Poker_Updates banned as it is a hydra of a banned user.
Printable View
Poker_Updates banned as it is a hydra of a banned user.
I posted here earlier that we had banned an account believed to be a hydra (unrelated to Arrogant-One).
It has come to my attention that the account owner has disabled the option for receiving email notice of PMs, so I am going to try emailing him instead. The account is unsuspended while this occurs.
OK, that user has had more than enough chances to answer my emails and PMs and has done neither despite the account having been online.
Account "Adam" banned permanently as an unnecessary hydra using false personal information to create false impressions concerning the identity of the person operating the account.
That user may continue to use an existing account but any new ones that involve false information will be banned immediately and may lead to a more general sanction.
Axiom suspended from shoutbox for 24 hrs for linking to and discussing a site he has been told not to refer to in the shoutbox.
New "user" JohnzSmith banned from the shoutbox for 7 days for spamming the shoutbox with *******s links.
User JohnzSmith now permanently banned.
Axiom has lost shoutbox access for 24 hours for abuse in the shoutbox.
Spoilers for non-chess sporting and other contest events
A few weeks back there was some minor kerfuffle about postings of spoilers regarding current contest events (Eurovision in that case), where the result may be known but some posters may not have yet seen the telecast. This usually happens when there is a delayed telecast, or sometimes when an event is held late at night and posters may have taped it to watch during daytime hours.
We recommend that posters observe the following:
* On no account should the result of a non-chess contest in the last 24 hours be revealed in a thread title.
* If discussing the result of a non-chess contest in the last 24 hours in a thread not dedicated to that purpose, please use white text (tag: {color=white}text here {/color} but with [] instead of {}) or the heading SPOILER followed by a large gap before your comments.
* If discussing the result of a non-chess contest in the last 24 hours in a thread dedicated to that purpose (eg a cricket or soccer match on the cricket or soccer threads) use best judgement. If the event is being broadcast live and free-to-air (or live and cable-only without free-to-air coverage) then posting about it as it happens is acceptable, but if the only free-to-air broadcasts are delayed then please use white text or SPOILER headings as above until after the event has been screened.
* Discussion of current sporting events in the Shoutbox as they happen is fine. Those wishing to avoid finding out results in the Shoutbox can do so by bookmarking a specific thread rather than the front page, and then reading the forum using "New Posts", for instance. [Alternatively, it is possible to close the shoutbox window.]
(We won't suspend people who break these guidelines, unless they do it deliberately to troll, but don't expect us to protect them from flames!)
For some time this site has a rule against quoting posters who are banned from here, the current version of which goes like this:
At one stage this rule was necessary to stop banned posters from getting friendly carrier pigeons to repost their nonsense here (thus enabling them to continue to troll this board from beyond the grave, so to speak) and also there was a lot of complaint about cross-board dragging at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
Now, firstly those likely to act as sycophants for banned posters are generally inactive; secondly some of those who complained about the practice are no longer active, and thirdly the level of expressed concern about the practice (and similar practices) seems to be much less. As such, the rule as it stands is simply an obstacle to debate, and as AR pointed out, has the perverse result that people have to actually go and read the other forum to see what is being commented on. When AR made that comment I asked if anyone saw any reason why the rule should not be reviewed; no one said anything.
We are therefore trialling the following as an attempt to relax the rule in question.
It is still very probably the preference of many posters that cross-board discussions be kept to a relatively low level rather than taking the form of endless flamewars.Quote:
* While a poster is banned from chesschat it is not permitted to post on their behalf in any way, or to post links to anything they have written while banned. Quoting of banned posters is permitted only if (i) the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced (onus is on the quoter to demonstrate this) or (ii) the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here.
Any post consisting largely of quoting of material by one or more banned posters with little or no original comment added will breach this rule, as will any post that quotes a banned user without discussing the comments quoted in relation to points being discussed on the thread. In any case all material quoted must be clearly within the site rules. If in doubt about this rule, please check your intended post with a moderator before posting it.
Axiom banned for 24 hours from the shoutbox for claiming the *** is a fact.
He has been previously warned to refrain from mentioning it until he provides the mods with proof of his claims.
