PDA

View Full Version : Marketing in Chess Forums - split from Inter School Schermozzle



Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:37 AM
This is not a plug for a commerical organisation, but a discussion of organisation in Victorian chess...

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 12:43 AM
This is not a plug for a commerical organisation, but a discussion of organisation in Victorian chess...

A discussion you need to be very careful about commenting on due to your vested interest. I think it is best for all concerned if you refrain from posting in this thread further.

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:45 AM
I can comment on who runs what events, when I like regardless if I work for them or not. I have worked for NSWCA at times and promoted their events. Just because they dont aim to make a profit that's Ok... but when someone wants to... that's a sin...


It's not fair...

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 12:48 AM
I can comment on who runs what events, when I like regardless if I work for them or not. I have worked for NSWCA at times and promoted their events. Just because they dont aim to make a profit that's Ok... but when someone wants to... that's a sin...

It's not fair...

Well interesting idea but best discussed in another thread.

WhiteElephant
01-06-2005, 12:49 AM
Hi Lee,

I doubt it has much to do with commercial interests. The fact is that many people hate Cordover.

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:50 AM
I was just making comment on the lack of organisation of Vic Chess vs an alternative who offered the same product. if anything its a service to chess that people know what is out and available..

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:51 AM
Hi Lee,

I doubt it has much to do with commercial interests. The fact is that many people hate Cordover.

Whether Dave is liked or disliked is not relavant... George hope you are well...

WhiteElephant
01-06-2005, 12:53 AM
Whether Dave is liked or disliked is not relavant... George hope you are well...

I am well. I must have taken over your lucky seat at poker night.

I wish it wasn't relevant and it shouldn't be (whether Dave is liked or disliked) but unfortunately it clouds many people's perception.

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:54 AM
I am well. I must have taken over your lucky seat at poker night.

I wish it wasn't relevant and it shouldn't be (whether Dave is liked or disliked) but unfortunately it clouds many people's perception.


I definately agree with the later...

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:56 AM
The NSWJCL runs schools' events all around NSW, and get 10,000 kids playing. Everyone thinks its great (which it is). Dave will organise close to that this year without any credit... Is that fair??

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 01:04 AM
I was just making comment on the lack of organisation of Vic Chess vs an alternative who offered the same product. if anything its a service to chess that people know what is out and available..

That informercial lead to a 1 day suspension of account.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 02:12 AM
Would the same apply to someone trying to promoting God?

Garvinator
01-06-2005, 03:07 AM
I highly suspect that the reason for being banned is that the infomercials are not a fair debate. While Liberace gets to advertise David's business, the rest of the chess community does not get to criticise David's business, unless they want to be threatened with legal action.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 07:13 AM
That informercial lead to a 1 day suspension of account.


That penalty for ordinary conversation is outragous!! :evil:

I guess he will have to say it "over there" where everyone will read it anyways.:whistle:

No "Cheers" for you. :hand:

eclectic
01-06-2005, 07:16 AM
Would the same apply to someone trying to promoting God?

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

eclectic

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 07:59 AM
Would the same apply to someone trying to promoting God?

Maybe I should try it some time ... except He doesn't need the promotion and would probably prefer that I stay out of His way.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 08:10 AM
I highly suspect that the reason for being banned is that the infomercials are not a fair debate. While Liberace gets to advertise David's business, the rest of the chess community does not get to criticise David's business, unless they want to be threatened with legal action.

Disclaimer: Croydon Chess has a business relationship with David's business.

I suspect that you are correct in estimating the reason for the ban, but whether that is a well-founded fear or not ... who knows. Any business-person ought to welcome comment, as critical analysis of "the product" or "the company" is an invaluable input to facilitate improvement of a business. I know (and work for) organisations that positively encourage customer comment in a free-for-all forum environment. They feed that input into their customer service and product definition processes.

My view is that people can say whatever they like about Croydon Chess, malicious or otherwise, because nobody's livelihood depends on it. We would act to maintain openness and transparency, almost at any cost,

In respect of people commenting on my livelihood, well, I think they have an obligation to be fair/accurate/balanced, because that's how I derive my income and how I put bread on the table for my family. If someone gets it wrong, no matter how well intentioned, then the consequences can be tragic (e.g. I would fight tooth and nail to avoid seeing my kids suffer as a result of my getting sacked because of incorrect comments made about me or my actions).

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 08:34 AM
That penalty for ordinary conversation is outragous!! :evil:

I guess he will have to say it "over there" where everyone will read it anyways.:whistle:

No "Cheers" for you. :hand:

I consider a one day suspension after persistently posting in a thread after being asked to desist from marketing in said thread to be lenient. As Lee has a good record I chose the minimum suspension period possible.

Be aware that 6 of Lee's posts as well as one of mine and fg7's in the lead up to the split into this thread were deleted as a part of an earlier attempt to moderate the thread.

The post above (on its own) would not have warrented a ban. But its style and the thread it was originally posted in were both specified as things I would rather Lee did not do. As you can see earlier in this thread, I suggested he move this discussion re:marketing in BB into another area.

Ian Rout
01-06-2005, 08:38 AM
Lee will, I hope, come to see that the ban is protecting him from himself. Leaping onto every thread with "This would not have happened if my good friend Davo had been running it" would merely irritate the excreta out of everyone and not do the company any good, so it is in his own interests for it to be nipped in the bud.

Also such a practice would give people a handle to mention other schemozzles which did not feature the company's absence.

ursogr8
01-06-2005, 08:41 AM
OK Guys....I am going to keep a score here.
But let me declare a commercial interest at first. > A fair proportion of my posts on this bb advertise BHCC and WHJC...posts which I lodge as unofficial publicity officer for both organisations.

