Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging

[antichrist]

I am not allowing any linking to that video posted by Axiom, as while the first few minutes consist of media reporting of an issue it then moves into paranoid hate material. I am also not allowing creation of a new thread about the issue. You can use the existing Israel/Palestine thread to comment about the issue of defining anti-semitism and the proposed UK definition if you like but extremist, hateful or stupid material may be deleted.

agree completely, I only looked at the first few mins of that link.

[antichrist]

Alex Vander Zwaan only got 30 days banishment for lying to the FBI Mueller inquest - I get worse than that here - it ain't fair

[antichrist]

Hi KB, I have no idea whether I have been barred from welfare speaking for 12 months maybe, if you can't remember as well then bygones can be bygones - thanks

[Kevin Bonham]

Hi KB, I have no idea whether I have been barred from welfare speaking for 12 months maybe, if you can't remember as well then bygones can be bygones - thanks

Yes you are banned from that thread until March 4 2019. I have deleted your more recent posts and replies to them but there is no further penalty at this stage.

[Kevin Bonham]

Yes you are banned from that thread until March 4 2019. I have deleted your more recent posts and replies to them but there is no further penalty at this stage.

I have now split the posts you were replying to to a new thread. The posts won't be undeleted because they were originally posted to a thread you were banned from. However you are now able to post on the new drug policing thread if you want (just try to keep it sensible).

[antichrist]

I have now split the posts you were replying to to a new thread. The posts won't be undeleted because they were originally posted to a thread you were banned from. However you are now able to post on the new drug policing thread if you want (just try to keep it sensible).

I thought my last post there touched your heart - thanks

[antichrist]

that guy referred to Mod Decisions and Rules is he barred yet?

[Kevin Bonham]

that guy referred to Mod Decisions and Rules is he barred yet?

Yes we banned him quickly in 2015 and will ban any new account he signs up. Weirdly after spamming and threatening like crazy around the time of his banning he went quiet for over two years and has just fired up again.

[antichrist]

New [17-10, 01:34] Kevin Bonham: antichrist is warned to desist from trolling in the shoutbox

I think we have a constitutional crisis. One law prevents us from damaging our image in the Shoutbox but there must be another law somewhere that permits severe mangling of the Queen's English in the Shoutbox. It is certainly not a good for high class visitors - the saying that the first image is the most important. They would think that we have just escaped from the Detroit lock-up. Whereas in Michael Baron's case it is unintentional.

[Kevin Bonham]

New [17-10, 01:34] One law prevents us from damaging our image in the Shoutbox but there must be another law somewhere that permits severe mangling of the Queen's English in the Shoutbox.

Your own shouts are frequently just as incoherent. For instance one of your most recent ones read:

Winx almost yesterday - did anybody almost have a heart attack?

Obviously a word missing there.

I don't agree that sprout's colourful phrasing is a problem in terms of visitor impressions as compared to swearing, angry ranting, pointless monologues or political extremism. If you keep trolling him you'll be given a holiday.

As you have now seen the warning I've removed it.

[antichrist]

Your own shouts are frequently just as incoherent. For instance one of your most recent ones read:

Winx almost yesterday - did anybody almost have a heart attack?

Obviously a word missing there.

I don't agree that sprout's colourful phrasing is a problem in terms of visitor impressions as compared to swearing, angry ranting, pointless monologues or political extremism. If you keep trolling him you'll be given a holiday.

As you have now seen the warning I've removed it.

Due to being unable to edit Shoutbox posts they are incorrectible - all due to a certain incident about 15 years ago. Did you watch that race by the way - the announcers almost had a heart attack as well, Winx was coming last and boxed in till the last bend. It was like God giving Steinitz queen odds and behind two queens in the end game.

[Capablanca-Fan]

I'm pretty sure that would work but then those sections would no longer be Google-able. Sometimes Google is actually better for finding old content on the forum than the forum's own search engine.

Not just sometimes, but most of the time in my experience.

[antichrist]

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....434#post441434

post 4228

I want to dob in Mr Capa fan for reprinting an article and not making one word of comment intelligent or otherwise whereas in when I re-posted an article about Nazi abuse I drew a parallel with what Trump was doing - yet mine was censored?? I will see Mr Mueller about this!

[Kevin Bonham]

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....434#post441434

post 4228

I want to dob in Mr Capa fan for reprinting an article and not making one word of comment intelligent or otherwise whereas in when I re-posted an article about Nazi abuse I drew a parallel with what Trump was doing - yet mine was censored?? I will see Mr Mueller about this!

The original source for that post is three years old and was a post on a blog that does not display a copyright notice; although copyright still subsists it suggests they're not greatly concerned about material being shared. He did quote most of it in chunks but it was a relatively small post to begin with whereas the one you used was long. (He did also have one line of comments in brackets.) Also I am not convinced the article was written with expectation of profit. It's possible he's marginally over the line of the standards here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....on-please-read but even if so, so marginally I'm not doing anything about it unless the author of the material complains.

Also, I'm imposing a seven-day statute of limitations for future dobbing about alleged breaches of this rule (so you can dob about that one but I won't have you digging through old posts to dob on). If we miss something that breaches copyright the copyright owner can complain.

[antichrist]

The original source for that post is three years old and was a post on a blog that does not display a copyright notice; although copyright still subsists it suggests they're not greatly concerned about material being shared. He did quote most of it in chunks but it was a relatively small post to begin with whereas the one you used was long. (He did also have one line of comments in brackets.) Also I am not convinced the article was written with expectation of profit. It's possible he's marginally over the line of the standards here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....on-please-read but even if so, so marginally I'm not doing anything about it unless the author of the material complains.

Also, I'm imposing a seven-day statute of limitations for future dobbing about alleged breaches of this rule (so you can dob about that one but I won't have you digging through old posts to dob on). If we miss something that breaches copyright the copyright owner can complain.

I consider the authors a bit hypocritical in copyrighting something that was based on someone else's work made only a hundred years ago. [snip -mod]