To date no such proof has been provided.
Axiom banned for a week after admitting he has deliberately disobeyed moderation directions.
Axiom's ban reset to a week as of now for using a hydra whilst banned.
I removed a silly thread concerning "sex scandals" as if even I managed to work out who it is supposedly about (and no, I won't be saying, don't ask) it's quite likely others will too.
No further discussion of the claimed "scandal" is to occur without permission of a moderator (which I won't be granting without both firm proof of the incident and demonstration of public interest). It is very likely that a ban will be applied if trolling on this matter, or even envelope-pushing concerning it, continues.
Former posters firegoat7 and ursogr8 are suspended from this site indefinitely.
Although both have recently broken siten rules in their postings about this site elsewhere (in firegoat7's case, repeatedly and brazenly) the suspensions are primarily on account of their performance, and/or lack thereof, as site staff on permanently banned ex-member Arrogant-One's (Alex's) forum.
As will be known to many CC members, since its foundation, AO's forum has been the base for a series of attacks on our site and its posters, including constant defamation and unfactual baiting of various active chesschat members, spamming (including bulk post-bombing) of our site, and a domain name redirection attack using a URL invalidly registered by AO (spamming attacks for which have been conclusively linked to him). ISPs matching AO's have also been involved in hack-attempts on our members' logins, and the joint attack on Chesschat and Ford Forums is strongly suspected based on its style of also being AO's work.
In most cases where complaints have been made about defamation of our members over there nothing has happened, but until recently it has at least been possible for those who wish to challenge such behaviour in its place of origin to do so more or less unhindered (with just a bit of silly stuff such as undeclared back-editing of posts to distort debate).
However in the last week it has been clear that any such pretence at a level playing field there has been abandoned, with some chesschat posters subject to a series of suspensions, restrictions and deletions on account of behaviours that are business as normal for leading members of AO's forum (such as having hydras, allegedly being "uncivil" and alleged "flaming", the irony of the last two charges being that the material used as an excuse for the bans was at worst no worse, and often significantly milder, than the unsanctioned material it replied to.) These sanctions have been imposed in most cases by firegoat7 (David Beaumont) late at night, but in some by Alex himself.
We realise that some of our posters enjoy posting on Alex's forum, or wish to promote their events there, or feel compelled to post there to address some of the nonsense there, and we certainly do not seek to restrict or criticise any of these things. Indeed most site staff here have posted there at some stage. However given the persistent attacks on our site and its posters coming from that site's owner and some staff, combined with the failure of that site to provide a level playing field for debate of the (double) standards and behaviour there, or any real level of control of defamation, we draw the line with those who are willing to voluntarily serve in staff positions on that site (whether that position is owner, admin, mod or mysterious legal fiction with admin powers.)
In the absence of further rule violations by either, the suspensions will be lifted if all defamatory material about active chesschat posters is removed from AO's site to our satisfaction, and we invite AO's staff to contact us respectfully by email if guidance as to what material is to be removed is required.
We will also (again, barring future violations) unban either firegoat7 or ursogr8 if they clearly resign from or are sacked as staff on AO's site or if they become so inactive on the site that it is safe to assume that they have left it. We have not suspended the chesschat member who is formally a mod there under the handle Gendo Ikari as his account there is currently inactive.
Concerning both the above:
ursogr8 has given various assurances concerning his present and future role on the site which indicate that although he holds various mod/admin titles and powers over there:
* he isn't and won't be moderating
* he hasn't been using his abilities to assist Alex (Arrogant-One) run the site
On this basis, although he is classified as staff there (and accepted his titles and powers willingly, albeit without any explicit agreement), we are giving him the benefit of the doubt concerning whether he is actually performing any staff role, and he is therefore unbanned.
He is, however, on a stringent final warning regarding Coffee Lounge confidentiality and inaccurate/groundless public comments about the moderation and administration of this site.
firegoat7 continues to act in the manner described in my previous post, only more so. He is now required to comply with the conditions for unbanning him above within one month or else his ban will be upgraded to permanent and the offer to unban him if he meets our conditions later will not necessarily apply. (And no, temporary cessation of mod duties as part of a rotation does not qualify.)