Here we go...first...


This is not a plug for a commerical organisation, but a discussion of organisation in Victorian chess...

L. your first post would have been fairer if you had said
>the CV event on the day had a glitch, ours didn't on the day, and CV's don't usually.


A discussion you need to be very careful about commenting on due to your vested interest. I think it is best for all concerned if you refrain from posting in this thread further.

Baz
If you said this to me I would feel you are being heavy-handed. However, the GURU has history with cc.org, and I am presuming your ruling is based solely on that particular vested interest.


I can comment on who runs what events, when I like regardless if I work for them or not. I have worked for NSWCA at times and promoted their events. Just because they dont aim to make a profit that's Ok... but when someone wants to... that's a sin...

It's not fair...

L. ..............not all vested interests are treated equally here, and the reason is prior disageements. You need to accept that.


Hi Lee,

I doubt it has much to do with commercial interests. The fact is that many people hate Cordover.

G. .... Dave has been my (Clubs) competitor on some occasions (Sunday competitions in particular). Nevertheless, I argued that he was wolf-packed over the titles affair. He got less than average kudos/goodwill from his Mt B. efforts that failed. He lost much when he retaliated as he did against cc.org.
But hate is the wrong word.

Commercial interests and history are part of the mix in this one.


I was just making comment on the lack of organisation of Vic Chess vs an alternative who offered the same product. if anything its a service to chess that people know what is out and available..

If you were just making comment L. then it was poor statistics to draw these conditions from one incident. I think you were ambush marketing on this occasion.


The NSWJCL runs schools' events all around NSW, and get 10,000 kids playing. Everyone thinks its great (which it is). Dave will organise close to that this year without any credit... Is that fair??

A valid question.
To establish credit here, Dave would have to post, or have some-one posting for him.
What we have seen in 2005 has been limited because he was banned for most of it, and not appearing for the remainder.
Fair (that he doesn't get credit here)?
It is hard to build credit when the visibility is near nil.


That informercial lead to a 1 day suspension of account.

Baz
I can't believe you did that if it was for the content of the post.
I can believe you did it if was because he posted in this thread after being asked not to. (GURU history rationale...see above)
Another Vic poster banning btw.


Would the same apply to someone trying to promoting God?

Dunno a/c.
Has he talked about retribution to cc.org?


I highly suspect that the reason for being banned is that the infomercials are not a fair debate. While Liberace gets to advertise David's business, the rest of the chess community does not get to criticise David's business, unless they want to be threatened with legal action.


Yes gg''.
This is the impasse.


That penalty for ordinary conversation is outragous!! :evil:

I guess he will have to say it "over there" where everyone will read it anyways.:whistle:

No "Cheers" for you. :hand:

It is not ordinary conversation Duff. It is conversation with prior action/reaction a reality. The consequences of those previous actions cannot be denied.


Perhaps the problem stems from the lack of a Junior League in Victoria.

You must know more (about the root cause of the problem) than I did at 10pm last night Bill.
A single missed appointment may have many explanations, but if you have traced it right back to no VJCL then I will wait with interest to see you post your evidence.


Get it?

(Oh, and now add Bill to list of constructive posters)

Sorry Baz, my pen ran out of ink. Can't seem to add Bill to the list.

regards All
starter


ps.......I feel for Mischa, KL, and many parents and all kids who were let down on the day. There is no doubt Chess VICTORIA needs to re-build a few bridges on this one. Hopefully they may post on these fora.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 08:47 AM
Mr RW
A week ago I re-submitted that "over there" [re Jase's pm] into the shoutbox and the sky did not crash down.

Do you think if I re-submitted that Papal Poll post there won't be a bolt of BB-Mod lightning to strike it down?

Down to rush to answer, think about freedom of speech and the use of mockery as a form of criticism as used in "In Praise of Folly" by Erasmus about 300 years ago.

A google search of "Folly" is fruitful.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 08:54 AM
As you can see earlier in this thread, I suggested he move this discussion re:marketing in BB into another area.

What other area?

And what is wrong with a little mention of an alterative to a "schermozzle".

Is there to be a total ban on comment on any commercial enterprise?

Regardless of what you told him to do, you are way out of line for why you told him.

I have no special feelings for DC or Lee or CV or ChessKit or you, but I dont much like the idea that normal social chat, and that is all it was, can be deleted and the poster banned. It is scary.

Guys, who agrees with me?

Cheers

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 09:11 AM
What other area?

And what is wrong with a little mention of an alterative to a "schermozzle".

Is there to be a total ban on comment on any commercial enterprise?

Regardless of what you told him to do, you are way out of line for why you told him.

I have no special feelings for DC or Lee or CV or ChessKit or you, but I dont much like the idea that normal social chat, and that is all it was, can be deleted and the poster banned. It is scary.

Guys, who agrees with me?

Duff, you seemed to have quoted me very selectively. Most of the issues you raise were addressed by my post in full. In reference to what area a club vs commercial enterprise marketing discussion has already taken place and that thread could have been resurrected or a new one initiated. My hope was that the shermozzle thread would have been a useful way for people to discuss what went wrong and aid Chess Victoria in rebuilding bridges with the schools concerned as alluded to by starter.

Comments of the style, "this wouldn't have happened if the guy who signs my pay-cheque had been running the show", are not appreciated and this was communicated to Lee several times before the suspension was imposed.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 09:12 AM
It is not ordinary conversation Duff. It is conversation with prior action/reaction a reality. The consequences of those previous actions cannot be denied.

