PDA

View Full Version : The ACF and Chess Chat: Partners



PHAT
20-03-2006, 09:27 PM
Dear Members,

As you are likely aware, FG7 (David Beaumont) and I have been vocal critics of some moderators here, specifically Bill Gletsos and Kevin Bonham. We assert that their role as ACF officials raises conflict of interest issues. Furthermore, we object to the manner in which these ACF officials conduct themselves publically on this bulletin board.

I took it upon my self to make a formal complaint to the ACF regarding the matter above. Five days ago, I sent the following email letter to the ACF. Two days ago, both FG7 and I were inexplicably banned from reading/posting in the Coffee Lounge - a forum for long-time regular posters. The Close sequence of these two extraordinary actions (complaint then banning,) cannot sensibly be viewed as mere coincidence.

FG7 and I are being punished for jepardising the arrangement that the ACF officials have with Chess Chat. There has been unethical use of power in Chess Chat. I urge those people opposed to such acts to speak out - lest you be next to be punished.


Dear Jey Hoole (ACF Secretary),

During the last two years, the unofficial ACF Internet Bulletin Board (Chess Chat) has been a place where a wide range of opinions, both chess and non-chess related, have been aired. While debates have always been full, frank, and robust, the behavior of some ACF officials has become problematic.

By social convention, it is expected that officials in a general sense, must conduct themselves in a manner that will not reflect poorly upon the group that they serve. Unfortunately, the conduct of ACF Ratings Officer Bill Gletsos has steadily deteriorated to that of chronic abuse and denigration. I am sure that most chess players would find public name calling of a Chess Victoria official, by the ACF Ratings Officer, “fool” “goose” “idiot” and lacking in comprehension skills, is at best disreputable, but certainly unseemly. It is noteworthy that this style of engagement his not uncommon for him and is his default mode when in disagreement with any person who holds an opinion contrary to his own. In addition, ACF selector Kevin Bonham as an official debate moderator at Chess Chat, has refused to sanction Bill Gletsos for his caustic, insulting and unhelpful remarks, thus lending tacit support for Gletsos.

Bill Gletsos is very well known in the chess community and holds office in the ACF, as well as the NSWCA Presidency. As such, when he interacts in public, with other officials and the players he serves, he should do so with at least a modicum of dignity and diplomacy. Disappointingly, the ACF President Denis Jessop, has publicly stated that Bill Gletsos may say whatever he wishes on the widely read Chess Chat bulletin board because he (BG) is posting as a private individual. However, it is not possible for Gletsos to post in a private capacity because of his position, influence, and longstanding association with Australian chess.

It would be unjust to prevent ACF officials from posting in a public debate. In deed, it is a fundamental right for all people to be allowed a voice in public debate. However, I would request that this matter be expediently resolved. As a first step, perhaps the ACF could require that its officials post:

Official Communications, with both their real name and office held.
Unofficial Comment, under a nom de plume or anonymously.
Only in this way can their right, as individuals to contribute to debate be reconciled with their responsibility to uphold expected standards of conduct commensurate with their office.


Matthew Sweeney

Rincewind
20-03-2006, 10:33 PM
I can't see a sensible reason for the two to be linked. I mean what would be the purposed served by banning you from the CL from the ACF's point of view. Secondly, why would firegoat7 be included in the same action?

Whilst I cannot completely discount the possibility of collusion between Karthick and the ACF I would seriously doubt there is any based on all the evidence available to me.

PHAT
20-03-2006, 10:44 PM
Whilst I cannot completely discount the possibility of collusion between Karthick and the ACF I would seriously doubt there is any based on all the evidence available to me.

Look harder. You are being duped.

jase
20-03-2006, 10:47 PM
I took it upon my self to make a formal complaint to the ACF regarding the matter above. Five days ago, I sent the following email letter to the ACF. Two days ago, both FG7 and I were inexplicably banned from reading/posting in the Coffee Lounge - a forum for long-time regular posters. The Close sequence of these two extraordinary actions (complaint then banning,) cannot sensibly be viewed as mere coincidence.

It is an interesting sequence and the two events may have some connection, though I'm not prepared to buy into your conspiracy theories just yet :uhoh:


There has been unethical use of power in Chess Chat. I urge those people opposed to such acts to speak out - lest you be next to be punished.

I am in some agreement with you regarding the actions of moderators in recent times, with the two protagonists you have singled out behaving more like antagonists than moderators.

The moderation of thread involving Bill, Kevin, and Rincewind (Barry Cox) have been increasingly lacking in objectivity, and inclined towards didacticism. Each displays a determination to have the last word and lacking the humility required of their position.

On the other hand, I do feel an element of 'reap what ye sow': You are by some margin the most offensive contributor to ChessChat, with David (fg7) running 2nd (albeit by an increasing distance; I have found his contributions relatively more constructive and less offensive recently). It is a constant source of frustration for me that two people with substantial contributions to make are so consistently aggressive, argumentative, and boorish.

These actions challenge my own ethics: what is my response to unjust actions, which may produce an environment I find more palatable?

On reflection, I feel compelled to support your call to arms, and resolve to email both the ACF and the ChessChat administrator. Those in an official capacity should not lower themselves to the muckraking evidenced by Kevin and Bill; they should be setting an example, not rivalling the trolls. Sometimes it is a difficult pill to swallow: idiots regularly heap abuse upon referees and politicians; no doubt the sporting official would love to give some back, but they're in a position of authority and perhaps reluctantly take the 'water off a duck's back' philosophy. Not here, where these protagonists treat debate like a sport, thrust and parry, with a great sense of power and a faint awareness of responsibility (not unlike the arbiter who is derelict in his duties because he's constantly over the shoulder of players, sticking his nose into their post-game analysis).


I would request that this matter be expediently resolved. As a first step, perhaps the ACF could require that its officials post:

Official Communications, with both their real name and office held.
Unofficial Comment, under a nom de plume or anonymously.
Only in this way can their right, as individuals to contribute to debate be reconciled with their responsibility to uphold expected standards of conduct commensurate with their office.

I think this is worthy of consideration. This will more clearly delineate posts from moderators and office-bearers. It needn't be anonymous; those operating in an official capacity, be it moderating, updating tournament information, or carrying out other duties, can simply operate a duplicate account, with a tag attached to their name. For example Dennis Jessop could use a 2nd account with the handle "Dennis Jessop, ACF President".

