherently skewed polls. They offend my mathematical sensibilities.

Perhaps you should start a poll - what should 1+1 equal? Let the masses decide. After all this BB is a democracy, isn't it? :)

ursogr8
13-02-2005, 08:01 PM
^
Baz

I just love it when you talk whole numbers.
Keep out the irrationals, that's what I say.

starter

Spiny Norman
13-02-2005, 08:44 PM
I doubt the admin nor the mods will be driven into reinstatement as a course of action by the likes of DR, fg7 and a few others.

<<other useful info about the sequence of events snipped for brevity>>

Matt knew what the rules were especially regarding circumventing bans and he deliberately chose to break them yet again.

You're probably right on all counts ... but even though I am a fairly frequent reader/poster here its hard for me to keep track of it all.

I would like to make a suggestion for the moderators and for Karthick to consider:

Set up a thread somewhere for moderator/administrator announcements in respect of disiplinary action taken against users of the board. Keep it locked so nobody else can post to it. Update it every time disciplinary action is taken.

This is basically what was done in respect of the banning of David Cordover's account last year and I think it was the right way to go to publicly announce both the actions taken and the reasons for the ban (where appropriate to say so).

I have done this at the Unwired Australia board where I am administrator/moderator. There is a thread entitled "List of banned user accounts (last update: 99/99/9999)" which I keep locked at all times. Whenever I need to update something I go in there and edit the 1st post in the thread to update the last update date, and in the post itself is the following sections:

* List of temporarily banned accounts
- username, duration of ban, reason for ban

* List of previous temporary bans
- username, duration of ban, reason for ban

* List of permanently banned accounts
- username, reason for permanent ban being applied
- history of previous bans

That way there can be no debate about the reasons, nor the duration, etc. There is a complete history making it easier to identify recidivist offenders. Its also completely transparent. The only question then is whether the bans are fair or not, and my response to that (as a moderator) is this:

"This is not the criminal justice system, its a bulletin board, if you don't like the rules, move on."

Cat
13-02-2005, 09:00 PM
Not personally, no, but if I was a moderator (god forbid) and I was trying to maintain a G rating for this website, I would have no choice but to ban him for repeat offences and a total lack of contrition. Having said that, the moderators around here are pretty damn tolerant. Hell, they haven't even given me so much as a warning point.

Kevin has already pointed out that Antichrist's poll options are so ridiculous that, apart from being skewed to the pro-Matt side, they don't even have the current state of affairs as an option.

It doesn't matter if the poll is flawed, 90% of the BB is tongue in cheek, only Bill seems to have failed to understand this. The point is that if noone has any serious objection to Matt being reinstated and there are clearly a number of posters who wish to see him back, then let him back, plain & simple.

Bill Gletsos
13-02-2005, 09:01 PM
The only question then is whether the bans are fair or not, and my response to that (as a moderator) is this:

"This is not the criminal justice system, its a bulletin board, if you don't like the rules, move on."Exactly.

Bill Gletsos
13-02-2005, 11:47 PM
It doesn't matter if the poll is flawed, 90% of the BB is tongue in cheek, only Bill seems to have failed to understand this.You just trot out this sort of rubbish when it suits your purpose.
90% of the BB is not tongue in cheek at all. After all I have over 10% of the total posts on this board and less than 0.1% of mine would be tongue in cheek.
However this is mainly a Chess board. There would be nowhere near 5% tongue in cheek posts in the chess related threads let alone 90%. I seriously doubt even the non chess posts which represent less than 30% of the total posts have 5% tongue in cheek posts.

The point is that if noone has any serious objection to Matt being reinstated and there are clearly a number of posters who wish to see him back, then let him back, plain & simple.What is plain and simple is that the admin/moderators determine the rules not a handful of posters like you and fg7.

