Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809

    support Phil and AO

    Hello,

    Thought I would voice an objection to the banning of both these people on Chesschat. It is clear to me that banning should only be utilised in extreme circumstances and that banning is counter productive for a BB.

    I believe both these bannings are clear signs that this BB is suffering from a lack of effective conflict resolution and that rather then improve the board these types of decisions make it worse.

    I urge you all to carefully consider the procedures for such bans, whether you agree with them or not, and to consider different ways of preventing these type of extreme moderations occuring. Any comments welcome, but lets focus on the procedures for banning? I.e should be people be warned? Should they be allowed to edit posts? Are there any right of appeals? Should statistics be kept on moderators who ban people?

    cheers Fg7

  2. #2
    CC International Master WhiteElephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,965
    I give my full support to Phil and AO and disagree wholeheartedly with their bans.

    I am not going to bother arguing in their favour as I have argued against bannings in the past and copped the usual derogatory comments from the Mods.

    For this reason I have greatly reduced my participation in this BB. I believe this is the best solution, and being banned is not ncessarily a bad thing. The Mods' power tripping might mean something here but will get them nothing but a black eye in the real world.
    Last edited by WhiteElephant; 22-10-2006 at 01:03 PM.

  3. #3
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Should statistics be kept on moderators who ban people?
    cheers Fg7
    No, just sack the bloody lot of them Skip and get some new ones!

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    I should state that acting as a poster I made a post report in which I called for PhilD707 to be suspended. I left the decision about how to deal with it to the other mods/admins.

    I did not report Arrogant-One (and again played no part in that moderation) but had the roles been reversed (ie, had he made his now-deleted comments about Bill instead of me) then I would have suspended him without waiting for a complaint as Bill did in this case. I was considering reporting him if he continued to echo PhilD's comments.

    firegoat, you can see the history of suspensions on the Moderation Rules and Decisions thread where all those since the thread was started are logged. However it doesn't tell you which decisions were taken unilaterally by the mod logging/enforcing them and which taken following a group decision. Those I have logged vary in this respect.

    WhiteElephant, do you remember the Chess Association of Australia thread on which you complained about an ad that you thought impugned the reputation of all chess coaches not working for Chess Kids? You couldn't wait to declare the ad illegal in all sorts of ways in which it wasn't.

    I also work for money in chess coaching and tournament organising, specifically dealing with juniors. Yet now that I am subject to a specific defamatory attack on my performance as an arbiter in an incident involving juniors, you are giving your "full support" to the offender?

    So it is illegal if you think you are defamed by implication, but if I am the one being directly defamed then you don't even think it warrants banning from a BB or even a word of censure? Well, I find that totally inconsistent.

    I also find your claim that bannings are the reason you have reduced your participation misleading. I know full well that it has something to do with your dislike of another poster (who you curiously think should be moderated more heavily).

    As far as I am concerned your views on moderation are hopelessly all over the place and have no credibility because of that.

    Brian, I find the way you make these "sack them" calls without providing any reasoning for your calls unworthy of you. How would you like it if I publicly called for people to boycott your business giving no reason for my action?

    Anyone else want to join in the simul?

  5. #5
    CC International Master WhiteElephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    WhiteElephant, do you remember the Chess Association of Australia thread on which you complained about an ad that you thought impugned the reputation of all chess coaches not working for Chess Kids? You couldn't wait to declare the ad illegal in all sorts of ways in which it wasn't.
    Hi Kevin,

    Yes, I remember it very well. I believed that the ad defamed coaches not working for Chess Kids and I have since received legal advice to support this. I don't know what you mean about me declaring the ad 'illegal'... this is your terminology and hardly appropriate to what was said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I also work for money in chess coaching and tournament organising, specifically dealing with juniors. Yet now that I am subject to a specific defamatory attack on my performance as an arbiter in an incident involving juniors, you are giving your "full support" to the offender?