Matt, I think your letter is well composed and I support it. If only all of your posts were of such quality :rolleyes:

PHAT
20-03-2006, 11:10 PM
On the other hand, I do feel an element of 'reap what ye sow': You are by some margin the most offensive contributor to ChessChat, with David (fg7) running 2nd (albeit by an increasing distance; I have found his contributions relatively more constructive and less offensive recently). It is a constant source of frustration for me that two people with substantial contributions to make are so consistently aggressive, argumentative, and boorish.
On this we agree. Maybe one day I will change my Handle and change masks.

Matt, I think your letter is well composed and I support it. If only all of your posts were of such quality :rolleyes:

Thanks.:)

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2006, 11:14 PM
Matthew himself does not support his own proposed policy because when he held the position of ACF Director of Coaching Accreditation he frequently posted all manner of rubbish here under his own real name.

The idea of any link between Matthew's laughably inept email to the ACF and Matthew's suspension from the Lounge is typical of Matthew's lack of character when it comes to publicly accepting responsibility for his own actions. As I have already mentioned, the catalyst was Matthew's posting of defamatory comments in the Lounge on 15/3, however problems with Matthew and firegoat abusing the privilege of Lounge access have been apparent for some time. Frankly given that it was an admin decision I find his attempt to shift the blame onto us childish and pathetic. Apart from not objecting to the idea when it was raised, I had no involvement in the banning whatsoever.


I am in some agreement with you regarding the actions of moderators in recent times, with the two protagonists you have singled out behaving more like antagonists than moderators.

As I have pointed out several times, a moderator is simply one who rules on what is permitted on the board and what is not, and there is therefore no inconsistency in us being both moderators and participants.


The moderation of thread involving Bill, Kevin, and Rincewind (Barry Cox) have been increasingly lacking in objectivity, and inclined towards didacticism.

If you want me to take this seriously, give examples involving each of us specifically.


Each displays a determination to have the last word and lacking the humility required of their position.

I dispute that humility is required of this position, or indeed of virtually any other.


On reflection, I feel compelled to support your call to arms, and resolve to email both the ACF and the ChessChat administrator.

It is your time, please don't let me talk you out of wasting it and that of others.


On reflection, I feel compelled to support your call to arms, and resolve to email both the ACF and the ChessChat administrator. Those in an official capacity should not lower themselves to the muckraking evidenced by Kevin and Bill; they should be setting an example, not rivalling the trolls.

What muckraking have I evidenced?


Sometimes it is a difficult pill to swallow: idiots regularly heap abuse upon referees and politicians; no doubt the sporting official would love to give some back, but they're in a position of authority and perhaps reluctantly take the 'water off a duck's back' philosophy.

Many politicians do in fact respond with appropriate levels of abuse to some of their more idiotic constituents, without their support base being affected in the slightest. In any case this is a voluntary private BB and comparing it to things of the kind mentioned seems to me to be taking it just a tad too seriously.


Not here, where these protagonists treat debate like a sport, thrust and parry, with a great sense of power and a faint awareness of responsibility (not unlike the arbiter who is derelict in his duties because he's constantly over the shoulder of players in post-game analysis).

Where have we been derelict in our duty, which consists of removing material that falls outside the forum rules?


I think this is worthy of consideration. This will more clearly delineate posts from moderators and office-bearers. It needn't be anonymous; those operating in an official capacity, be it moderating, updating tournament information, or carrying out other duties, can simply operate a duplicate account, with a tag attached to their name. For example Dennis Jessop could use a 2nd account with the handle "Dennis Jessop, ACF President".

This is extremely impractical because it would require us (and others) to continually log on and off these different accounts. There is also no need for it because it is typically completely clear when we are posting in what capacity.

PHAT
20-03-2006, 11:39 PM
Matthew himself does not support his own proposed policy because when he held the position of ACF Director of Coaching Accreditation he frequently posted all manner of rubbish here under his own real name.

I was wrong to do so. If I was to reassociate with the ACF - since I am restarting NCCAS development - I would have no problem complying with an ACF direction to use duel BB identities.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2006, 11:49 PM
Of course you only realise and publicly state that this was "wrong" immediately after being called on a blatant contradiction between your peculiar attempt to inconvenience those posters who happen to be ACF officials and your own past practice.

No doubt when this thread becomes inconvenient baggage for your movable trollfeast in the future you will admit it too was wrong.

PHAT
20-03-2006, 11:53 PM
:hmm: Jase says my email was "well composed." Kevin says it was "laughably inept." This juxtaposition shows in sharp relief, the problem we have. Even in this sober thread, acromony is the only currency tendered by the ACF official.

PHAT
21-03-2006, 12:02 AM
Of course you only realise and publicly state that this was "wrong" immediately after being called on a blatant contradiction ...

I am being genuine. I was wrong to hold office and be obnoxious. I want the focus of this thread to be the behaviour of ACF officials, not me. I want you to stop attacking the other posters (and me) on this thread, and listen to what they have to say.

jase
21-03-2006, 12:02 AM
Matthew's laughably inept email
I found it neither laughable, nor inept. Once more, an aggressive slur in your own defence. Your user title is "Community Leader" - is that meant to be ironic?

I had no involvement in the banning whatsoever.
I didn't say, or imply, that you did. But once more, what fun would there be posting if there wasn't some thrust and parry, or making it somehow about you?


a moderator is simply one who rules on what is permitted on the board and what is not
An ideal moderator is a leader on a forum, sets an example. Leads by example. They do more than just take out the trash.

there is therefore no inconsistency in us being both moderators and participants.
It is preferable that moderators not be the heaviest of participants, since they will frequently be involved in threads requiring moderation, and lay open to accusations of bias.


I dispute that humility is required of this position, or indeed of virtually any other.
I contend that it is a highly valued virtue. That humility might be lacking in moderators such as yourself might be a source of my discontent.


It is your time, please don't let me talk you out of wasting it and that of others.
Touche. We both know you'd look forward to my email. Kevin Bonham, this is your life.


What muckraking have I evidenced?
You deny trolling? Solid gold. I have the impression you relish it!


Where have we been derelict in our duty, which consists of removing material that falls outside the forum rules?
My post makes clear that this narrow view of moderating is not my criticism. If you were less anxious you would observe the actual nature of my criticism of the moderators (there have recently been substantiated accusations of bias, but I was not making that point here).