Alan Shore
14-02-2005, 02:35 AM
You just trot out this sort of rubbish when it suits your purpose.
90% of the BB is not tongue in cheek at all. After all I have over 10% of the total posts on this board and less than 0.1% of mine would be tongue in cheek.
However this is mainly a Chess board. There would be nowhere near 5% tongue in cheek posts in the chess related threads let alone 90%. I seriously doubt even the non chess posts which represent less than 30% of the total posts have 5% tongue in cheek posts.

Interesting.. what I thought was a BulletinBoard may really be a BillBoard!

Oh dear, it seems this post is tongue in cheek.. apologies for transgressing the Billboard norm. ;)

ugh.. I think I'm starting to sound like starter... :rolleyes:

Cat
14-02-2005, 07:36 AM
90% of the BB is not tongue in cheek at all. After all I have over 10% of the total posts on this board and less than 0.1% of mine would be tongue in cheek.


Well lets just wait & see what the Easter Bunny's got to say!

The_Wise_Man
14-02-2005, 01:36 PM
Let them be the only ones that can post.... and only restricted to that Board...

Let them go for it??? See how long they can insult each other?

Just some entertainment... even take bets on things...

Wise

antichrist
14-02-2005, 08:12 PM
Kevin has already pointed out that Antichrist's poll options are so ridiculous that, apart from being skewed to the pro-Matt side, they don't even have the current state of affairs as an option.

You and others critics have failed to acknowledge my preamble to the poll, the purpose of the poll was to halt endless discussion of the issue (Matt causing as much trouble off the BB as when was on) -- to terminate the current state of affairs, that is why it was not included as an option.

How exactly was it skewed to Matt's side??

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2005, 02:25 AM
You and others critics have failed to acknowledge my preamble to the poll, the purpose of the poll was to halt endless discussion of the issue (Matt causing as much trouble off the BB as when was on)

This is a fairly silly definition of "trouble" as while he is not here there is no swearing, crudity etc from Matt but whether he was here or not there was always discussion of his antics.

Furthermore if you consider discussion to be "trouble" then by starting this thread you've caused another several pages of pointless "trouble", so this whole thread was silly from the start. And to start a poll on how to end discussion of Matt when not everyone agrees such discussion should necessarily be ended is clearly bogus.

About the only other thing I want to add to this is to reply to David where he suggested that Bill was the cause of Matt's bad behaviour. This is just not true; Matt was frequently just as bad or worse on the 2002 BBs where his main opponents were Jonathan Sarfati and myself. The main cause of Matt's bad behaviour is Matthew Sweeney - it's not uncommon to find people who are genuine offline but just can't behave themselves online because of hangups about censorship and the like.

The poll results are indeed being completely ignored; furthermore I encourage all BB users to boycott the poll without stating they are boycotting it as you can rest assured the poll will have no impact. If a well-conducted poll showed overwhelming support/opposition for/to reinstating Matt we would consider that in deciding when/if to reinstate him.

antichrist
15-02-2005, 12:21 PM
It still has not been explained exactly how my poll was skewed when taking into account that the stated reason for the poll been conducted was to discontinue the status quo.

People accept the result of the republican poll even though considered skewed by many.

Anyway, the vast majority want to see Bill and Matt kiss and make up, will we hold our breaths waiting.

I think those who reakon the poll was skewed are just jealous because they are not going to be part of the big kiss-up.

Rhubarb
15-02-2005, 12:57 PM
It still has not been explained exactly how my poll was skewed when taking into account that the stated reason for the poll been conducted was to discontinue the status quo.Okay, antichrist, here we go:

Your premise that Matt causes as much trouble off the board as he does on it is obviously so stupid that I didn't think you wanted anyone to take it seriously. Certain people are always going to be arguing with each other whether or not they're discussing a controversial figure like Matt. Given that I think the premise is stupid, you haven't given the current state of affairs as an option in the poll.

