PDA

View Full Version : Overbearing Personalities



antichrist
03-03-2005, 09:10 PM
There has been a volcanic mountain of trouble and abuse on the BB due to overbearing and bullying personalities. Specifically people who are in positions of power in the chess community and seemingly consider themselves infallible on many subjects. In this instance one can look at the derogatory comments made when I first brought up the BB Personality Poll.

Yes, it can be seen as only a silly little poll but, in quiet times on the BB, help to keep the audience intact and provide a bit of light entertainment.

When the detractors came down on me I went ahead with the poll just to oppose them and their patronising and overbearing manner. I did not argue much because frankly it is not their business and I won't get involved in time-wasting especially with such type of people.

I admit I was lucky and produced something out of nothing -- a successful poll. Under much greater vitriolic circumstances I have produced the successful Sydney Easter Cup (S.E.C.). Sometimes I can look ahead and see the obvious, which others, more intelligent than myself, do not. The need for purchasing a N.S.W. chess premises is another necessity.

Getting back to the original topic. The Bulletin Board has been torn apart by overbearing personalities being pedantic and in mostly a rude manner. They have generated an opposition army which will ensure that the BB atmosphere stays acrimonious for years to come. An army of whom, even when they become aware of their faulty position, will not retreat due to their dislike of the manner of the "infallibles".

Is this how we want the BB to be and must it be this way?

Rincewind
03-03-2005, 09:23 PM
Is this how we want the BB to be and must it be this way?

It seems you have contracted a persecution complex. But if you want a frank and open forum you have to have criticism. It's a part of life that people's opinions will vary. It is also a fact that some people will stridently present a case for their opinion. So you can't have too thin a skin, even if a thin skin might be a reasonable position ni everyday life. By choosing to participate in this forum you are choosing to make yourself a target for people of differing opinions.

You imply that Kevin is an overbearing personality. That may or may not be true. However, he is hardly been on this board often enough to overbear anyone here. Personally I share his opinion that your polls are silly and your arguments (like the one initiating this thread) are so flimsy as to practically fall over under their own weight. However, my aim is for everyone to enjoy themselves as much as practical without annoying too many others in the process. It is a delicate balancing act but nature has a way of balancing things out (and I think Matt's new board may be a part of that).

So before pointing the finger at the noisy few, consider the silent majority, and make your own decisions. ;)

Alan Shore
03-03-2005, 09:53 PM
You imply that Kevin is an overbearing personality. That may or may not be true. However, he is hardly been on this board often enough to overbear anyone here.

Kevin Bonham
Posts: 2,831

What's your definition of has been on the board often enough Baz? :confused:

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2005, 09:55 PM
There has been a volcanic mountain of trouble and abuse on the BB due to overbearing and bullying personalities. Specifically people who are in positions of power in the chess community and seemingly consider themselves infallible on many subjects. In this instance one can look at the derogatory comments made when I first brought up the BB Personality Poll.Complete misrepresenation of the facts.
There were no derogatory comments made.
You claimed there had been a neglect in failing to hold a BB Personality of the Year poll. Kevin pointed out that there had been no neglect because we had never previously had such a thing before. He simply called your poll pointless. Not an unreasonable comment given your previous polls.
Also you claimed the poll was being held due to overwhelming public demand. I simply pointed out that there had been no demand for it whatsoever.
It is abundantly clear that those none of those comments were derogatory.

Yes, it can be seen as only a silly little poll but, in quiet times on the BB, help to keep the audience intact and provide a bit of light entertainment.

When the detractors came down on me I went ahead with the poll just to oppose them and their patronising and overbearing manner. I did not argue much because frankly it is not their business and I won't get involved in time-wasting especially with such type of people.This is rich considering you are one of the main time wasters when it comes to arguing in the non chess threads.

I admit I was lucky and produced something out of nothing -- a successful poll.Eventually you had to get lucky. all your othere were completely worthless.