This is extremely impractical because it would require us (and others) to continually log on and off these different accounts. At your rate of posting, perhaps. But I reckon you've got the time.


There is also no need for it because it is typically completely clear when we are posting in what capacity.
I generally find it clear in your case. However it is much less clear with Bill, for example. Garvin sets a good example by including his CAQ title when posting in an official capacity.

I've read the ACF spin, but do not concur. This forum acts as a quasi ACF communication channel. Boorish behaviour by moderators, who double up as the forum's most active participants, and are also on the Council of the ACF, denigrates the ACF.

If you're going to continue with your sport, the ACF would be better served if you did so on a different account to that with which you moderate and post in an official ACF capacity.

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 12:43 AM
I am being genuine. I was wrong to hold office and be obnoxious.

You were indeed wrong to do both of those things (although in the first case only because of how you did it). :D


I want the focus of this thread to be the behaviour of ACF officials, not me. I want you to stop attacking the other posters (and me) on this thread, and listen to what they have to say.

I am listening but I am not hearing much that justifies the effort. If you make attacks that are inconsistent you will be called on them. Of course you want the whole thread to be about you attacking people, but the people you attack not to be attacking back. It's not going to happen so I suggest you find a corner to cry in now.


I found it neither laughable, nor inept.

Good for you. Of course you are no stranger to laughable ineptness in the field of chess politics yourself - perhaps my contribution to pointing that out has contributed to your rancour towards me and the other mods in this thread.


Once more, an aggressive slur in your own defence.

Oh look, jase dishes out abuse at the mods all over the place but characterises a rebuttal to someone else doing the same thing as "an aggressive slur". How feeble and transparent. Both you and Matt make extremely unconvincing hippies. :rolleyes:


Your user title is "Community Leader" - is that meant to be ironic?

That was a title issued automatically by the board software. Rincewind has changed his and I may change mine too if I can think of anything worth changing it to. I do personally find the title a little silly but changing it has not been in my top 5000 priorities lately.

[EDIT: Fixed now. Hope you like it just as much as firegoat does!]


I didn't say, or imply, that you did. But once more, what fun would there be posting if there wasn't some thrust and parry, or making it somehow about you?

Actually and amusingly you are making this particular point all about you when it is not. Just because my post appears below yours does not mean that the section of it posted before I quoted you is directed at you. Rather I start with a general comment about the thread and then go on to rebut your points.


An ideal moderator is a leader on a forum, sets an example. Leads by example. They do more than just take out the trash.

If the example I am setting is that malignantly stupid rubbish should be treated with contempt, it is one I am happy to continue setting.


It is preferable that moderators not be the heaviest of participants, since they will frequently be involved in threads requiring moderation, and lay open to accusations of bias.

Which gives a few geese something unsubstantiated to gabble about, how terrible. Out of interest, can you show me some forums where the mods are all low-count posters? I've rarely if ever seen one. Mods tend to be high-count posters because people interested enough in a forum to care enough about it to mod it also tend to post a lot on it - although this isn't always the case.


I contend that it is a highly valued virtue.

Contend what you like, actions speak louder than words.


Touche. We both know you'd look forward to my email. Kevin Bonham, this is your life.

I don't know what you are fantasising about here. I could really hardly care less either way, though Matt's tryhard effort did have a certain schadenfreude value.


You deny trolling? Solid gold.

Trolling is not muckraking. But since you ask, what trolling have I evidenced?


My post makes clear that this narrow view of moderating is not my criticism. If you were less anxious you would observe the actual nature of my criticism of the moderators (there have recently been substantiated accusations of bias, but I was not making that point here).

Quit the armchair psychology, it's terribly tryhard and all. Your post suggests we are like over-interventionist DOPs, but if Matt carried on in chess tournaments like he does on here any DOP worthy of the name including you would have thrown him out dozens of times over.

What are the substantiated accusations of bias? You continue to refer to these and fail to provide examples. You also failed to provide examples of the many things I asked you for in my first reply.


At your rate of posting, perhaps. But I reckon you've got the time.

I've got the time if you've got the money. :lol: You admit it is unnecessary in my case and we also have a site policy to assist anyone else with comprehension problems on that score.


I've read the ACF spin, but do not concur.

What ACF spin do you refer to?


This forum acts as a quasi ACF communication channel. Boorish behaviour by moderators, who double up as the forum's most active participants, and are also on the Council of the ACF, denigrates the ACF.

If you're going to continue with your sport, the ACF would be better served if you did so on a different account to that with which you moderate and post in an official ACF capacity.

I will let the ACF tell me what it considers it would be better served by on this score, and not somebody who can't even get his nomination for state association President in order let alone get elected to that position.

And I find the "if you're going to continue with your sport" bit so peculiar that I must issue a "please explain" for your use of that wording. My suspicion is that it shows that you are taking this a million times too seriously.

jase
21-03-2006, 01:59 AM
then go on to rebut your points

This was your rebuttal? Seriously. You had a few snide remarks, threatened to address the topic, found it a bit hard and dismissed it as a matter being taken
a tad too seriously ... I could really hardly care less either way ... a million times too seriously


I will let the ACF tell me what it considers it would be better served by Who is the ACF? How does it communicate with you? There is very little communication by the ACF through the website or the weekly bulletin (not that Paul's newlsletter is not informative, but it is largely a collection of information). Much of the ACF's communications are through this forum. As such, I think it appropriate that ACF Councillors have some role at Chesschat. The problem currently is that these councillors lack objectivity, and are absorbed with point-scoring and trolling. These actions reflect poorly on the ACF; the 'i'm posting as a private individual' defence is a lame duck.

There is a high awarenss of this forum within the chess community. However the common response that I get when I speak to players is that there is too much drivel on here to make it worthwhile. When moderators, who are also on the ACF Council, are contributors in this regard, it discredits the ACF.

Given the relationship that exists between Chesschat and the ACF, the latter needs to address both its policy, and provide an appropriate guide for the conduct of its councillors.

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 02:45 AM
This was your rebuttal? Seriously. You had a few snide remarks, threatened to address the topic, found it a bit hard and dismissed it as a matter being taken

There's precious little to address and I found it way too easy. You make inflammatory accusations (while complaining about getting "snide remarks" in return) but when challenged on them won't provide any details. How utterly pointless.