Furthermore, you have gone for the multiple-answers-allowed poll, presumably so that people can vote for one of the three serious options as well as the (allegedly) funny option. The effect of this - and I don't believe you're actually dumb enough not to see this - is that Matt's supporters are going to vote for both of the pro-Matt options and possibly the joke option, while people who support the ban would vote for the one anti-Matt option and possibly the joke option.

Still further, you haven't provided any neutral ground for people who are neither for nor against the banning (as opposed to totally apathetic), for, despite Bill's protestations, such neutral ground exists.

For these reasons, Bill and Kevin have called for a boycott of your bogus poll.

Do...you...under...stand...now?

Take care now,
kegless

firegoat7
15-02-2005, 02:24 PM
Let them be the only ones that can post.... and only restricted to that Board...

Let them go for it??? See how long they can insult each other?

Just some entertainment... even take bets on things...

Wise

Top idea this, sort of like MadMax 3. Two go in one comes out (lol). I want to see a polling worm during the arguement, just to allow some audience interaction, hehe. Classic WM classic.

Cheers FG7

antichrist
15-02-2005, 04:50 PM
Okay, antichrist, here we go:

Your premise that Matt causes as much trouble off the board as he does on it is obviously so stupid that I didn't think you wanted anyone to take it seriously. Certain people are always going to be arguing with each other whether or not they're discussing a controversial figure like Matt. Given that I think the premise is stupid, you haven't given the current state of affairs as an option in the poll.

Furthermore, you have gone for the multiple-answers-allowed poll, presumably so that people can vote for one of the three serious options as well as the (allegedly) funny option. The effect of this - and I don't believe you're actually dumb enough not to see this - is that Matt's supporters are going to vote for both of the pro-Matt options and possibly the joke option, while people who support the ban would vote for the one anti-Matt option and possibly the joke option.

Still further, you haven't provided any neutral ground for people who are neither for nor against the banning (as opposed to totally apathetic), for, despite Bill's protestations, such neutral ground exists.

For these reasons, Bill and Kevin have called for a boycott of your bogus poll.

Do...you...under...stand...now?

Take care now,
kegless

Matt causes as much trouble off board.. is obviously an exageration but has some truth, the effect is similar, that is people arguing endlessly which must be the biggest turnoff for most viewers, especially new ones. As believing that such arguing is ridiculous of course I don't include it as an option. The neutral grounders (silent majority) can set up their own poll.

Yes, people can vote three times, but we can still calculate the results to read a worse case scenario of 4-2 to re-instate Matt. It has some value.

Rhubarb
15-02-2005, 05:20 PM
Incidentally, when did the poll close?


Yes, people can vote three times, but we can still calculate the results to read a worse case scenario of 4-2 to re-instate Matt. It has some value. It has no value at all. You have no idea how many people refused to vote because you did not provide them with a sensible option in support of the ban. (Not that I'm necessarily one of those people.)

I'm only repeating what Kevin and Bill have already tried - apparently unsuccessfully - to get through to you. But I give up now. Would anyone else like a go?

antichrist
16-02-2005, 03:08 PM
Incidentally, when did the poll close?

It has no value at all. You have no idea how many people refused to vote because you did not provide them with a sensible option in support of the ban. (Not that I'm necessarily one of those people.)

I'm only repeating what Kevin and Bill have already tried - apparently unsuccessfully - to get through to you. But I give up now. Would anyone else like a go?

In the latest poll re Matt's ban I supply 4 options, the status quo not included as I consider unsatisfactory, and yet there are no great masses rushing to vote. I thought this would be the case. And in the Bill Gletsos poll I even provided a fence for the perfectionist and silent majority to sit upon and still they did not come out of the woodwork. I am beginning to think that they are a bit like god, they don't exist.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2005, 03:19 PM
In the latest poll re Matt's ban I supply 4 options, the status quo not included as I consider unsatisfactory, and yet there are no great masses rushing to vote. I thought this would be the case. And in the Bill Gletsos poll I even provided a fence for the perfectionist and silent majority to sit upon and still they did not come out of the woodwork. I am beginning to think that they are a bit like god, they don't exist.Actually I think they just see your polls as a complete waste of time.

arosar
16-02-2005, 04:07 PM
FMD! This Matt fellow seems to be attaining the status of Jesus Christ!