Ordinary conversation will nearly always have "prior action/reactiopn" as its history. That is exactly what gives the conversation relevance. What we have here is a foolishly applied gag on free speech. When "over there" started I thought it was a stupid petulant stunt but now I can see that it will be a life line for people who find themselves at odds with foolish moderating.

Cheers

antichrist
01-06-2005, 09:20 AM
Ordinary conversation will nearly always have "prior action/reactiopn" as its history. That is exactly what gives the conversation relevance. What we have here is a foolishly applied gag on free speech. When "over there" started I thought it was a stupid petulant stunt but now I can see that it will be a life line for people who find themselves at odds with foolish moderating.

Cheers

But if over there is going to rely on Chesskit discontents they will never fill a phonebox (not that they exist now-a-days)

And over there just had half of its posts wiped out.

I think it is too easy for players to criticize voluntary organisers, when the player seeing problems developing don't jump in to help rescue the situation.

I am not saying it is exactly the case of Vic the other day.

WhiteElephant
01-06-2005, 09:21 AM
Lee is enthusiastic about his new employer as most people are when they start a new job. Personally I am happy to see passionate and enthusiastic people working on promoting and developing chess.

In time Lee may or may not come to the same conclusions about DC as many on this forum have.

However, this is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the WAY in which Rincewind imposed the suspension. RW's 'warnings' were abrasive and I believe designed to provoke. What kind of wording is this: 'I would ask you to desist', 'Get it' 'Lee's infomercial'. We don't need the sarcasm thanks. It would have better been handled with PMs.

PS. BY the way as most people are aware, I have a business relationship with DC, though I would like to think it has no bearing on my outrage at Lee's banning.

W.E.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 09:22 AM
My hope was that the shermozzle thread would have been a useful way for people to discuss what went wrong and aid Chess Victoria in rebuilding bridges with the schools concerned as alluded to by starter.

With this comment, you have just shown yourself to be exersizing editorial power, directing the posters to only "rebuild bridges". By banning Lee, you have censored an alternative view.

As I said before, I have no vested interest either way, but this episode of moderation is way out of line with normal standards of conversation.


Comments of the style, "this wouldn't have happened if the guy who signs my pay-cheque had been running the show", are not appreciated and this was communicated to Lee several times before the suspension was imposed.


"Not appreciated" by exactlywho? You? CV?

Get real!

EGOR
01-06-2005, 09:27 AM
What other area?

And what is wrong with a little mention of an alterative to a "schermozzle".

Is there to be a total ban on comment on any commercial enterprise?

Regardless of what you told him to do, you are way out of line for why you told him.

I have no special feelings for DC or Lee or CV or ChessKit or you, but I dont much like the idea that normal social chat, and that is all it was, can be deleted and the poster banned. It is scary.

Guys, who agrees with me?

Cheers

There was a number of posts deleted, which contained the so called adverts. With out seeing those posts I cannot comment.
Sorry. :ermm:

antichrist
01-06-2005, 09:28 AM
RW,
if I second your corner will I get a favourable decision in Feedback forum?

antichrist
01-06-2005, 09:29 AM
There was a number of posts deleted, which contained the so called adverts. With out seeing those posts I cannot comment.
Sorry. :ermm:

Egor, now is the time to inflame them, incite them to riot, and then they will provide free entertainment for the next 2 days. We need melodrama.

WhiteElephant
01-06-2005, 09:33 AM
There was a number of posts deleted, which contained the so called adverts. With out seeing those posts I cannot comment.
Sorry. :ermm:

The 'adverts' quoted participation numbers from the latest Interschool Comp which Lee ran. They also featured Lee defending his right to free speech.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 09:38 AM
There was a number of posts deleted, which contained the so called adverts. With out seeing those posts I cannot comment.
Sorry. :ermm:

I'm in the same boat.

Suggestion for STML: Consider setting aside an area for commercial discussion.

Why would I want this? I run a chess club. I'm interested in discussion about commercial products/services that might benefit our club.

I reckon advertising is one thing (its not targeted, its not relevant to the discussion at hand, and ought to be banned).

I reckon proposing a solution, commercial or otherwise, is another thing altogether (it is targeted, its relevant to the discussion at hand, and ought to be allowed) PROVIDED the person proposing the solution (1) allows others to comment on its merit and (2) discloses their relationship with the vendor.

EGOR
01-06-2005, 09:56 AM
Egor, now is the time to inflame them, incite them to riot, and then they will provide free entertainment for the next 2 days. We need melodrama.
I afraid that i'm just a bit to boring to do that sort of thing. :uhoh:

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 09:57 AM
A discussion you need to be very careful about commenting on due to your vested interest. I think it is best for all concerned if you refrain from posting in this thread further.

Here come the bully boys yet again, trampling on free speech as if, "they", had a personal connection to democracy.

Let me state this quite clearly. Rincewind needs to go as a moderator .
His style is to conservative and authoritarian.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 10:02 AM
I highly suspect that the reason for being banned is that the infomercials are not a fair debate.

doubtful, I believe it has more to do with RWs insecurity.




While Liberace gets to advertise David's business, the rest of the chess community does not get to criticise David's business, unless they want to be threatened with legal action.

Partly true, no doubt Lee is engaging in some form of propaganda, but its not like we don't get to criticise is it gg? Your second point is an interesting twist. I think you may be correct on this one gg, Why is Cordover unbanned if this would still be an issue? Is the banning because of legal action? Somehow I doubt it, but nobody has actually qualified anything of the sort, have they?