Who is the ACF? How does it communicate with you?

In this context I am referring to ACF Council and I would hope the answer to that question would be obvious to you.


The problem currently is that these councillors lack objectivity, and are absorbed with point-scoring and trolling.

Give examples of any of these things instead of just making ambit claims. From your repeating the claim that we are trolling without addressing my previous call for examples, I can safely infer that you are the one trolling here.


These actions reflect poorly on the ACF; the 'i'm posting as a private individual' defence is a lame duck.

No, the lame ducks, or should I say geese, are those who cannot comprehend that the site policy clearly explains when people are posting on their own behalf as opposed to the ACF's.

It is true that councillors posting as individuals is often a useful source of info about ACF issues to the greater chess community. But so is councillors chatting in person with people in the chess community who they happen to know. It doesn't make those interactions fall within the realm of ACF action or control unless somebody does something extremely improper or corrupt that warrants disciplinary action, nor does it make those discussions quasi-official communications.


However the common response that I get when I speak to players is that there is too much drivel on here to make it worthwhile.

Given that your contributions to this thread consist largely of excitable and unsubstantiated attacks that you refuse to withdraw or substantiate when challenged, you are contributing to the problem you allege instead of solving it. By failing to adopt an appropriate tone you have ensured that your contribution on this thread is completely unconstructive, and have only yourself to blame for it fast becoming an example of what you are whinging about.

Brian_Jones
21-03-2006, 07:02 AM
Who is the ACF? How does it communicate with you? There is very little communication by the ACF through the website or the weekly bulletin (not that Paul's newlsletter is not informative, but it is largely a collection of information). Much of the ACF's communications are through this forum. As such, I think it appropriate that ACF Councillors have some role at Chesschat. The problem currently is that these councillors lack objectivity, and are absorbed with point-scoring and trolling. These actions reflect poorly on the ACF; the 'i'm posting as a private individual' defence is a lame duck.


Have to agree with this. Also, Councillors should spend more time on chess development projects and less time on crap! Otherwise they should resign.

PHAT
21-03-2006, 09:18 AM
find a corner to cry in now.

you are no stranger to laughable ineptness

How feeble and transparent. Both you and Matt make extremely unconvincing hippies. :rolleyes:

has not been in my top 5000 priorities lately.

malignantly stupid rubbish should be treated with contempt

a few geese something unsubstantiated to gabble about

Matt's tryhard effort did have a certain schadenfreude value.

it's terribly tryhard and all.

site policy to assist anyone else with comprehension problems on that score.

who can't even get his nomination for state association President in order let alone get elected to that position.

it shows that you are taking this a million times too seriously.

Please look at the language above. It is not helpful. I would like to think that all parties, when necessary, can show diplomacy. I believe, Kevin, that you can, if you choose to do so.

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 11:12 AM
Please look at the language above. It is not helpful. I would like to think that all parties, when necessary, can show diplomacy. I believe, Kevin, that you can, if you choose to do so.

It is not necessary, desirable or helpful to show diplomacy towards those who demonstrate a considerable lack of it and I will not be taking your disingeneous fake-hippy act seriously for even a zillionth of a second.


Have to agree with this. Also, Councillors should spend more time on chess development projects and less time on crap! Otherwise they should resign.

Oh dear, here we have someone who makes a living out of selling chess products telling the volunteers how much of their time they should allocate to what they are doing. :rolleyes: Brian, you sorely tempt me to throw in the towel from all my chess positions immediately citing your post as the reason just so everybody can see how totally silly it is. If people are performing acceptably in their accepted positions then how they spend the remainder of their time is none of your business.

Your beef is that you think the roles of Councillors should be different to what they are. That is a legitimate question but the way to pursue that is through specific proposals for new formal responsibilities and structural reform (starting by getting the NSWCA onside since no constitutional change would happen without them) and not through demeaning that issue by dragging it into irrelevant beatups like this.

Let me make this abundantly clear for anyone else who wants to waste their time:

The condition on which I am willing to have any involvement with voluntary chess admin is that I can spend the rest of my time as I see fit once I have performed the tasks that fall within the duties I have accepted and provided that nothing I do takes me outside the rules of the organisation.

The condition on which I am willing to moderate this BB is that I can post whatever I like provided it is within the rules of the board.

These conditions are not negotiable.

Those who determine whether to appoint me given the first condition are the voluntary chess bodies I work for. The person who determines whether to appoint me given the second condition is the owner of this site.

Anyone else's opinion on the matter will have no impact on my actions whatsoever, and any publicly expressed opinion contrary to the above will not be taken seriously for a moment, and if expressed with anything less than absolute fairness and intellectual rigour will be treated as flamebait and disposed of accordingly.

arosar
21-03-2006, 11:32 AM
Ah, this is too much bullshit. It's like this right: if your are an ACF official, there is some expectation on the part of everybody else that you present yourself correctly.

I think that's fair enough.

AR

ursogr8
21-03-2006, 11:36 AM
<snip>and if expressed with anything less than absolute fairness and intellectual rigour will be treated as flamebait and disposed of accordingly.

I have never been accused of having any of the skills mentioned.
So,

:silenced:

;)


starter

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 12:07 PM
Ah, this is too much bullshit. It's like this right: if your are an ACF official, there is some expectation on the part of everybody else that you present yourself correctly.

I think that's fair enough.

Since when do you speak for "everybody else" and their opinion of what might be presenting oneself correctly and the spheres in which that concern applies?

I'll say it again and again until the penny drops if need be. I am only interested in the ACF's expectations as indicated by formal Council policies and the ACF Constitution. I am not interested in the expectations of beatup-merchants looking for a way to make it more difficult for their errors and misdemeanors to be scrutinised, called to account or as needs be moderated.

arosar
21-03-2006, 12:11 PM
Since when do you speak for "everybody else" and their opinion of what might be presenting oneself correctly and the spheres in which that concern applies?

I'll say it again and again until the penny drops if need be. I am only interested in the ACF's expectations as indicated by formal Council policies and the ACF Constitution. I am not interested in the expectations of beatup-merchants looking for a way to make it more difficult for their errors and misdemeanors to be scrutinised, called to account or as needs be moderated.

There you go again. There's no need to be combative. Just calm down man.

AR

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 12:16 PM
There you go again. There's no need to be combative.

Then why are you doing it?


Just calm down man.

