Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging

[Bill Gletsos]

Commenting as a poster - the reason it is entirely on topic and relevant should be extremely obvious if you've been following the thread about Queensland ACF ratings - and junior ratings in particular - being out of whack with other states. It was not mentioned to claim that the player is that strength, but simply as an indicator that his classic rating, compared to those in Tasmania, could be unreliable. Also commenting as a poster - in my view your complaint is petty and either trolling as payback for my actions as a moderator, or else being extremely melodramatic.

Another moderator is welcome to deal with it if they disagree with me.

Completely agree so I won’t be taking any action.

[Bill Gletsos]

as if!

I saw your post shortly after you made it and as my thoughts matched those that Kevin later posted I chose to just ignore your complaint.

[Kevin Bonham]

Irrelevant! Expecting someone to know the whole Chesschat's list of contents in order to interpret your post comparing your rapid rating to an entrant's in the 2021 Tasmanian Championship is also illogical.

I'm not expecting anyone to necessarily be paying attention; I'm just pointing out why your interpretation was incorrect and your claim of irrelevance was also incorrect. That it might not be obvious to every poster why a post is on-topic doesn't mean that it isn't. In this case, another poster had already commented about ratings points in Tasmania being at risk.

Drama queen reaction. I am not taking you as seriously as you think I am

No, I offered two interpretations to ensure I covered all possibilities and to avoid a blast of pseudo-righteous indignation if I offered one and not the other. As you have dismissed the interpretation that you were being extremely melodramatic, all that remains is you were trolling.

Go on proceed with your beloved hobby of deleting stuff that annoys you, even when as in this case it does not contain any terms of endearment!

Without getting into whether your trolling was successful or otherwise, to do that would unnecessarily deprive the world of evidence of you getting it wrong. Perhaps you have now realised you've stuffed up and would like that?

Anyway I suggest you reexamine my moderation of #1906. Although that post made numerous completely mindless and bogus insults in my direction, I only edited out your swearing, and even that was pursuant to my agreement with the site owner concerning keeping a lid on gratuitous crude language on a forum visited by juniors.

[ER]

As you have dismissed the interpretation that you were being extremely melodramatic, all that remains is you were trolling.

I dismissed both the trolling as well as your melodrama interpretations of my reaction.

Without getting into whether your trolling was successful or otherwise

I repeat! No trolling intended whatsoever! Trolling was unsuccessfully used against me on the shoutbox by one of your protected species yesterday!
You took no action. despite guidelines that the shoutbox should not be used for personal confrontations.

Perhaps you have now realised you've stuffed up and would like that?

Perhaps not!

In this case, another poster had already commented about ratings points in Tasmania being at risk.

The same poster made the point that this is not a rapid tournament which was my point too! You neglected to refer to that!

Anyway I suggest you reexamine my moderation of #1906. Although that post made numerous completely mindless and bogus insults in my direction, I only edited out your swearing, and even that was pursuant to my agreement with the site owner concerning keeping a lid on gratuitous crude language on a forum visited by juniors.

I have taken your point re language seriously , and also applauded your moderation admittedly with tongue firmly in cheek, in a jocular (ed) but in a no way disrespectful manner.
The problem with your moderation was that you deleted everything including stuff like the correct use of the indefinite article "a" giving the person on my ignore list the right to not only
once again misinterpret my statement(s) on shoutbox but also to express an unacceptably gratuitous attitude toward my being moderated!

[Kevin Bonham]

I dismissed both the trolling as well as your melodrama interpretations of my reaction.

Your unsubstantiated denial is irrelevant.

I repeat! No trolling intended whatsoever! Trolling was unsuccessfully used against me on the shoutbox by one of your protected species yesterday!
You took no action. despite guidelines that the shoutbox should not be used for personal confrontations.

What part of the shoutbox guidelines are you referring to there? There is not necessarily any problem with posters disagreeing with each other in the shoutbox in a mild-mannered way.

The problem with your moderation was that you deleted everything including stuff like the correct use of the indefinite article "a" giving the person on my ignore list the right not only
once again misinterpret my statement(s) but also to express an unacceptably gratuitous attitude toward my being moderated!

That was absolutely your own fault for making a post that consisted almost entirely of abuse towards another poster, that did not comment about moderation at all and that didn't even advance the tangential meta-debate (in that you asserted that Desmond had misunderstood your use of the word "a" but provided no evidence that this was the case). Of course I am not going to waste my time editing such a post and will just delete it immediately; you are free to have another go at making a relevant post on that issue if you can do it without resorting to pointless insults. You were extremely lucky not to at least get banned from this thread for a while rightaway for that post. Perhaps you are a "protected species"?

[ER]

Your unsubstantiated denial is irrelevant.

You keep on avoiding J.P.'s as well as my reference to the main point of this argument which has to do with the tournament not being a rapid tournament
Your using the entrant's rapid rating as being higher to your rapid rating is absolutely irrelevant.

You were extremely lucky not to at least get banned from this thread for a while rightaway for that post. Perhaps you are a "protected species"?

I know this is your playground and you exercise your authority at will. My luck (extreme or not) has been decided by other factors and so is my lifestyle irrespective to the policies of a forum

Not going to waste enjoying my staying in one of the most luxurious and expensive hotels in Melbourne to deal with such minor issues.
I have already made my position on all related matters regarding raised issues very clear. Maybe when I go back home I could reconsider the whole thing and present my case in a different manner. Best

[Kevin Bonham]

You keep on avoiding J.P.'s as well as my reference to the main point of this argument which has to do with the tournament not being a rapid tournament
Your using the entrant's rapid rating as being higher to your rapid rating is absolutely irrelevant.

No, I already addressed that. The player has an ACF classic rating of 1128 and a chess.com rapid rating of 1830. The strength or otherwise of mainland entrants and their potential to deprive us of ratings points is a common subject of discussion in Tasmania. If you're asserting it's irrelevant, then you would accept that a player with an ACF classic rating of 1128 and a chess.com rapid rating of 800 should not be expected to perform better at classical chess than this player. If you truly believe that, then the place to defend it is the Ratings Arena.

And I think you know that and are trying to threadjack this thread into a chess discussion in order to mess up the thread with comments that are irrelevant to moderation, and that this is evidenced by you returning to this theme to engage with me on it despite your complaint having been dismissed.

And with that, since you have said that I exercise my authority at will, the subject is closed on this thread!