Cheers Fg7

EGOR
01-06-2005, 10:05 AM
The 'adverts' quoted participation numbers from the latest Interschool Comp which Lee ran. They also featured Lee defending his right to free speech.
That doesn't sound all that bad. It seems to me, from my limited experience of this forum, that the moderators use their personal prejudices to decide what are acceptable posts and what is not acceptable. I don't think that is how it is supposed to work? :hmm:

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 10:07 AM
Rincewind needs to go as a moderator .
His style is to conservative and authoritarian.

Live and let live FG7 ... my style is conservative and authoritarian too (prob. much more so than RW if the truth be known!). Surely, if this particular incident ends up working its way through and we find an alternative approach and CONCENSUS, then RW would have no problem varying his moderation efforts to accomodate any such changes. Maybe there won't be changes, in which case I and the moderators will be in disagreement, however in that situation I will just pull my head in and work within the rules.

WhiteElephant
01-06-2005, 10:10 AM
Your second point is an interesting twist. I think you may be correct on this one gg, Why is Cordover unbanned if this would still be an issue? Is the banning because of legal action? Somehow I doubt it, but nobody has actually qualified anything of the sort, have they?

Cheers Fg7

I have been wodering this myself. A secret donation to ChessKit perhaps?

antichrist
01-06-2005, 10:10 AM
Here come the bully boys yet again, trampling on free speech as if, "they", had a personal connection to democracy.

Let me state this quite clearly. Rincewind needs to go as a moderator .
His style is to conservative and authoritarian.

Cheers Fg7

He may be authoritarian but I imagine one can get tired of censoring all the time. I think I remember that they rotate the official censors for that reason.

Conservative of content not too much. I think TCN is the Fred Nile here, I am rightly or wrongly blaming him for pulling the Papal Poll thread.

I half expect this from the holli-polli such as TCN which is why they should not be installed as mods, it is not their fault they are installed.

What I can't stand is when intellectuals like KB who knows better goes along as a you know what as not to upset the apple cart.

At the Nuremburg trials he would be shouting "I was only following orders!".

arosar
01-06-2005, 10:27 AM
What's the problem now fellas?

AR

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 10:29 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?

As has been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards here are relatively lenient.

eclectic
01-06-2005, 10:42 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?

As has been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards here are relatively lenient.

yeah,

it is lenient.

it's effectively half a ban that you get.

you get the choice of either lurking around and watching the publicity that you have generated or enjoying a real good holiday ... :whistle:

:hand:

eclectic

EGOR
01-06-2005, 10:43 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?

As has been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards here are relatively lenient.
Interesting, I didn't know that it was privatly owned.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 10:47 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?

As has been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards here are relatively lenient.

Maybe, but inconsistently applied. On the "over there Jase's pm to FG7" post mine was wiped and Bill's was not - yet Bills went into fine detail and mine was only obscure.

When I re-posted the "over there post re Jase's PM" it was not wiped at all.


I actually support this short ban - volunteers should not be put down by a commercial concern. Of course they can do better and charge 20 times as much.

I am now testing the waters again on the Papal Poll post that was wiped. By the way you were leading to become the new pope.

Ian Rout
01-06-2005, 10:50 AM
Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I don't have a problem with mention of commercial products as such, as I said in the earlier China Boat thread. However persistent flogging of the same point, after being told to stop, isn't justified - they can always take the Matthew option and set up a Davo's Products board if they aren't satisfied with the level of free advertising allowed on this one.

I think if the multiple posts had been collated and posted as one there shouldn't have been a problem.

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 10:51 AM
Live and let live FG7 ... my style is conservative and authoritarian too (prob. much more so than RW if the truth be known!). Surely, if this particular incident ends up working its way through and we find an alternative approach and CONCENSUS, then RW would have no problem varying his moderation efforts to accomodate any such changes. Maybe there won't be changes, in which case I and the moderators will be in disagreement, however in that situation I will just pull my head in and work within the rules.

Spoken like a true conservative...stiff upper lip and all the extras.
No the problem is a little bit deeper then that....see conservatives believe they have the right to ban people based on their ideals of what is and is not acceptable behaviour. No consensus period!

Now the main problem with this BB IMO, is that this principle is undemocratic. No doubt you need some moderation, but normally the participants will let you know when its is necessary and when it is not. That is how democracy works in practice. To ban Liberarce for such a trivilty is just plain ridiculous. Furthermore he ought not to have been warned in the first place.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:00 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?


Because this is like it or not "the unofficial acf BB". It was democratic before, and when it was transfered we were told after the first week that there would be a tolerant policy on moderation. As Starter has pointed out KB and Billbot were two of the most ardent arguers for these principles.



As has been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards here are relatively lenient.

I don't think so.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:00 AM
I have been wodering this myself. A secret donation to ChessKit perhaps? Yeah the speculation is pretty juicy

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
01-06-2005, 11:03 AM
Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I don't have a problem with mention of commercial products as such, as I said in the earlier China Boat thread. However persistent flogging of the same point, after being told to stop, isn't justified - they can always take the Matthew option and set up a Davo's Products board if they aren't satisfied with the level of free advertising allowed on this one.

I think if the multiple posts had been collated and posted as one there shouldn't have been a problem.

Why can't they take out an advert. as other commercial chess concerns have done?

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 11:03 AM
Maybe, but inconsistently applied. As has also been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards are not, nor are they intended to be, 100% consistent, because different moderators have different standards. Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.

