PDA

View Full Version : ChessGuru unbanned



Alan Shore
03-04-2005, 01:14 PM
Who else noticed?

P.S. If someone who threatens to sue a server gets unbanned from it I'm mystified as to why Matt Sweeney is still banned... :confused:

Mischa
03-04-2005, 01:29 PM
I noticed and Chess guru knows

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 01:36 PM
Who else noticed?

P.S. If someone who threatens to sue a server gets unbanned from it I'm mystified as to why Matt Sweeney is still banned... :confused:

Now that is odd.
I received a mail from ChessGURU within the past hour, and my PC immediately froze....just re-booted now.

I am equally confused as you.

starter

Garvinator
03-04-2005, 02:00 PM
what the hell.

firegoat7
03-04-2005, 02:01 PM
Hello,

Is Guru really unbanned or is the unbanning notice just removed? If he is unbanned has any money been exchanged?

Cheers Fg7

ElevatorEscapee
03-04-2005, 02:05 PM
The strikeout through his name seems to have been removed if that's any indication.

Garvinator
03-04-2005, 02:11 PM
Hello,

Is Guru really unbanned or is the unbanning notice just removed? If he is unbanned has any money been exchanged?

Cheers Fg7
it does look like the guru has been reinstated. There is no strikeout through his name and there is no ban message on his name in the members list.

Bill Gletsos
03-04-2005, 02:42 PM
I remember seeing the Admin announce that the ban on Chessguru was being lifted in the shotbox sometime in the past 2 weeks.

JGB
03-04-2005, 02:49 PM
I remember seeing the Admin announce that the ban on Chessguru was being lifted in the shotbox sometime in the past 2 weeks.

Yep, your right. Skip announced it a couple of weeks back.

Rincewind
03-04-2005, 02:50 PM
chessguru is unbanned. AFAIK no money changed hands. The impending un-ban was announced in the shout box as Bill noted.

Matt's case is completely different and so no assumptions should be made regarding the lifting of that particular ban.

Garvinator
03-04-2005, 02:51 PM
Yep, your right. Skip announced it a couple of weeks back.
putting it in the shoutbox is not an announcement at all. Skip has a special announcement section. Seems like he just wanted ppl to miss the shoutbox message and prevent discussion or complaints about the guru being unbanned.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2005, 02:55 PM
P.S. If someone who threatens to sue a server gets unbanned from it I'm mystified as to why Matt Sweeney is still banned... :confused:

Possibly because the former case involved a single incident whereas the latter is an unrepentant redicivist who shows no signs of ever being willing to learn? :hmm:

Alan Shore
03-04-2005, 02:58 PM
Possibly because the former case involved a single incident whereas the latter is an unrepentant redicivist who shows no signs of ever being willing to learn? :hmm:

So a one-time armed robber is not as bad as continual petty thief in your eyes? Hmm :hmm:

P.S. It's 'recidivist' ;)

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 03:03 PM
putting it in the shoutbox is not an announcement at all. Skip has a special announcement section. Seems like he just wanted ppl to miss the shoutbox message and prevent discussion or complaints about the guru being unbanned.

Your suppostion does not strike me as likely gg''.

K. would simply have lifted the ban and made no announcement based on that theory of yours.

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2005, 03:28 PM
So a one-time armed robber is not as bad as continual petty thief in your eyes? Hmm :hmm:

I don't think the proportional difference between their "offences" is anything like that great. The long ban for CG was best justified from a deterrence standpoint than one of retributivism, while Matt is clearly an offender with limited prospects of rehabilitation. :lol:


P.S. It's 'recidivist' ;)

*laughs*

Can't believe I actually typed "redicivist". Didn't think I was that hungover. :rolleyes:

skip to my lou
03-04-2005, 03:31 PM
ggrayggray, you make it sound like we have to announce bans and bans that are lifted. I just thought people might like to know, so I posted in the shoutbox. It does not need a proper announcement.