    So it is illegal if you think you are defamed by implication, but if I am the one being directly defamed then you don't even think it warrants banning from a BB or even a word of censure? Well, I find that totally inconsistent.
    I don't think anyone should have the right to defame you. However, in AO's case:
    1) I dispute that calling someone a liar and providing adequate proof to that effect constitutes defamation so a blanket ban on people calling others liars is ridiculous.
    2) It is clear that AO made an effort to delete his comments - he did so in one post, but before he could do so in the other post, he was banned.
    3) AO's posting priveleges were controversially revoked, and many posters disagreed with this decision. AO was clearly incensed buy this erroneous decision, therefore, leniency should have been shown regarding banning his account, particularly, in consideration of point 2 above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I also find your claim that bannings are the reason you have reduced your participation misleading. I know full well that it has something to do with your dislike of another poster (who you curiously think should be moderated more heavily).
    Good detective work! You know this full well due to an email I sent you! I have reduced my participation in the forum for several reasons, one of them being the presence of Howard Duggan (who has thankfully now reduced his participation) and another being the moderation standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    As far as I am concerned your views on moderation are hopelessly all over the place and have no credibility because of that.
    I believe that each case needs to be treated individually - in some cases the mods are too heavy handed (usually when they have the opportunity to ban someone that gets up their nose) - refer to the recent debacle when firegoat was banned - and in some cases the mods are too lenient, usually when it comes to other state association of ACF office bearers.

    Your attack on my views on moderation is unnecessarily defensive, though I understand why you feel threatened and feel the need to do so.

  6. #6
    CC International Master WhiteElephant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,965
    PS I should probably add that often the mods do get it right. But sometimes they are wrong and I believe they were wrong in the case of AO and Phil.

  7. #7
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I should state that acting as a poster I made a post report in which I called for PhilD707 to be suspended. I left the decision about how to deal with it to the other mods/admins.
    Yes we are all aware of this already, but it does not explain help us understand how the banning decision is made.i.e how is the evidence weighted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I did not report Arrogant-One (and again played no part in that moderation) but had the roles been reversed (ie, had he made his now-deleted comments about Bill instead of me) then I would have suspended him without waiting for a complaint as Bill did in this case. I was considering reporting him if he continued to echo PhilD's comments.
    Again we are not interested in the jusitifcation, focus on the procedure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    firegoat, you can see the history of suspensions on the Moderation Rules and Decisions thread where all those since the thread was started are logged. However it doesn't tell you which decisions were taken unilaterally by the mod logging/enforcing them and which taken following a group decision. Those I have logged vary in this respect.
    Again we all know this. Let me explain again: How was the moderation judged? Who decided on the bans and how do they convince others of their merit? What criteria is uitilised to deciding the length of the ban? and, most importantly, who argued the case for the defendent as a devils advocate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    WhiteElephant, do you remember the Chess Association of Australia thread on which you complained about an ad that you thought impugned the reputation of all chess coaches not working for Chess Kids? You couldn't wait to declare the ad illegal in all sorts of ways in which it wasn't.
    Offside. Playing the man not the ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I also work for money in chess coaching and tournament organising, specifically dealing with juniors. Yet now that I am subject to a specific defamatory attack on my performance as an arbiter in an incident involving juniors, you are giving your "full support" to the offender?
    Offside again. Not interested in the justification of the reasons why, want to know the justification of how the process is fair, equitable and transparant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    So it is illegal if you think you are defamed by implication, but if I am the one being directly defamed then you don't even think it warrants banning from a BB or even a word of censure? Well, I find that totally inconsistent.
    Offside. Still playing the man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I also find your claim that bannings are the reason you have reduced your participation misleading. I know full well that it has something to do with your dislike of another poster (who you curiously think should be moderated more heavily).
    Offside. Still playing the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    As far as I am concerned your views on moderation are hopelessly all over the place and have no credibility because of that.
    Offside again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Brian, I find the way you make these "sack them" calls without providing any reasoning for your calls unworthy of you. How would you like it if I publicly called for people to boycott your business giving no reason for my action?
    Offside. Playing the man again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Anyone else want to join in the simul?
    6 fouls in the opening passage of play.

    cheers fg7

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteElephant
    I believed that the ad defamed coaches not working for Chess Kids and I have since received legal advice to support this.
    Then you need to get a new lawyer because the so-called "legal advice" you refer to is bogus and incompetent. A group as large as "coaches not working for Chess Kids" cannot each be individually defamed by a comment of this sort. Only where individual people or firms, or groups small enough that a comment about all harms the personal reputation of each, are targeted, can a comment be defamatory.

    I don't know what you mean about me declaring the ad 'illegal'... this is your terminology and hardly appropriate to what was said.
    It is entirely appropriate. You clearly stated ways in which you considered the ad a potential subject for legal action. These comments then had to be extensively moderated so I don't wish to go into them in detail.

    I don't think anyone should have the right to defame you.
    In that case you should explicitly retract your claim of full support for Phil.