EGOR
01-06-2005, 11:11 AM
As has also been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards are not, nor are they intended to be, 100% consistent, because different moderators have different standards. Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.
I agree with proper limits on free speech, but censorship based on personal bias is not a basis for setting those limits.

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 11:11 AM
Because this is like it or not "the unofficial acf BB".Like it or not, this is "not the official ACF board".


It was democratic before, and when it was transfered we were told after the first week that there would be a tolerant policy on moderation. As Starter has pointed out KB and Billbot were two of the most ardent arguers for these principles.Well, I wasn't around in those days, but it seems we have markedly different views on the definition of "tolerant" in this context. It can't be a free-for-all because of
a) defamation
b) G rating on the main board
c) the wish by the owner to not allow marketing or spam.

P.S. Dave, as ever, I hope our mild disagreement won't affect my standing with MCC, one of my favourite clubs. :)

antichrist
01-06-2005, 11:12 AM
As has also been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards are not, nor are they intended to be, 100% consistent, because different moderators have different standards. Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.

A few weeks ago my fertile mind was beginning to think these bans are a device to keep interest in the BB. We are dealing with chessplayers here - and as my neighbour tells everyone - he never know where I am gong to jump next [and knights are my favourite pieces].

Just like the RCC, they pull another saint out when interest is waning.

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 11:14 AM
I agree with proper limits on free speech, but censorship based on personal bias is not a basis for setting those limits.My understanding is that it was based on continual contradiction of the moderator after many warnings to not engage in marketing tactics, not due to any personal bias. Essentially, it has nothing to do with David Cordover's ban.

eclectic
01-06-2005, 11:14 AM
As has also been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards are not, nor are they intended to be, 100% consistent, because different moderators have different standards. Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.

the problem with free speech with no limits is that its proponents tend to meander around a topic the same way that a partially crippled shopping trolley does around a carpark

eclectic

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:19 AM
Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech. Well we can actually test your theory. What we ought to do is to ask Lee, if he considered RWs statements a warning. See the problem from where I stand is that moderators are also posters, people who often have completely different opinions. Both moderator and poster contributions are often unreflective and limited in perspective.

There is actually no official warning protocal. It isn't like posters actually know what are the limits of free speech on this bb is, is it? These boundaries are constantly being tested. Now KB has done the right thing by producing a first draft, albeit a deeply flawed one, with little opportunity for poster criticism.

I am willing to bet that Lee will say 'I had little idea why I was banned'.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 11:22 AM
Maybe there won't be changes, in which case I and the moderators will be in disagreement, however in that situation I will just pull my head in and work within the rules.

If you are not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem, :owned:

Cheers

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 11:30 AM
Why do the usual suspects think they have a right to full freedom of speech on a privately owned, publicly viewable board?


Privately owned and publically occupied. That makes it a public space controlled by a private interest. ChessKit has the moral and ethical responsibility to maintain normal standards of free speech. It is not doing that and people are rightly outraged.

Cheers

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:30 AM
Well, I wasn't around in those days, but it seems we have markedly different views on the definition of "tolerant" in this context. It can't be a free-for-all because of
a) defamation
agreed




b) G rating on the main board
A problematic that has been argued against Bill Bot


c) the wish by the owner to not allow marketing or spam.
Unclear. We do not understand the full story here. I have the hunch that the stakes are being raised and that maybe Chesskit wants to extract marketing revenue. If this is the concern then that ought to be stated honestly, rather then policing it for policings sake.




P.S. Dave, as ever, I hope our mild disagreement won't affect my standing with MCC, one of my favourite clubs. :)
Greg, It is irrelevent to me if we have a personal disgreement or not.I try not to hold grudges (not always successful). I certainly would not ever attempt to prevent you playing chess through political manipulation. I consider most of what is said on this BB as expression, and what sort of idiot would want people to think the same way. I simply don't mind if people call me a ****tard occasionally, its just gets annoying when its all the time ;) ? That said, Do you realise that Chris Depasquale is in charge of the masters this year...its being played at MCC but we are not organising it.

Cheers Fg7

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 11:34 AM
I am willing to bet that Lee will say 'I had little idea why I was banned'.I'll have to let Barry respond to that since like most I haven't seen some of the deleted posts.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 11:37 AM
Interesting, I didn't know that it was privatly owned.

Yes. The ACF used to have a BB which was much "freer". They dropped it in 2004 when ChessKit came along promising to keep the standards the same on their new board. They lied.

Cheers

eclectic
01-06-2005, 11:39 AM
Privately owned and publically occupied. That makes it a public space controlled by a private interest.
Cheers

tell that to the owners of the Internet Chess Club and see how far you get.

and no, it's a private area upon which one imposes the illusion of "public space" similar to what happens when one enters through the sliding doors of a privately owned shopping complex.

eclectic

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 11:40 AM
A problematic that has been argued against Bill BotWell, I was thinking more in terms of R-rated imagery here, rather than any particular words, although the c-word and the f-word are still likely to get edited.


Unclear. We do not understand the full story here. I have the hunch that the stakes are being raised and that maybe Chesskit wants to extract marketing revenue. If this is the concern then that ought to be stated honestly, rather then policing it for policings sake.Pass.


Greg, It is irrelevent to me if we have a personal disgreement or not.I try not to hold grudges (not always successful). I certainly would not ever attempt to prevent you playing chess through political manipulation. I consider most of what is said on this BB as expression, and what sort of idiot would want people to think the same way. I simply don't mind if people call me a F***tard occasionally, its just gets annoying when its all the time ;) ? Cool.