If you want to complain, then feel free to post a thread in feedback forum.

Garvinator
03-04-2005, 03:34 PM
If you want to complain, then feel free to post a thread in feedback forum.
is there any actual point?

skip to my lou
03-04-2005, 03:37 PM
is there any actual point?

Well depends on what you're complaining about.

Garvinator
03-04-2005, 03:40 PM
Well depends on what you're complaining about.
but you are not going to re instate the ban no matter what i say.

skip to my lou
03-04-2005, 04:00 PM
but you are not going to re instate the ban no matter what i say.

Why would you want to reinstate the ban?

antichrist
03-04-2005, 04:09 PM
STML was that a mod ban on the pope poll or from higher up?

Ian Rout
03-04-2005, 04:12 PM
Possibly because the former case involved a single incident whereas the latter is an unrepentant redicivist who shows no signs of ever being willing to learn? :hmm:
It may be a single incident but it's on-going, so I don't see a difference between that and a series of individual events. The point of the ban was that CG should not be allowed to post his own case while simultaneously using the legal system to suppress adverse comments; he was therefore banned from having it both ways.

Possibly he won't actually be interested in posting, in which case it won't make any difference except that a precedent has been set and an encouraging message sent to those contemplating similar behaviour. But I certainly don't see what has changed since the ban was imposed that would make it no longer appropriate - or has something happened behind the scenes indicating that this offender, unlike the other, has shown signs of being willing to learn?

Kevin Bonham
03-04-2005, 04:21 PM
It may be a single incident but it's on-going, so I don't see a difference between that and a series of individual events. The point of the ban was that CG should not be allowed to post his own case while simultaneously using the legal system to suppress adverse comments; he was therefore banned from having it both ways.

I assume he will be banned again for good if he ever makes such threats again. Maybe he should have been required to drop them before being allowed back on but one key point is being missed in all this.

This site belongs to STML. STML is the only person who is at financial risk from threats of legal action against the site (for which CG was banned). Obviously if STML feels that he no longer wants to ban CG on account of those risks, then that's STML's decision.

skip to my lou
03-04-2005, 04:36 PM
STML was that a mod ban on the pope poll or from higher up?

Three or four moderators are against it, so I don't think you have a chance of putting that poll up.

antichrist
03-04-2005, 04:44 PM
Three or four moderators are against it, so I don't think you have a chance of putting that poll up.

That Macavity guy was even against my freedom of speech at pope rally, make a good fascist that chap.

I bet I was the only one amongst them who was an altar boy from 6 years old until 18 years old, when already an atheist.

If I manage to corrupt some posters and they go to hell, can they also sue STML.

Ian Rout
03-04-2005, 04:48 PM
I assume he will be banned again for good if he ever makes such threats again. Maybe he should have been required to drop them before being allowed back on but one key point is being missed in all this.

This site belongs to STML. STML is the only person who is at financial risk from threats of legal action against the site (for which CG was banned). Obviously if STML feels that he no longer wants to ban CG on account of those risks, then that's STML's decision.
Fair point, and I don't dispute it. The tenor of the defence previously was merely that it was a sensible and justifiable course of action, and that's what I was disputing.

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 05:32 PM
It may be a single incident but it's on-going, so I don't see a difference between that and a series of individual events. The point of the ban was that CG should not be allowed to post his own case while simultaneously using the legal system to suppress adverse comments; he was therefore banned from having it both ways.

Possibly he won't actually be interested in posting, in which case it won't make any difference except that a precedent has been set and an encouraging message sent to those contemplating similar behaviour. But I certainly don't see what has changed since the ban was imposed that would make it no longer appropriate - or has something happened behind the scenes indicating that this offender, unlike the other, has shown signs of being willing to learn?

hi Ian

I have bolded a clause in your text above; I just had a question as to whether CG was actually 'posting his own case'. His most recent post was 2/7/2004, and from memory, the banning was many months after this. Apologies if I am taking your words out of context; I can see if the emphasis is on 'allowed to post his own case', then maybe this is your point.