    As a poster I am far more concerned about Phil's comments than AO's - it is extremely rare that I am moved to file a moderation complaint on any site (whether I am also a mod on it or not), even though people break site rules in dealing with me all the time. As a poster I did not care whether AO was banned or not for calling me a liar, but I will nonetheless comment on some shortcomings in your reasoning:

    However, in AO's case:
    1) I dispute that calling someone a liar and providing adequate proof to that effect constitutes defamation so a blanket ban on people calling others liars is ridiculous.
    There is no ban on calling someone a liar if adequate proof is provided and indeed there have been cases of posters doing so and not being moderated in the past. However AO did not provide adequate proof - not even in the same universe. The strongest basis for his claims was that I had only quoted part of the sentence from Garvin's post. Even if I was quoting out of context (which I disputed strongly) that does not make me a liar. To prove that there is lying, a dishonest intention must be demonstrated. There was no dishonest intention on my part.

    2) It is clear that AO made an effort to delete his comments - he did so in one post, but before he could do so in the other post, he was banned.
    He did delete most of it but it is not clear that his motive was contrition rather than an attempt at self-protection. There was no retraction and no apology, not even privately. (AO has emailed me since his suspension.)

    Furthermore your claim that he was banned before he could delete all his comments is false as is pointed out by Bill in the thread.

    3) AO's posting priveleges were controversially revoked, and many posters disagreed with this decision. AO was clearly incensed buy this erroneous decision, therefore, leniency should have been shown regarding banning his account, particularly, in consideration of point 2 above.
    The only thing clear about AO is that he is a troll, as unwisely confessed on his behalf by his good mate Belthasar in post 75 of the thread. As such any conclusion about AO being incensed, or indeed about meaning anything he says towards me or about me, cannot be reliably drawn. Furthermore many other posters have protested moderation decisions without breaking the site rules in the process, and finally as a poster who has frequently and deservedly been banned before he is no longer entitled to lenience.

    Good detective work! You know this full well due to an email I sent you!
    You have never emailed me.

    I believe that each case needs to be treated individually - in some cases the mods are too heavy handed (usually when they have the opportunity to ban someone that gets up their nose) - refer to the recent debacle when firegoat was banned - and in some cases the mods are too lenient, usually when it comes to other state association of ACF office bearers.
    I have an alternative hypothesis, which is that you notice when we are (in your view) harsh on someone who is up our nose and don't notice when we are lenient on them. Furthermore you notice when we are (in your view) lenient on someone who happens to be a state association or ACF office bearer and ignore it when we are harsh to them.

    I draw this conclusion because it doesn't seem to register on your little theory that we gave Matt, Cat, firegoat et al a zillion letoffs they didn't deserve each before finally pinging them (which penalties some posters then view as harsh in isolation - perhaps our fault for our lenient stance in our treatment of them up to that point). Nor does your theory seem to register that Howard Duggan was barred from entry to the Coffee Lounge, suspended for an avatar that was only ever on display for less time than the average spam, and prevented from having an avatar after that for a very long time indeed.

    Of course there is a reason why state or national office bearers are rarely a target of moderation, which is that people normally do not get to such positions without some vestige of ability to swim between the flags. As we have seen, there can be some exceptions.

    Your attack on my views on moderation is unnecessarily defensive, though I understand why you feel threatened and feel the need to do so.
    Unsubstantiated psychobabble. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 22-10-2006 at 10:02 PM.

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    we
    Who are you speaking on behalf of this time?

    Again we all know this. Let me explain again: How was the moderation judged? Who decided on the bans and how do they convince others of their merit? What criteria is uitilised to deciding the length of the ban? and, most importantly, who argued the case for the defendent as a devils advocate?
    There's no formalised process and don't expect there to ever be one. However when a mod is not sure what action is warranted in a given case they'll typically open a discussion on it with the other mods/admins until a decision is reached. Anything relevant can be taken into account in deciding the length of a ban, but all of the following are likely to be considered:

    * How severe was the offence?
    * Has this person been suspended before, or warned frequently?
    * Should the person know, one way or the other, that this sort of thing really isn't on? Many posters breach rules completely innocently; we tend to let those off and just send them a PM and/or delete the material in such cases.

    Offside. Playing the man not the ball.
    Not at all. I am trying to convince WE of the error of his views in part by pointing out that they are inconsistent with other views he has expressed. Nothing wrong with that.

    Offside again. Not interested in the justification of the reasons why, want to know the justification of how the process is fair, equitable and transparant.
    That may be what you want but I was actually replying to WE (who clearly is interested in debating the justification), so maybe you should take your own advice and stay out of what you consider to be other people's conversations!