Actually I'm so relaxed here it's a wonder I haven't passed out ... or fallen asleep in boredom at the poor arguments from the usual and occasional suspects.

Rack up yer best flamers, I'll give 'em a simul.

*yawns*

arosar
21-03-2006, 01:08 PM
Rack up yer best flamers, I'll give 'em a simul.

You're a sick unit man.

AR

PHAT
21-03-2006, 01:12 PM
It is not necessary, desirable or helpful to show diplomacy towards those who demonstrate a considerable lack of it

I have more than most - when it needed. It is needed now and I am the "real" Matthew Sweeney


Oh dear, here we have someone who makes a living out of selling chess products telling the volunteers how much of their time they should allocate to what they are doing. :rolleyes:

I am sure Brian Jones has paid his dues as a voluteer in his time. Therefore, I believe his opinoin is likely to be sensitive to the interests of voluteers. Please show that you value his input as an unaligned chess identity.


Anyone else's opinion on the matter will have no impact on my actions whatsoever, ...

You are quite right to say that you are only answerable to official chess bodies and the site owner. However, they are not the only people who have an interest in the conduct of their officials. The "anyone else's" are equally important on a small community such as chess. Again, I would ask you to treat the posters on this thread with curtersy.

PHAT
21-03-2006, 01:15 PM
You're a sick unit man.

Ameil, let's be concillatory. Kevin will find his humanity if we continue to show ours. Be patient.

Kevin Bonham
21-03-2006, 01:45 PM
I have more than most - when it needed. It is needed now and I am the "real" Matthew Sweeney

We've seen Dr-Jekyll-for-five-minutes acts from you before. The real Matthew Sweeney online based on overwhelming evidence has been the one who swears, engages in beatups, trolls and gets banned. Exceptions have been fleeting, half-hearted and frequently staged. Of course if you are civil all the time people won't flame you back and you won't get into the problems that lead you to initiate this beatup, and if you are genuine about being the real deal now you will apologise for all your past rubbish and undertake not to carry on in such a manner in the future.


I am sure Brian Jones has paid his dues as a voluteer in his time. Therefore, I believe his opinoin is likely to be sensitive to the interests of voluteers. Please show that you value his input as an unaligned chess identity.

I'm not going to value any input that says "follow my model of how to do your job or else resign", and if that view was sensitive to the interests of volunteers I saw no sign of it at all.


You are quite right to say that you are only answerable to official chess bodies and the site owner. However, they are not the only people who have an interest in the conduct of their officials. The "anyone else's" are equally important on a small community such as chess. Again, I would ask you to treat the posters on this thread with curtersy.

I treat those with courtesy who treat me with courtesy. If posters are discourteous they can expect a response in kind. Which part of this concept do you fail to comprehend no matter how many times it is repeated?


You're a sick unit man.

Yeah right Pulitzer, run along now and write a beatup about it on your blog. :lol:

PHAT
21-03-2006, 06:11 PM
...if you are genuine about being the real deal now you will apologise for all your past rubbish and undertake not to carry on in such a manner in the future.

My behaviour here is no the issue, so please keep it in mind, and keep to the thread issue. On this thread, I am keeping it the real deal.



I treat those with courtesy who treat me with courtesy. If posters are discourteous they can expect a response in kind.

The quote above is typical of what the problem is. You, Kevin Bonham, are a well known ACF offical and the face of Tasmanian chess. The combative style that you use under the name Kevin Bonham reflects poorly on the organisations in which you serve. If you were to enjoy the BB game under another name - eg Tassie Devil - then there would be no problem.


Yeah right Pulitzer, run along now and write a beatup about it on your blog. :lol:

Unhelpful. Please refrain from insulting other volunteers under the name Kevin Bonham.

Brian_Jones
22-03-2006, 09:14 AM
Anyone else's opinion on the matter will have no impact on my actions whatsoever, and any publicly expressed opinion contrary to the above will not be taken seriously for a moment, and if expressed with anything less than absolute fairness and intellectual rigour will be treated as flamebait and disposed of accordingly.

Kevin, your post is a complete personal overreaction to my general comment.

I will make the comment a different way.

We have plenty of admin people who love to attend ACF meetings do ACF things. Yes, of course these people (such as yourself) provide a valuable service and can do what they want and listen to whoever they want.

But I have been there and done that and now realise that chess also needs people who can market chess, talk to sponsors and raise chess to a higher level of popularity and profile. The ACF has not had many of these people in recent years. This may not be your role Kevin but chess needs these people and you could help find them. Of course you can agree or disagree with this opinion and if you choose to waste your time on this BB (like me) that is a personal choice.

As for the use of the democratic process through the states, all I can say is you must be joking (or naive)!

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2006, 10:50 AM
My behaviour here is no the issue, so please keep it in mind, and keep to the thread issue. On this thread, I am keeping it the real deal.

Your behaviour is the issue on practically every beatup thread you start. It is because you and sometimes others, principally firegoat, behave so badly that the vast bulk of the insults you complain about occur. Perhaps if you have an issue with my insults towards specific idiots you could point to particular examples and we can discuss them one at a time.

The issue you raised in your letter to the ACF regarding me was my not condemning Bill for insulting people. Yet he has done so within the site rules and overwhelmingly in response to the same from trolls and stirrers so as a moderator it is none of my concern (except that when threads develop into personal slanging matches between, eg, Bill and Matt, I will frequently split them and move the flamewar to non-chess.)


The quote above is typical of what the problem is. You, Kevin Bonham, are a well known ACF offical and the face of Tasmanian chess. The combative style that you use under the name Kevin Bonham reflects poorly on the organisations in which you serve.

Once again those organisations are the judge of that and geese like you are not. If I signed my BB posts under those titles that would be a different matter but it is completely clear on this forum that people post in a private capacity unless indicated otherwise. Therefore anyone taking these posts as a reflection on those organisations has a comprehension problem.


If you were to enjoy the BB game under another name - eg Tassie Devil - then there would be no problem.

I would have great trouble enjoying the BB game using a handle that corny and lame. You should suspend yourself for a week in shame for even suggesting it.


Unhelpful.

He got back what he gave out.


Please refrain from insulting other volunteers under the name Kevin Bonham.

Yeah right Matt. Insulting volunteers, generally without adequate provocation,is the vast bulk of what you do here. I dare you to go six months on this board without insulting a volunteer in their capacity. If you can do that I will consider your advice.