Under much greater vitriolic circumstances I have produced the successful Sydney Easter Cup (S.E.C.). Sometimes I can look ahead and see the obvious, which others, more intelligent than myself, do not. The need for purchasing a N.S.W. chess premises is another necessity.

Getting back to the original topic. The Bulletin Board has been torn apart by overbearing personalities being pedantic and in mostly a rude manner. They have generated an opposition army which will ensure that the BB atmosphere stays acrimonious for years to come. An army of whom, even when they become aware of their faulty position, will not retreat due to their dislike of the manner of the "infallibles".More rhetotic than fact.
I would suggest that the opposition army essentially consists/consisted mainly of 3 members fg7, DR and the banned Matt.

Is this how we want the BB to be and must it be this way?Barry answered this.

antichrist
03-03-2005, 10:17 PM
In the criticism Matt made of you recently, re meetings, does have some grounds. Realise that and attempt to eliminate.

Even though he may be the last person who should be criticising other people that is beside the point. He is not in power, you are.

Rincewind
03-03-2005, 10:19 PM
Kevin Bonham
Posts: 2,831

What's your definition of has been on the board often enough Baz? :confused:

Your misuse of statistics amazes me. No wait, you are a psych major, I take that back. :P

Look at the last 3 months

Bill Gletsos 500+
Barry Cox 500+
Starter 500+
ggrayggray 500+
Bruce Dickinson 495
JGB 469
antichrist 418
The Chess Nut 386
pax 257
Kevin Bonhan 245
Matthew Sweeney 236 (despite being banned for 2 of those months!!!)

(list not comprehensive there are no doubt a few other with twice Kevin's post rate or more over the last 3 months).

antichrist
03-03-2005, 10:24 PM
It has not to do with quanity, even that point was brought up.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2005, 10:38 PM
In the criticism Matt made of you recently, re meetings, does have some grounds. Realise that and attempt to eliminate.How would you know, you have never been to a NSWCA Council meeting, nor the last 2 AGM's that I chaired.
As for Sweeneys criticism I dont recall ever using them at any council meeting and I would suggest my memory is far better than his. Matt also has criticised Peter C on this board previously. What he fails/failed to apprecaite is that when people ask what is happening/happened regarding a particular issue then those that have been involved in it are generally the ones who will answer. More often than not thats Peter C and me.
Of course Matt has to make some sort of excuse because he did absolutely nothing whilst he was on council.

Even though he may be the last person who should be criticising other people that is beside the point. He is not in power, you are.No, the Council members as a group are. I have one vote on the NSWCA Council just like everyone else on council.

antichrist
03-03-2005, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE=Bill Gletsos]

As for Sweeneys criticism I dont recall ever using them at any council meeting and I would suggest my memory is far better than his.

I would not expect him to maliciously misquote you verbatim - but is possible. His verbatim seems to fit in with your BB manner.

Alan Shore
03-03-2005, 10:54 PM
Look at the last 3 months


Nice little misuse of statistics yourself there Baz.. who said anything about the last 3 months? :P

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2005, 11:00 PM
I would not expect him to maliciously misquote you verbatim - but is possible.I'm suggesting he is prone to misrepresenting situations.

His verbatim seems to fit in with your BB manner.In the main my face to face manner matches my bb manner for the vast majority of people I respond to here on the bb like Jenni, Barry etc.
Its only fools like DR, Matt and you where my BB manner does not match my face to face manner.

antichrist
03-03-2005, 11:04 PM
I'm suggesting he is prone to misrepresenting situations.
In the main my face to face manner matches my bb manner for the vast majority of people I respond to here on the bb like Jenni, Barry etc.
Its only fools like DR, Matt and you where my BB manner does not match my face to face manner.

I don't think any of the above answers his claims when quoting you verbatim. We would need third party views of this.

Yes you only get one vote but you can still get your way through personality.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2005, 11:19 PM
I don't think any of the above answers his claims when quoting you verbatim. We would need third party views of this. He certainly wasnt quoting me verbatim.