That said, Do you realise that Chris Depasquale is in charge of the masters this year...its being played at MCC but we are not organising it.
Yes, I am in contact with Chris, but I'm an unlikely this year because of work.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 11:41 AM
Yes. The ACF used to have a BB which was much "freer". They dropped it in 2004 when ChessKit came along promising to keep the standards the same on their new board. They lied.

Cheers

We don't live in a perfect world. We are the moderators so we have to live with it.

On the old BB I demanded that stuff be pulled which was of defaming to myself (I don't know why people don't like me?)

This BB is much better organised. The other was like "Fat Pizza", fillings everywhere

EGOR
01-06-2005, 11:43 AM
My understanding is that it was based on continual contradiction of the moderator after many warnings to not engage in marketing tactics, not due to any personal bias. Essentially, it has nothing to do with David Cordover's ban.
There seems to be some question as to whether Lee was engaging in marketing tactics, or that the moderator just didn't like him making referance to activities related to David Cordover's business.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 11:47 AM
thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.

And you do? Tell us exactly what those limits are. Then we can argue about your limits and how they differ from the majority of good people on this BB.

Cheers

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 11:58 AM
a) defamation
b) G rating on the main board
c) the wish by the owner to not allow marketing or spam.


On the old board

a) Defamation was not a problem area that required censoring.
b) There was no G rating on the old board (it was about M15+) but this BB now imposes it.
c) There was no problem with marketing or spam on the old BB, but this BB sees it everywhere a problem, when it is virtually non-existant.

Frankly Greg, I am supprised that you support such a anemic vision for the BB.

Cheers

See you OTB at the NSW Open :cool:

Ian Rout
01-06-2005, 12:00 PM
Privately owned and publically occupied. That makes it a public space controlled by a private interest. ChessKit has the moral and ethical responsibility to maintain normal standards of free speech.

Applying that test, spam is an offence and free speech is not a defence to it.

The application of a lower standard of free speech to Lee's employer, if indeed it is an issue, is not unreasonable given the standard of free speech which that company has advocated for criticism of its behaviour. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 12:03 PM
Applying that test, spam is an offence and free speech is not a defence to it.

The application of a lower standard of free speech to Lee's employer, if indeed it is an issue, is not unreasonable given the standard of free speech which that company has advocated for criticism of its behaviour. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Well said. And contrary to Duff censorship on defamation issues did take place on ACF BB because I demanded it.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 12:04 PM
As has also been pointed out a hundred times before, the moderation standards are not, nor are they intended to be, 100% consistent, because different moderators have different standards. Having said that, they're all reasonable people in my book, so it may take half-a-dozen flat contradictions of a moderator, after being politely warned, before the moderator pulls the plug, thereby creating another martyr for all the dimwits who don't understand the first thing about the limits of free speech.
Another point has has been made before but ignored by the usual suspects is that the vast majority of bulletin boards on the internet are ruled by the admins and the moderators.

Posters on the boards therefore have three options:
1) Accept the current policy
2) Try and have the policy changed but understand that any such decision is soley determined by the admin/moderators and not the beliefs of some posters.
3) Stop posting and leave.

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 12:05 PM
And you do? Tell us exactly what those limits are. Then we can argue about your limits and how they differ from the majority of good people on this BB. Obviously, the limits to freedom of speech depend on where you are. I just stated what I believe them to be on this board:
a) defamation
b) G rating on the main board
c) the wish by the owner to not allow marketing or spam.

Perhaps you can point out "how they differ from the majority of good people on this BB".

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 12:06 PM
2) Try and have the policy changed but understand that any such decision is soley determined by the admin/moderators and not the beliefs of some posters.

Non-sensical.

Cheers Fg7

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 12:09 PM
tell that to the owners of the Internet Chess Club and see how far you get.

and no, it's a private area upon which one imposes the illusion of "public space" similar to what happens when one enters through the sliding doors of a privately owned shopping complex.

eclectic

With ICC, you pay for most of its services. That makes it a private space. If the ICC was free to enter, then it would IMO be a public space.

Ah ha. The old shopping complex argument. Unfortunately for your argument, there are currently matters before the High Court challenging that argument. It has to do with the handing out of political leaflets.

If those matters support the concept of a public space inside large shopping complexes, will you then agree that the CC BB is also a public space?

EGOR
01-06-2005, 12:10 PM
Obviously, the limits to freedom of speech depend on where you are. I just stated what I believe them to be on this board:
a) defamation
b) G rating on the main board
c) the wish by the owner to not allow marketing or spam.

Perhaps you can point out "how they differ from the majority of good people on this BB".
They seem like reasonable limits, but were Lee's posts outside these limits? I don't know, I did not get to see them.

Rincewind
01-06-2005, 12:12 PM
Non-sensical.

floccinaucinihilipilification

cheers, Rincewind.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 12:15 PM
On the old board

a) Defamation was not a problem area that required censoring.
Actually that is incorrect. A whole thread on Junior selections was deleted for that reason.

b) There was no G rating on the old board (it was about M15+) but this BB now imposes it.Again incorrect. Virtually all uses of the F word or foul/vulgar langauge was deleted/edited on the old ACF board.

c) There was no problem with marketing or spam on the old BB, but this BB sees it everywhere a problem, when it is virtually non-existant.Actually the complaints here really only started after Lee posted his china trip thread.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 12:15 PM
Perhaps you can point out "how they differ from the majority of good people on this BB".