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2006, 11:56 AM
Kevin, your post is a complete personal overreaction to my general comment.

It's not your "general comment", it's the way that you expressed it and chose to bring it up in the context of another tawdry Matthew Sweeney beatup, in particular the "do this or resign" tone of your comment. The reason I commented personally is that it was a generalisation that applied to any poster who is also a Councillor. As such it includes me unless stated otherwise.

There is very little difference between you saying what you did and some mug saying "I believe Brian Jones should spend more of his time chasing the goal of $500,000pa Grand Prix sponsorship instead of spending time running his business, or else resign as Grand Prix co-ordinator!" Such a statement would be totally ludicrous because you are doing an excellent job as GP Co-Ordinator as the role currently exists and therefore what you do with the rest of your time is nobody's concern in that role. Likewise unless Councillors are becoming remiss in their actual roles through spending too much time here, how much time we spend here is nobody's concern as regards our performance as Councillors.


But I have been there and done that and now realise that chess also needs people who can market chess, talk to sponsors and raise chess to a higher level of popularity and profile. The ACF has not had many of these people in recent years. This may not be your role Kevin but chess needs these people and you could help find them.

Firstly this is all best discussed on another thread to remove it from the stench of Matthew's dubious output and ensure that the issues are considered seriously.

Secondly I am flattered that you consider me qualified to act as a talent-scout for chess marketers but I must disagree. The ACF has attempted to deal with the need for talent scouts by creating positions of that kind and finding people to fill them, but little has come of that so far.


As for the use of the democratic process through the states, all I can say is you must be joking (or naive)!

Actually I am well aware of the difficulties especially from my experience with the second version of the proposed ACF Commission - my point being that it is a political fact that is the only way major structural change can be affected.

firegoat7
22-03-2006, 08:40 PM
The condition on which I am willing to moderate this BB is that I can post whatever I like provided it is within the rules of the board.



Interesting point. Where are these rules? Who decides them? and most importantly, Does your moderation style fit within these rules?

cheers fg7

Phil Bourke
22-03-2006, 09:13 PM
Does anyone remember Mark Latham?
Does anyone remember the make over job Labour tried to pull when they elected him leader in an attempt to win the last election?
Does anyone remember who won the last election?

To make this relevant, I tend to think that personalities expressed here would be reflected by that person/s when they have to vote in their elected capacity.
That is unless of course Labour won the last Federal election :)

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2006, 09:20 PM
Interesting point. Where are these rules?

First post, moderation decisions thread.


Who decides them?

The mods and admins in consultation.


and most importantly, Does your moderation style fit within these rules?

The rules relate to posting not to modding. There are no rules covering modding and no plans to introduce any. All complaints about moderation should be made to the site owner.

Cat
22-03-2006, 10:15 PM
[50-plus lines of space-wasting repost snipped - mod]

Excellent post, says everything that needs to be said.

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2006, 11:47 PM
Excellent post, says everything that needs to be said.

Um no, because it fails to say that if you go on quoting massive posts for pointless one-line me-tooers you will by the end of your life have wasted enough bandwidth to stretch from here to the moon and back 847 times.

However I am glad to see you agree with jase's condemnation of Matt and look forward to you condemning him yourself in line with it in future. :lol:

Phil Bourke
23-03-2006, 05:01 AM
Um no, because it fails to say that if you go on quoting massive posts for pointless one-line me-tooers you will by the end of your life have wasted enough bandwidth to stretch from here to the moon and back 847 times.

However I am glad to see you agree with jase's condemnation of Matt and look forward to you condemning him yourself in line with it in future. :lol:
Does this massive edit also mean you are glad to see the agreement with "I am in some agreement with you regarding the actions of moderators in recent times, with the two protagonists you have singled out behaving more like antagonists than moderators." This was also part of jase's posting that Cat quoted. Why didn't you replace it with a link to the quoted post?
Why did you respond to the post before putting on the mod cap and editing it?

PHAT
23-03-2006, 07:14 AM
...by the end of your life have wasted enough bandwidth to stretch from here to the moon and back 847 times.

Kevin, the problem of members quoting an entire long post is not new. I believe that a simple reminder to "please quote only the relevent parts" suffices. Unfortunately, your snip of Cat's untire quote renders Cat's post pointless. I must concur with Phil Bouke that you have been over zealous, using your mod powers to usurp Cat's right to criticise the public behaviour of ACF officials on this BB.

I would ask you to restore the deleted quote to Cat's post.

PHAT
23-03-2006, 10:18 AM
ATTENTION

This thread started with my letter to the ACF, asking that it require of its officers who post on this bulletin board, that they behave in a manner that does not reflect poorly on the ACF. I have recieved a reply from the ACF saying that there will be no change from the position stated previously here by the President Denis Jessop.


... that ACF officials can, like any other individuals, post in their private capacities in any chess forums they wish, and that what they post (like posts from all posters) are subject to the rules of moderation of the relevant chess forums.

In effect, the ACF has no wish to apply rules of conduct to its own officers. This position is contary to its own code of conduct statement. It appies to:

ACF Code of Ethics (http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/ACF_Code_of_Ethics.txt)


1.3.1 a person playing in, or organising

1.3.1.1 an event of which the winner is eligible for an Australian title as defined in the ACF By-laws for ACF Tournaments ...

1.3.2 a person having an ACF Rating who plays in an event outside Australia or on the internet, whether as an official representative of Australia or not.

Thus, it applies to active ACF officials.

The code further describes breaches:


3.7 Engaging in misbehaviour of a personal nature that is generally unacceptable by normal social standards.
...
3.12 Engaging in conduct likely to injure the reputation of the ACF, its events, organisers, participants or sponsors. [bold by MS]
.

Bill Gletsos and Kevin Bonham have both been engaged in and continue to engage in, behaviour described in "Breaches of the Code of Ethics"


I have taken the correct proceedural path by contacting the ACF in writing of my concerns:


4.3 Other complaints or reports of an alleged breach of this Code may be made to the ACF Council which shall consider and decide the matter.

I hope that the ACF then acted as follows.


4.6 A penalty under paragraph 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 shall be imposed only by the ACF Council after proper inquiry in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness in which anyone alleged to have breached the Code is told of the allegation against them and is given the opportunity to present their case in reply to the allegation.