AR

Denis_Jessop
16-02-2005, 07:03 PM
FMD! This Matt fellow seems to be attaining the status of Jesus Christ!

AR

If he's resurrected he surely will

Denis Jessop

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2005, 10:59 PM
If he's resurrected he surely will

Denis Jessop
No, I suspect he would be more like lazarus.

ursogr8
01-03-2005, 07:21 AM
FMD! This Matt fellow seems to be attaining the status of Jesus Christ!

AR

March the 1st.
From memory that was the date that KB said he had in mind to reconsider, since he had ruled out February.

I take it from your post AR you would be proposing the motion?
Btw, what does your three-letter acronym mean? Doesn't come into Bill's radar of coarse does it? Perhaps, just unseemly. :rolleyes:


regards, and good morning,
starter

antichrist
01-03-2005, 07:30 AM
G Gray made the announcement a few days ago that Matt was permanently banned. He could not handle the good behaviour period.

arosar
01-03-2005, 08:36 AM
'FMD' is very sophisticated. Even Bazza here has used it. I made a mental note of it.

AR

Rincewind
01-03-2005, 08:47 AM
Even Bazza here has used it. I made a mental note of it.

Was that in one of my post when I was satirising you, mate? ;)

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 05:24 PM
March the 1st.
From memory that was the date that KB said he had in mind to reconsider, since he had ruled out February.

I ruled out February only because you were pressing for a lifting during that month.

However just for your sake I will now reconsider whether Matt should be reinstated.

*one second later*

Nope.

antichrist
01-03-2005, 05:31 PM
For Matt's latest session of vulgarity this arvo the NSWCA should not allow their site to be linked to Matt's. Is it possible?

Duff McKagan
07-06-2005, 07:30 AM
If he's resurrected he surely will [attain the status of Jesus Christ]

Denis Jessop

Denis, you are a prophet. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2007, 12:42 PM
Is Matthew "potty-mouth" Sweeney still banned? Wouldn't it be worth reinstating him on probation now?

Basil
06-04-2007, 03:23 PM
At some point, countless gratis probations (where the onus on non-bad behaviour exists) must cease and give way to averred acknowledgements of good behaviour and related impositions as requested.

I am not commenting on whether the above is just or timely (although I'd be delighted to) - but I note that the Squad is entitled (as a matter of BB law) and that the onus is on Matt, not the BB to re-gain entry.

As it stands, Matt is clearly not interested.

Bill Gletsos
06-04-2007, 03:31 PM
Is Matthew "potty-mouth" Sweeney still banned? Wouldn't it be worth reinstating him on probation now?No.
He had been give more than enough warnings and opportunities to behave himself on this BB.

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=118454&postcount=73

Since that time he has trolled here using hydras, which again is in breach of the site rules.

If you are so interested in engaging with him, you can always do so at ACCF.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2007, 03:48 PM
No.
He had been give more than enough warnings and opportunities to behave himself on this BB.

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=118454&postcount=73

Since that time he has trolled here using hydras, which again is in breach of the site rules.

If you are so interested in engaging with him, you can always do so at ACCF.

Fair enough. I've been absent for a few years, and wasn't aware that he's had plenty of chances. I wasn't so much interested in engaging him, but not wanting an ideological opponent to be silenced. But President Duggan is right, it's up to him now, not the BB's admins.

Basil
06-04-2007, 04:06 PM
But President Duggan is right, it's up to him now, not the BB's admins.
Why do I have the strongest suspicions that I will regret posting my très amusant anecdote :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
06-04-2007, 04:10 PM
But President Duggan is right, it's up to him now, not the BB's admins.Actually only the first step it up to him, the final decision still rests with the BB's admins/mods.