OH NO. Not another antichrist poll? :lol:

OK, I will have to rise to the challenge ... but you own me one ;)

Cheers

Rhubarb
01-06-2005, 12:18 PM
On the old board
a) Defamation was not a problem area that required censoring.Having personally been defamed on [edit: one of the older] ACF boards when I wasn't a poster (to which I was alerted by a friend), I can assure you that was not the case.

b) There was no G rating on the old board (it was about M15+) but this BB now imposes it.Times change. There are many more posters/readers of all ages these days. In this sense, that makes you the conservative if you don't think normal standards of public behaviour should not now apply to the internet.

c) There was no problem with marketing or spam on the old BB, but this BB sees it everywhere a problem, when it is virtually non-existant.There were only about three people reading it, so presumably no one bothered spamming.


Frankly Greg, I am supprised that you support such a anemic vision for the BB.Don't worry Duff, just a few more posts and you can let loose in the Coffee Lounge.

See you OTB at the NSW Open :cool:Yep, I'll be there.

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 12:29 PM
Actually that is incorrect. A whole thread on Junior selections was deleted for that reason.
That was a whole long thread where any people were going right off.



Again incorrect. Virtually all uses of the F word or foul/vulgar langauge was deleted/edited on the old ACF board.

Wrong, it wasnt. Only X rated was censored.



Actually the complaints here really only started after Lee posted his china trip thread.

And the Sweeney spam and this makes 3 times. One more time and it will have become a definite pattern of unnecessary censorship.

Answer this question, Bill. :) Would you have banned Lee? Yes or No will do. :)

antichrist
01-06-2005, 12:37 PM
That was a whole long thread where any people were going right off.



Wrong, it wasnt. Only X rated was censored.




And the Sweeney spam and this makes 3 times. One more time and it will have become a definite pattern of unnecessary censorship.

Answer this question, Bill. :) Would you have banned Lee? Yes or No will do. :)

I am still waiting for a yes/no answer from Bill if he would match a [my, if coming to fruition] $10,000 donation to a chess premises.

Garvinator
01-06-2005, 12:40 PM
Actually that is incorrect. A whole thread on Junior selections was deleted for that reason.
also the check mate thread.

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 12:47 PM
That was a whole long thread where any people were going right off.So what. You stated defamation wasnt an issue on the old ACF board. It was as I noted and it was only threatened by one person against one person, not because as you put it "any people were going right off'.

Wrong, it wasnt. Only X rated was censored.Incorrect. A simply search of the old ACF board proves my point. The F word was censored in all posts.

And the Sweeney spam and this makes 3 times. One more time and it will have become a definite pattern of unnecessary censorship.The Sweeney spam was just that spam. It deserved to be stopped.

Answer this question, Bill. :) Would you have banned Lee? Yes or No will do. :)You wish. ;)
I know Lee better than RW. As such if I were a MOD and had warned him about his posts I probably would have tried reasoning with him a little longer. However if he had still persisted I probably would have banned him for 12-24 hrs.

antichrist
01-06-2005, 12:51 PM
So what. You stated defamation wasnt an issue on the old ACF board. It was as I noted and it was only threatened by one person against one person, not because as you put it "any people were going right off'.
Incorrect. A simply search of the old ACF board proves my point. The F word was censored in all posts.
The Sweeney spam was just that spam. It deserved to be stopped.
You wish. ;)
I know Lee better than RW. As such if I were a MOD and had warned him about his posts I probably would have tried reasoning with him a little longer. However if he had still persisted I probably would have banned him for 12-24 hrs.

And I will take that as a "no".

Duff McKagan
01-06-2005, 01:40 PM
It was as I noted and it was only threatened by one person against one person,

Yes it was. The ACF was not threatened but might have been. So it took a cautious route and deleted. But Bill, it was a reactive deletion, not a proactive deletion. When deletions are proactive they can start to become knee jerk reactions to full and frank discussions.


Incorrect. A simply search of the old ACF board proves my point. The F word was censored in all posts.

This is a bending of the truth. The F word was ever there spelled with F and ***. That kind of faking it is tantamount to using the whole 4 letters. As such the first BB was M15+



The Sweeney spam was just that spam. It deserved to be stopped.

Agreed.



You wish. ;)
I know Lee better than RW. As such if I were a MOD and had warned him about his posts I probably would have tried reasoning with him a little longer. However if he had still persisted I probably would have banned him for 12-24 hrs.

OK, I accept that. I dont like it, but that is your choice. I wouldnt have done anything and it would have been forgotten within 24 hours (**the length of the ban :eek: ) By pulling a banning/deletion stunt, DC gets a huge boost to his profile because of the public response.

Is it bad form to :clap: my own statment? :lol:


Cheers

Bill Gletsos
01-06-2005, 02:07 PM
Yes it was. The ACF was not threatened but might have been. So it took a cautious route and deleted. But Bill, it was a reactive deletion, not a proactive deletion. When deletions are proactive they can start to become knee jerk reactions to full and frank discussions.In your point a) it referred only to defamation. Thats what I was responding to.
I dont necessarily see a problem wiith proactive deletions. In the China trip thread people were not happy with the commercial advertisng. RW warned Lee about it in the Inter School Schermozzle but Lee persisted. He suffered the consequences of disregarding the MODS request. Obviously the same would happen to me if I had continued cross posting Matt's posts here after being told by the MODS to stop it. I complied with there request.