Yes you only get one vote but you can still get your way through personality.Thats the dumbest thing I have heard you say in the last 5 minutes.
Only a fool would believe I could convince the likes of Peter C, Tom, Norm, Kerry, Steve C, Mal and the others by force of personality. They are all too independant.

antichrist
03-03-2005, 11:23 PM
He certainly wasnt quoting me verbatim.
??????????????????

Thats the dumbest thing I have heard you say in the last 5 minutes.
Only a fool would believe I could convince the likes of Peter C, Tom, Norm, Kerry, Steve C, Mal and the others by force of personality. They are all too independant.

I will take your word on the second part of it.

Bill Gletsos
03-03-2005, 11:46 PM
I will take your word on the second part of it.
I'm saying he wasnt quoting me verbatim and I dont believe it was even a good attempt at paraphrasing.
Now of course I'm going to argue a point forcefully, but so do the likes of Peter C, Mal and the other Council members.
Matt can make accusations against me to try and suggest that the way I might say here on the board that he or DR dont have a clue what they are talking about is the same way I would respond to a council member is just rubbish. I certainly didnt stop Matt from speaking at Council meetings or cut him off. His problem was he only ever attended 2 meetings between January and June.
Of course after being such a big mouth here on the board he did nothing after getting on the NSWCA Council. All the NSWCA Council members know that.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2005, 01:50 AM
My original comments were based on:

1. The way in which antichrist starts pointless, methodically unsound and often silly polls under spurious pretences on a regular basis.

2. My long experience that popularity contests on bulletin boards more often than not lead to major flamewars (example: post of the year fiasco rubbish).

Inded in saying "pointless" I was being too kind because normally threads of such kind prove to be worse than pointless.

In this case my assessment indeed proved pessimistic - and while I apologise for that, I also plead that my assessment was influenced by the feeble track record of the pollster. :lol:


Getting back to the original topic. The Bulletin Board has been torn apart by overbearing personalities being pedantic and in mostly a rude manner. They have generated an opposition army which will ensure that the BB atmosphere stays acrimonious for years to come. An army of whom, even when they become aware of their faulty position, will not retreat due to their dislike of the manner of the "infallibles".

The 3.5-man band (one MIA) that you call the "opposition army" brought the "pedantry" on themselves by being persistently loose with the facts and refusing to accept corrections no matter how reasonably or unreasonably offered, and the "rudeness" on themselves either by being rude themselves or by being abusive towards people who did not even post on the board and did nothing to deserve it.

The idea that the BB has been torn apart is ludicrous - its visitation rates have seldom been higher than in the last few months.

If I was either overbearing or a bully I would have moderated all opposition into submission. I am, however, a counterpuncher, and when people dish out trash, I hit back.

Rincewind
04-03-2005, 06:55 AM
Nice little misuse of statistics yourself there Baz.. who said anything about the last 3 months? :P

As it is a current thread, it is the current usage of Kevin that is in issue. His history over the last 4 years is not really relevant as antichrist didn't seem to have a problem worth discussing until now.

Rincewind
04-03-2005, 06:59 AM
It has not to do with quanity, even that point was brought up.

If it was than it wasn't done very well. It is very difficult to argue that one personality is being overbearing and ruining the board for everyone when there are an abundant number of posters who are posting at more than double the rate of said poster. The problem poster would smiply be drowned out in the noise.

ursogr8
04-03-2005, 07:11 AM
<snip>
The problem poster would smiply be drowned out in the noise.

:eek:
Not sure I would be comfortable with my metrics being equated to noise.

starter

ps Presume smip is when a moderator snips?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

arosar
04-03-2005, 01:44 PM
The Angry Tree.

http://gorillamask.net/angrytree.shtml

Wait for the whole thing to load. Ensure to have the volume up.

AR

antichrist
04-03-2005, 01:46 PM
The Angry Tree.

http://gorillamask.net/angrytree.shtml

Wait for the whole thing to load. Ensure to have the volume up.

AR

I do not access references anymore, I found them all disappointing. Obviously my sense of humour must be different to other people's.