<snip>The tenor of the defence previously was merely that it was a sensible and justifiable course of action, and that's what I was disputing.

And again here, I am a bit confused...the defence of 'what' was a "sensible and justifiable course of action".

regards
starter

antichrist
03-04-2005, 06:24 PM
Three or four moderators are against it, so I don't think you have a chance of putting that poll up.

But are they correct, the emperor may have no clothes but everyone gives the nod?

From what I noticed where was Macavity when we were fighting the child sexual abuse subject, didn't give a contential, but he is upset if we have a go at his stupid religion.

If was TCN who first wiped it, as far as I can remember he was not much to be seen on sexual child abuse issue.

They remind me of that priest that while he was molesting young boys would put a cover over a stone statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary so that she could not see.

That is, a stone image is more important than the welfare of a young lad.

That is why I occasionally say that the whole lot of them are not worth two bob.

Ian Rout
03-04-2005, 06:36 PM
And again here, I am a bit confused...the defence of 'what' was a "sensible and justifiable course of action".

regards
starter
I was suggesting that previously the defence of the unbanning was that the unbanning was sensible and justifiable (which I am unconvinced of). The argument that STML can do what he likes with his own board (which is true enough) only came later.

WhiteElephant
03-04-2005, 07:50 PM
This unbanning seems very uncharacteristic given major grudge STML still seems to harbour towards CG.

ursogr8
03-04-2005, 07:56 PM
I was suggesting that previously the defence of the unbanning was that the unbanning was sensible and justifiable (which I am unconvinced of). The argument that STML can do what he likes with his own board (which is true enough) only came later.

Thanks Ian
Clears up my mis-reading.
I appreciate the response.
starter

skip to my lou
03-04-2005, 08:20 PM
This unbanning seems very uncharacteristic given major grudge STML still seems to harbour towards CG.

What "grudge"?

Mischa
03-04-2005, 09:43 PM
Why do you all care so much?

Alan Shore
03-04-2005, 09:51 PM
Why do you all care so much?

I care because people's priorities are completely upside down. You welcome back someone who has threatened legal action against you, yet you leave banned someone who spouts a bit of colourful language. It's an absolute disgrace.

Mischa
03-04-2005, 09:59 PM
Ok, I think. I respect your opinion Bel so will bow to your judgment.

Paul S
03-04-2005, 10:08 PM
After generously shouting around 15 or so BB regulars a beer at a Chinese restaurant during the Doeberl, Matt deserves to be allowed back on Chess Chat!

Mischa
03-04-2005, 10:27 PM
I didn't get one

Paul S
03-04-2005, 10:30 PM
I didn't get one

Probably because I drank yours (I had 2 beers)! ;) :lol:

Mischa
03-04-2005, 10:42 PM
That means you owe me!!!

Paul S
03-04-2005, 10:46 PM
That means you owe me!!!

Come to Doeberl next year and I will shout you (and any other BB member) a beer (assuming there is a BB get together at the same or similar restaurant)!

Mischa
03-04-2005, 10:50 PM
going to Adelaide?

Paul S
03-04-2005, 10:54 PM
going to Adelaide?

No

Mischa
03-04-2005, 10:57 PM
Worth a try...anywhere you likely to be when I am...need this beer

Paul S
04-04-2005, 12:29 AM
Worth a try...anywhere you likely to be when I am...need this beer

Just be patient and you will get one at the 2006 Doeberl! :cool:

Garvinator
04-04-2005, 02:43 PM
Worth a try...anywhere you likely to be when I am...need this beer
will you be at the nsw open on the queens birthday weekend?

ursogr8
13-04-2005, 10:08 PM
It may be a single incident but it's on-going, so I don't see a difference between that and a series of individual events. The point of the ban was that CG should not be allowed to post his own case while simultaneously using the legal system to suppress adverse comments; he was therefore banned from having it both ways.