This is a bending of the truth. The F word was ever there spelled with F and ***. That kind of faking it is tantamount to using the whole 4 letters. As such the first BB was M15+On this I think we will have to agree to diasagree. ;)

OK, I accept that. I dont like it, but that is your choice. I wouldnt have done anything and it would have been forgotten within 24 hours (**the length of the ban :eek: ) By pulling a banning/deletion stunt, DC gets a huge boost to his profile because of the public response.Does he. I'm not so sure about that.

Is it bad form to :clap: my own statment? :lol:Probably ;) ;lol:

antichrist
01-06-2005, 02:12 PM
[QUOTE=DuffMcKagan]Yes it was. The ACF was not threatened but might have been. So it took a cautious route and deleted. But Bill, it was a reactive deletion, not a proactive deletion. When deletions are proactive they can start to become knee jerk reactions to full and frank discussions.

A/C
I very well may have threatened to sue them, I can't remember exact words. I know that I definitely implied it.

It was about me supposedly avoiding paying for train tickets or getting pensioner discounts or some rubbish.

Spiny Norman
01-06-2005, 02:17 PM
If you are not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem, :owned:
:chinese:
Ah Grasshopper, indeed you see with clarity ... :clap: ... but can you snatch this pebble out of my hand?
<looks around>
"Hey, who's pinched my br**dy pebble!".

ursogr8
01-06-2005, 08:47 PM
The thread title is Marketing in chess forums.

While it is clear that one or two us use these forums for advertising the features of forthcoming events has the lack of criticism of this practice to date been because
a) there is not always a profit from the tournament
b) the profit from the tournament goes to an affiliated club, not a commercial organisation?

starter

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2005, 11:19 PM
What I can't stand is when intellectuals like KB who knows better goes along as a you know what as not to upset the apple cart.

You wouldn't have a clue what my motives were for anything, and you wouldn't know whether I would know better because your posts continually prove that you have no idea what knowing better about anything entails.

You are going on and on and on and on and on about your stupid Pope Poll. I suggest save your whinging about "free speech" for a context in which it actually applies (reminder: this is a privately owned BB so your free speech is at the liberty or otherwise of the owner) and an issue that is actually important.

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:38 PM
I suggest save your whinging about "free speech" for a context in which it actually applies (reminder: this is a privately owned BB so your free speech is at the liberty or otherwise of the owner) and an issue that is actually important.
:eh: :thumdown:

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2005, 11:41 PM
There is actually no official warning protocal. It isn't like posters actually know what are the limits of free speech on this bb is, is it? These boundaries are constantly being tested. Now KB has done the right thing by producing a first draft, albeit a deeply flawed one, with little opportunity for poster criticism.

It is not a draft of anything, it is simply a summary of a range of rulings that have already been made over time, gathered into one place for easy reference.

Posters are welcome to comment on it via a new thread in the non-chess section if they wish, or in the feedback thread, or the Coffee Lounge for those with access.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2005, 11:49 PM
Privately owned and publically occupied. That makes it a public space controlled by a private interest. ChessKit has the moral and ethical responsibility to maintain normal standards of free speech.

Cinemas are privately owned but occupied (on and off) by the public. That does not make them public spaces controlled by a private interest, nor does it imply that they have the moral and ethical responsibility to show every film that anyone wants to exhibit at them.

firegoat7
01-06-2005, 11:56 PM
Cinemas are privately owned but occupied (on and off) by the public. That does not make them public spaces controlled by a private interest, nor does it imply that they have the moral and ethical responsibility to show every film that anyone wants to exhibit at them.

When was the last time you got into a cinema for free. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2005, 12:20 AM
a) Defamation was not a problem area that required censoring.

Already refuted. Here's a link to the thread discussing the junior selection deletions (http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=auschess;action=display;num=10593529 3).

Defamation was also a constant problem on the 2002 boards, remember David Caldon?

Sweeney was banned for months on the 2002 boards.


b) There was no G rating on the old board (it was about M15+) but this BB now imposes it.

True. I think this BB is more PG than G but it is true that language censoring is harsher although bans for bad language are only for very persistent offenders. The background to this is that when we (the ex-ACF posters) showed up on chesskit it was mainly occupied by junior posters and connected to STML's tools for junior coaching. Us agreeing to continue to keep the bad language down was part of the price for the admins agreeing to allow ex-ACF BB posters to control the moderation.


c) There was no problem with marketing or spam on the old BB, but this BB sees it everywhere a problem, when it is virtually non-existant.

Exaggerated. We do get far more international spam than the old BB (this is usually deleted immediately).

People should also bear in mind that stuff needing moderation is far more likely on this board than the old one simply because this board is more active - since the ACF crowd moved to chesskit it has averaged about three times as many posts per day as the old ACF BB. It also has several times more active members.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2005, 12:27 AM
When was the last time you got into a cinema for free. :owned:

13 July 2003.

Anything else I can help you with? :P

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2005, 12:31 AM
also the check mate thread.

That was this board.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes it was. The ACF was not threatened but might have been. So it took a cautious route and deleted. But Bill, it was a reactive deletion, not a proactive deletion. When deletions are proactive they can start to become knee jerk reactions to full and frank discussions.

In the area of defamation law as it currently stands you need to be proactive because people can just go direct to court and sue successfully without asking you to take anything down first.


This is a bending of the truth. The F word was ever there spelled with F and ***. That kind of faking it is tantamount to using the whole 4 letters. As such the first BB was M15+

I more or less agree with you on this one - I think there was a swearing filter to block the f-word but people used dots and so on to evade it and this was policed fairly lightly as a matter of practicality - given that there was only one really active moderator, namely Paul.

I had secret mod access on that board but I had to log out and log in as Paul to use it - think I only did so about 15 times all year.