Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

Lol. You abuse such people as Shaun94 quite regularly, you've claimed multiple people are racist (including myself) within the last day in the shoutbox (due to your typical incoherent ad hominem attacks) and then you have the temerity to cry to the mods and suggest I've abused you ?

You really are such a joke.

[Shaun94]

Lol. You abuse such people as Shaun94 quite regularly, you've claimed multiple people are racist (including myself) within the last day in the shoutbox (due to your typical incoherent ad hominem attacks) and then you have the temerity to cry to the mods and suggest I've abused you ?

You really are such a joke.

Here here.

A true pest of chess chat in my opinion. Argues with people or chooses to insult or offend until called out then cries to mods... It's quite sad

[Kevin Bonham]

Please ban Sir from the shout box so I can make posts without him abusing me. All his recent shouts have been directed at me. He accused me of lying totally incorrectly and then lies that I live for abusing people.

I've deleted the exchange from the shout that included the claim of lying as that was the first one that was clearly out of bounds although hardly the last (on I suspect both sides but I really don't care). In general claims of lying on this site must be supported with evidence that the poster knew what they posted was false. That said it is best to keep controversial political subjects out of the shoutbox entirely, and in particular US politics which I will just ban from the shoutbox again if necessary or even if it might save me, say, fifteen minutes per year.

I believe there is a function for putting other users on shoutbox ignore if you do not wish to see their shouts. A / followed by ignore followed by the name of the poster should do it from memory. Not sure if it still applies when they change their username.

[EDIT: I've also deleted Scott's two US politics shouts. Not against any rules but better discussed on threads and not in the shoutbox.]

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

I've deleted the exchange from the shout that included the claim of lying as that was the first one that was clearly out of bounds although hardly the last (on I suspect both sides but I really don't care).

By the way, this statement is clearly false as Scotts claim of the senator being "racist" is the first one that is clearly out of bounds and is what initiated my response. Funny how you're not talking about him providing proof for this claim as if everything he says is magically true.

If you require the article in question he chose to post here it is, and I challenge you to find unambiguous evidence of racism just like how you seem to require evidence for claims I make (which I have accordingly given). It will be telling to see if this aspect of the conversation is ever broached : https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...ortality-rates

If you want a more balanced/nuanced story that isn't as rabid as Vanity Fairs, here is the original one from Politico (even though Politico tends to be ever so slightly oriented to the left of politics) that doesn't attack the man in such an unhinged matter and states the facts of the matter. : https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...-high-00033832

[Kevin Bonham]

By the way, this statement is clearly false as Scotts claim of the senator being "racist" is the first one that is clearly out of bounds and is what initiated my response.

He was calling a US Senator racist. Whether that is right or wrong it is not the same on here as making accusations about another poster, or for that matter someone with a reputation in Australian chess.

Also, on here I am interpreting all claims of lying as implying that the poster intentionally made a false statement. The reason for this is that this is how the term is generally understood and even if it may not have been meant that way, it is received that way. In some cases this can have legal implications so I have just taken a blanket position that unsupported claims of lying aren't allowed.

[Sir Cromulent Sparkles]

He was calling a US Senator racist. Whether that is right or wrong it is not the same on here as making accusations about another poster, or for that matter someone with a reputation in Australian chess.

Also, on here I am interpreting all claims of lying as implying that the poster intentionally made a false statement. The reason for this is that this is how the term is generally understood and even if it may not have been meant that way, it is received that way. In some cases this can have legal implications so I have just taken a blanket position that unsupported claims of lying aren't allowed.

You mention "making accusations against another poster" but did you miss the part where he also called me racist or is that something he's allowed to do with impunity ?

[Kevin Bonham]

You mention "making accusations against another poster" but did you miss the part where he also called me racist or is that something he's allowed to do with impunity ?

If you call him a liar first then you don't get any sympathy.

I'm sure all this stuff is incredibly tedious for pretty much everyone except the three posters involved. I will if necessary be banning both you and Shaun from replying to or mentioning Scott, and banning Scott from replying to or mentioning either of you.

Also, all posters are to avoid escalating or perpetuating flamewars on this thread by insulting other posters when it is not necessary to make a point.

Thread locked temporarily for moderation cleanup later tonight. Commenting on moderation is banned across the entire forum until this has occurred.

[Kevin Bonham]

Commenting on moderation is banned across the entire forum until this has occurred.[/b]

The first time someone does it I will delete the post and if they do it again I'll suspend them.

[Kevin Bonham]

Thread reopened

I've deleted most of the recent posts that were on here. To be very clear, if someone is moderated for calling someone something they are not allowed to come over here and say 'yes I should have been allowed to call them that because they are'. You can try sending me a PM to discuss the matter in such a case though there may not be a quick reply.

[Scott Colliver]

Thank you for your fair and impartial moderation

[Patrick Byrom]

Perhaps we can have a thread "How long will Albanese be Prime Minister?" to go with the "How long will Morrison be Prime Minister?" one, together with an appropriate poll. Then the discussion of Albanese in the election thread can be moved there, where it will be more relevant.

[Scott Colliver]

Perhaps we can have a thread "How long will Albanese be Prime Minister?" to go with the "How long will Morrison be Prime Minister?" one, together with an appropriate poll. Then the discussion of Albanese in the election thread can be moved there, where it will be more relevant.

I agree, that is a very good idea.