Possibly he won't actually be interested in posting, in which case it won't make any difference except that a precedent has been set and an encouraging message sent to those contemplating similar behaviour. But I certainly don't see what has changed since the ban was imposed that would make it no longer appropriate - or has something happened behind the scenes indicating that this offender, unlike the other, has shown signs of being willing to learn?

The first part of Ian's excellent post was answered by KB.
Is anyone going to address the second para., or did I miss something?


Like, did a mod. or admin. wake up one day, look at his (her) watch, and say ...."goodness me, the GURU has been banned for quite a long time". :confused:

starter

Lucena
15-04-2005, 11:09 AM
will you be at the nsw open on the queens birthday weekend?

Will you?

Mischa
15-04-2005, 11:15 AM
No I won't Garvin....Vic. open is on at the same time.

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2005, 09:45 PM
The first part of Ian's excellent post was answered by KB.
Is anyone going to address the second para., or did I miss something?

Like, did a mod. or admin. wake up one day, look at his (her) watch, and say ...."goodness me, the GURU has been banned for quite a long time". :confused:

If there is anything more to it than that I don't know about it. I asked STML and that is basically what he said - he feels it's been long enough.

ElevatorEscapee
16-04-2005, 12:07 AM
Err, has the Guru actually posted since he has been 'unbanned'? If not, one wonders if anyone has actually informed him.... :confused:

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2005, 12:13 AM
Err, has the Guru actually posted since he has been 'unbanned'? If not, one wonders if anyone has actually informed him.... :confused:He knows. Refer to post #2 in this thread.

ElevatorEscapee
16-04-2005, 12:24 AM
Thank you, Bill :)

But post #2 of this thread doesn't necessarily imply that he was officially informed of his reinstatement by the management of this site.

In any case, he knows, but apparently doesn't care enough to post.

To me, that makes the reinstatement somewhat more mystifying... I mean, if reinstatement is something that he desired, fair enough, but if he did want to be reinstated, why hasn't he posted here since? (This thread would provide a perfect opportunity for him to welcome himself back).

Still, I cannot presume to second guess the thoughts and decisions of others, if I could I would be a far better chess player than I am! :doh: ;)

Garvinator
16-04-2005, 12:34 AM
Will you?
Sorry Gareth for not replying sooner, only just saw your question. I doubt I will come down for the nsw open. There is a chance that the Qld Championships will be on that weekend and maybe the weekend before.
As Caq tournament officer, i probably should be there ;).

antichrist
16-04-2005, 02:57 PM
I thought that Chessguru may have become Sir Ralph Titius (?) whom we have not heard of again, is be barred too?

ursogr8
22-04-2005, 08:20 AM
I don't think the proportional difference between their "offences" is anything like that great. The long ban for CG was best justified from a deterrence standpoint than one of retributivism, while Matt is clearly an offender with limited prospects of rehabilitation.

Hats off to the moderators and owner for their treatment of these two cases.
The GURU has been deterred from legal action which would have been undesirable. It is a pity he has not taken up the option to post here so that we could better understand his recent offer to Victorian Clubs.
In Matt's case we have the evidence of no rehabilitation being achieved. And some of his most unseemly posts being dragged verbatim here. It just leaves the irony, if the posts are so awful in St Helena how is it they are OK here? (For example the Duff post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=54977&highlight=maggot#post54977) ).
(Note to morning mod, the link points to CC not UCJ, or does it? :uhoh: ...............)