The ACF has thus investigated itself. There can be no confidence in a system of investigation universally acknowleged as untenable. The ACF, by this fact, is unaccounable.

In conclusion, I ask how can we compel the ACF to act on breaches of ethics by its own officers?

arosar
23-03-2006, 10:20 AM
In conclusion, I ask how can we compel the ACF to act on breaches of ethics by its own officers?

Well, in an extreme situation, you wouldn't bother. You'd just bypass them.

AR

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2006, 11:36 AM
Does this massive edit also mean you are glad to see the agreement with "I am in some agreement with you regarding the actions of moderators in recent times, with the two protagonists you have singled out behaving more like antagonists than moderators."

No of course not. A lot of jase's post was rubbish, I'm just pointing out that Cat who is normally a close buddy of Matthew's is implicitly agreeing with jase's condemnation of Matt, which is amusing.


This was also part of jase's posting that Cat quoted. Why didn't you replace it with a link to the quoted post?

The post has already appeared on this thread so that is too much effort. Cat needs to learn that wasting bandwidth by quoting whole posts for one-line replies is silly. He should quote only the sections he is replying to, place a link to the quoted post himself, or refer to the post by its number or as "jase's first post in this thread" or whatever. Cat's had numerous warnings on this and he is not the only offender. I'm not going to suspend people over it but I will snip it now and then.


Why did you respond to the post before putting on the mod cap and editing it?

Because that is simply the order in which it occurred to me to do those things.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2006, 11:50 AM
Kevin, the problem of members quoting an entire long post is not new. I believe that a simple reminder to "please quote only the relevent parts" suffices.

Cat has had far too many reminders.


Unfortunately, your snip of Cat's untire quote renders Cat's post pointless.

Renders? :lol: It already was.


I must concur with Phil Bouke that you have been over zealous, using your mod powers to usurp Cat's right to criticise the public behaviour of ACF officials on this BB.

Total nonsense, since Cat was merely quoting and agreeing with Jase's post which has already been posted.


I would ask you to restore the deleted quote to Cat's post.

But you realise you would be wasting your time? I do ask that you introduce yourself to the Clue Fairy, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

PHAT
23-03-2006, 11:55 AM
I do ask that you introduce yourself to the Clue Fairy,

In this thread, I have treaded and will continue to treat you with common curtersy and have used no inflamatory devices. I will continue to ask you to do the same for me.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2006, 11:57 AM
Matt, your claim of a Code of Ethics breach by us is ludicrous and suggests you are in the cincinnatus league when it comes to misunderstanding basic constitutional detail. As you are aware, the Code refers to:


1.3 This Code applies to -

1.3.1 a person playing in, or organising

1.3.1.1 an event of which the winner is eligible for an Australian title as
defined in the ACF By-laws for ACF Tournaments; or

1.3.1.2 a Grand prix event; or

1.3.1.3 any other game or event conducted by or for the ACF; and

1.3.2 a person having an ACF Rating who plays in an event outside Australia or
on the internet, whether as an official representative of Australia or not.

Posting on or moderating this BB is none of the above activities so the Code does not apply to it. Your claim that it applies to ACF officials in general is nonsense. It would apply to an ACF official who was also doubling as an organiser for the Aus Champs (for instance) in terms of actions performed in that role, but not in terms of matter posted on the BB in a private capacity.

You really are being a dill about all this.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2006, 11:58 AM
In this thread, I have treaded and will continue to treat you with common curtersy and have used no inflamatory devices.

You are deluded beyond repair.

PHAT
23-03-2006, 12:06 PM
Matt, your claim of a Code of Ethics breach by us is ludicrous ... As you are aware, the Code refers to: [1.3 This Code applies to -]


Are you suggesting that the Code of Ethics does not apply to ACF officers acting in chess related fields?

Denis_Jessop
23-03-2006, 01:54 PM
The bizzare aspect of Matt's current line of argument on this thread is that I understand that he was banned by the NSWCA for bringing chess into disrepute by his scurrilous activities on the now defunct UCJ BB. Though his line of argument is, as Kevin has pointed out, fatally flawed, it nevertheless carries the necessary implication that he concedes that his own banning by the NSWCA was right and proper. :doh: :hmm:

DJ

PHAT
23-03-2006, 02:20 PM
The bizzare aspect of Matt's current line of argument on this thread is that I understand that he was banned by the NSWCA for bringing chess into disrepute by his scurrilous activities on the now defunct UCJ BB. Though his line of argument is, as Kevin has pointed out, fatally flawed, it nevertheless carries the necessary implication that he concedes that his own banning by the NSWCA was right and proper. :doh: :hmm:


The leaden paragraph quoted above is naught but ad hominae off-topic, red herrings. You claim that being an ex government laywer you are a different kind of lawyer from the rapcious lying swine the rest of us abhore. Yet you use their tactics.:hmm:

Denis, what code of conduct applies to ACF official


EDIT: PS sorry if I have come on strong here Denis, but mate, you need to show some constructive ideas, not mere obfuscation.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2006, 02:43 PM
Are you suggesting that the Code of Ethics does not apply to ACF officers acting in chess related fields?

It only applies to them when acting in the capacities it outlines. It's designed to regulate bad behaviour at and in connection with tournaments, not people's silly peeves about all aspects of a person's public life.

shaun
23-03-2006, 03:11 PM
It only applies to them when acting in the capacities it outlines. It's designed to regulate bad behaviour at and in connection with tournaments, not people's silly peeves about all aspects of a person's public life.

So what your saying is that Matt could not be banned by the ACF for what he has supposedly been banned by the NSWCA for doing?

And if so, how can the ACF review a NSWCA suspension when no such offence exists under the ACF by-laws?

jenni
23-03-2006, 03:22 PM
The bizzare aspect of Matt's current line of argument on this thread is that I understand that he was banned by the NSWCA for bringing chess into disrepute by his scurrilous activities on the now defunct UCJ BB. Though his line of argument is, as Kevin has pointed out, fatally flawed, it nevertheless carries the necessary implication that he concedes that his own banning by the NSWCA was right and proper. :doh: :hmm:

DJ

You know I have never been too sure what was so terribly bad about the other board. It had a lot more rumour and gossip and the language was worse, but not by a huge factor. I wouldn't have drawn my kids attention to it, but then I have banned them from reading here until they got (get) to 16. In fact I took the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to dob in a young girl who was posting here to her Mum and warned her off straying into random theads. As I said to her Mum, if she wants to see adults behaving badly this is the place.

arosar
23-03-2006, 03:46 PM
You know I have never been too sure what was so terribly bad about the other board. It had a lot more rumour and gossip and the language was worse, but not by a huge factor. I wouldn't have drawn my kids attention to it, but then I have banned them from reading here until they got (get) to 16. In fact I took the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to dob in a young girl who was posting here to her Mum and warned her off straying into random theads. As I said to her Mum, if she wants to see adults behaving badly this is the place.