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2005, 11:20 AM
In Matt's case we have the evidence of no rehabilitation being achieved. And some of his most unseemly posts being dragged verbatim here. It just leaves the irony, if the posts are so awful in St Helena how is it they are OK here? (For example the Duff post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=54977&highlight=maggot#post54977) ).This is just crap on your part and is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to create an issue where none exists.
Posts where I have copied his words to the open board where his language is clearly unacceptable I have edited out the offending words with *****. If I had missed any then obviously the Mods would have seen fit to edit them out as well.
However your so called example isnt an example at all.
Although that post of Matt's is a cacophony of vitriolic bile, he doesnt actually use any foul or vulgar language.
However more importantly the copy of his post was not posted on the open board but in the Lounge which is unmoderated.
What part of unmoderated dont you understand.

ursogr8
22-04-2005, 11:31 AM
^
I didn't use or imply the word unmoderated.
You are the only poster who has posted visible judgement (twice) on that post; and you are not a moderator.

Your exact words were "just a more extreme example of posts that he used to put on here".
The irony remains...if not OK in St Helena then how come an extreme example is OK here.

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2005, 12:50 PM
^
I didn't use or imply the word unmoderated.
You are the only poster who has posted visible judgement (twice) on that post; and you are not a moderator.Stop making up your own rules.
Since when does one have to be a moderator to make a judgement on a post. The only difference is that if a moderator deems the post unacceptable then it wont last long.


Your exact words were "just a more extreme example of posts that he used to put on here".
The irony remains...if not OK in St Helena then how come an extreme example is OK here.The point is that it is ok in the unmoderated lounge.
It wouldnt be ok on the main board which is open to all, but it wasnt posted on the main board, it was posted in the lounge.

ursogr8
22-04-2005, 01:21 PM
Stop making up your own rules.
.

Post #57 in Welcome to the Coffee Lounge >>


Don't listen to starter. He's confused. That this is unmoderated by the mods means that we have to moderate ourselves. Simple really.

SP

So, you moderate yourself by posting an extreme example. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2005, 02:17 PM
Post #57 in Welcome to the Coffee Lounge >>That just happened to be one posters opinion. If you look at the rest of the posts in that thread, no one seemed to follow it,
However 'savvy poster' was right on the money when he described you as confused.

So, you moderate yourself by posting an extreme example. :rolleyes:I followed the board policy and only posted it in the unmoderated Lounge.
You obviously dont seem to grasp the concept of unmoderated.
Perhaps thats due to your apparent state of perpetual confusion and dis-orientation.

ursogr8
22-04-2005, 03:50 PM
That just happened to be one posters opinion. If you look at the rest of the posts in that thread, no one seemed to follow it,
However 'savvy poster' was right on the money when he described you as confused.
I followed the board policy and only posted it in the unmoderated Lounge.
You obviously dont seem to grasp the concept of unmoderated.
Perhaps thats due to your apparent state of perpetual confusion and dis-orientation.

Bill

You could finally be right.
I will resile from any more litmus test questions...........save this one > "Does it follow that Matt could be invited back, but only to post in the Coffee Lounge". :uhoh: ;) :hand:

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2005, 04:07 PM
Bill

You could finally be right.
I will resile from any more litmus test questions...........save this one > "Does it follow that Matt could be invited back, but only to post in the Coffee Lounge". :uhoh: ;) :hand:
No it doesnt. His last banning was for his deliberate evading of bans whilst he was banned. He did this not once but on numerous occasions.
Also since then he had deliberately spammed users here using the private messaging feature. That again would mean lengthy if not permanent bans on many boards.

ElevatorEscapee
23-04-2005, 12:02 AM
This may not be the right place to ask, but does anyone know how to remove "stubborn stains" from spandex? (Let this serve as a warning for anyone else who is thinking of wearing their underpants on the outside!) :doh:

On a less serious note: Has ChessGuru, aka David Cordover actually posted here since his unbanning? If not, what was the point of his unbanning? :wink:

Rincewind
23-04-2005, 02:28 AM
On a less serious note: Has ChessGuru, aka David Cordover actually posted here since his unbanning? If not, what was the point of his unbanning? :wink:

The point is there is nothing stoppnig him from doing so if he wishes. That fact that he has chosen not to is largely irrelevent.