Stop being such a mommy OK. Jeez! It's like germs you know. You have to expose yourself to them to get strong and healthy. You understand my meaning?

AR

four four two
23-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Are you honestly suggesting that this BB is worse than primetime tv,Jenni?:hmm:

There are certainly a number of juniors who read here,and some who post.
And I would we willing to bet that most are under 16.
They dont appear to be "damaged".:whistle:

firegoat7
23-03-2006, 04:34 PM
ATTENTION

This thread started with my letter to the ACF, asking that it require of its officers who post on this bulletin board, that they behave in a manner that does not reflect poorly on the ACF.
Very official, disciplined, responsible, forthright, correct, and mostly a legitimate way of conducting official business.



I have recieved a reply from the ACF saying that there will be no change from the position stated previously here by the President Denis Jessop.

What a joke. They right a letter to him to inform him of an "official' position previously stated on Chesschat. Unofficial?, chaotic, irresponsible, manipulative, incorrect, and a totally illegetimate way of conducting "official" business. Can't the ACF produce a policy without its unofficial site.:hand:

cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
23-03-2006, 05:24 PM
If a club or organisation wishes to use CC as an official communication channel, I doubt much can be done to stop that. That doesn't mean CC is a partner of that organisation.

So, whether posting by ACF officials are in an official capacity or not, it still doesn't make ACF a partner.

firegoat7
23-03-2006, 06:12 PM
So, whether posting by ACF officials are in an official capacity or not, it still doesn't make ACF a partner.

STML,
with all due respect, lets clarify what we we are talking about here.

If you were President of a corporation like, for arguments sake, the AFL. And a complaint was made about official umpires, through officially recognised channels, as requested by a player.

Would you then dismiss that complaint, and in doing so, site an internet bulletin board, not maintained or in any way controlled by your organisation, as maintaining official AFL policy? I am guessing that you wouldn't.

cheers Fg7

skip to my lou
23-03-2006, 09:03 PM
STML,
with all due respect, lets clarify what we we are talking about here.

I'm not entering the argument, I just wanted to point out the thread title is misleading.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2006, 09:24 AM
So what your saying is that Matt could not be banned by the ACF for what he has supposedly been banned by the NSWCA for doing?

At present, no. However the ACF can introduce new provisions to ban people if it wishes.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-03-2006, 01:18 PM
Personally I can't see any problems with ACF officials posting on ChessChat, making official announcement and/or using it to disseminate information.

We can argue about purity or perceived conflict of interest ad infinity, but I'd like to see an example (prefferably real, or at least hypothetical) where it caused real problems.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2006, 06:24 PM
On the other hand, I do feel an element of 'reap what ye sow':
You are by some margin the most offensive contributor to ChessChat, with David (fg7) running 2nd (albeit by an increasing distance; I have found his contributions relatively more constructive and less offensive recently).Perhaps if you and others had seen fit to criticise Matt for his vile and disgusting language when he first started behaving that way, there may have been the slightest of chances that he may have felt some compunction to behave in an acceptable manner.

However that didnt happen.

Your silence and that of others appeared to only embolden him to behave in an even worse manner. He has continually demonstrated that he shows a total disdain for the admins and moderators challenging his vile and offensive behaviour and at no stage has he shown the slightest contrition for his behaviour whatsoever.

Now you may believe that volunteers should just have to sit back and cop his vile language and behaviour. Well as Kevin said that just isnt going to happen.

Matt can pretend in this thread that he is the agrieved one but if the members and guests without access to the Coffee Lounge could see the sheer volume of vile abuse that he has spewed forth in there, not to mention his even worse language on the now defunct UCJ, they would see him for what he is and understand why the admins and moderators here treat him as they do.

jase
24-03-2006, 06:30 PM
Perhaps if you and others had seen fit to criticise Matt for his vile and disgusting language when he first started behaving that way, there may have been the slightest of chances that he may have felt some compunction to behave in an acceptable manner.


Tag.

Perhaps if you had the slightest clue concerning my position on Matt's behaviour, there might be the slightest of chances that you could provide some intelligent debate.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2006, 06:42 PM
Tag.Play whatever silly game you like.


Perhaps if you had the slightest clue concerning my position on Matt's behaviour, there might be the slightest of chances that you could provide some intelligent debate.I am aware yyour position on matt however I havent seen anything intelligent from you other than hypocrisy.

You see fit to criticise Kevin and I for taking to task posters using vile language, yet where were your criticisms of him way back when he started.

You can believe that volunteers should just have to sit back and cop vile language and behaviour. Well as Kevin said that just isnt going to happen.

jase
24-03-2006, 06:52 PM
I am aware yyour position on matt
Quite clearly, you are not. As evidenced by:


where were your criticisms of him way back when he started.

I have been a vocal critic of Matt on various threads, by PM, and in person, where I considered appropriate.



You can believe that volunteers should just have to sit back and cop vile language and behaviour. Well as Kevin said that just isnt going to happen.
You just don't get it. Your mechanisms for dealing with inappropriate conduct are juvenile and entirely without objectivity.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2006, 07:01 PM
I have been a vocal critic of Matt on various threads,Perhaps you can show where by quoting them.

by PM, and in person, where I considered appropriate.Good for you, however such things are not seen by other posters. As such they have little impact.

You just don't get it. Your mechanisms for dealing with inappropriate conduct are juvenile and entirely without objectivity.Your entitled to your opinion and some others may agree with you. However there are others whose opinion differs from yours.

arosar
24-03-2006, 08:18 PM
Listen here Bill, you're an alright bloke and to be admired for your intelligence. But I think you only made a martyr out of Mr Sweeney and this was your mistake. So he abused you, called you names, blah...blah....what harm did all that do to the chess community at large that you saw fit to ban him from chess play?

AR