  10. #10
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Who are you speaking on behalf of this time?
    Whom are you speaking for? This could possibly be a better way to express your poorly articulated question

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    There's no formalised process and don't expect there to ever be one.
    Are we to presume from this reply that decisions are made intuitively not rationally?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    However when a mod is not sure what action is warranted in a given case they'll typically open a discussion on it with the other mods/admins until a decision is reached.
    Why is secret "open" discussion needed? Why no have an open forum where posters can at least view accusations, if not respond?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Anything relevant can be taken into account in deciding the length of a ban, but all of the following are likely to be considered:

    * How severe was the offence?
    * Has this person been suspended before, or warned frequently?
    * Should the person know, one way or the other, that this sort of thing really isn't on? Many posters breach rules completely innocently; we tend to let those off and just send them a PM and/or delete the material in such cases.
    This all sounds quite official, but.... why does previous form matter if you have not decided whether posters are guilty or not? What are the guidelines for an offense? Do offences carry certain predetermined time bans? What do you do if the moderators are wrong? How can you be certain that your alleged interpretation of evidence is factual?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Not at all. I am trying to convince WE of the error of his views in part by pointing out that they are inconsistent with other views he has expressed. Nothing wrong with that.
    I disagree. It matters not what you think of WE's consistency. If this is so important, create a side thread, just as you suggest in your moderation guidelines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That may be what you want but I was actually replying to WE (who clearly is interested in debating the justification), so maybe you should take your own advice and stay out of what you consider to be other people's conversations!
    Lets accept two facts.

    First, you entered this thread voluntarily in response to my initial thread start and immediately took issue with WE and myself in a confrontational way.

    Second, You entered the conversation and in doing so started to assert your opinions about other posters. Hence my playing the ball comments. Something
    you speak about in your moderation guidelines. Either practice moderation standards yourself, or don't create moderation standards that are unrealistic for all of us.

    cheers Fg7

  11. #11
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Brian, I find the way you make these "sack them" calls without providing any reasoning for your calls unworthy of you. How would you like it if I publicly called for people to boycott your business giving no reason for my action?
    I find this comment really silly. The moderation guidelines clearly state.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderation guidelines as produced by Bonham
    Irrelevant insults about personal attributes are not permitted. For instance, irrelevant insults related to age, appearance, weight, gender, sexuality, personal life or lifestyle will generally not be tolerated.
    I fail to see how Brians business bears any relationship to the thread and I fail to see why Bonham finds it necessary to bring up his personal lifestyle. Whether Bonham likes Brian Jones' comments is irrelevent to the discussion and he has no real reason to morally chastise him for expressing an opinion that is within BB guidelines. Furthermore, I suggest that since Bonham is involved in the banning he should stick to the facts of the thread not discussions about his views of other peoples morality, beliefs or values.

    cheers Fg7

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Whom are you speaking for? This could possibly be a better way to express your poorly articulated question
    Which you haven't answered (not that I care). (I generally don't use "whom"; I think it's a ridiculous-looking word.)

    Are we to presume from this reply that decisions are made intuitively not rationally?
    No, you are to presume from that reply that there is not a formalised process.

    Why is secret "open" discussion needed?
    Easiest way for a small group to discuss matters.

    Why no have an open forum where posters can at least view accusations, if not respond?
    No need for it, and in many cases our discussions are sensitive, eg if the identity of the complainant is confidential. If our decisions are wrong and posters convince us of that they can be reversed as has happened sometimes in the past.

    This all sounds quite official, but.... why does previous form matter if you have not decided whether posters are guilty or not?
    I was referring to what happens where someone is guilty. We also have cases where a mod might see something and not be sure if it's an offence so then we will first have the discussion: is this person in breach of the rules, and only if they are do we move on to what to do about it.

    What are the guidelines for an offense?
    Moderation rules and decisions post, first thread. Plus our discretion as indicated in that post.

    Do offences carry certain predetermined time bans?
    No. Informally it's usual for a poster to be banned only one day the first time they are banned unless the ban is for defamation or another severe offence (eg HappyFriend's first ban was permanent). It's also usual that a poster who defies a moderation decision by continuing to repost the deleted material gets banned for a week. But there are no set penalties.

    What do you do if the moderators are wrong?
    Get over it, take it up with the site owner, continue to debate it with the moderators via email or after the suspension is served.

    How can you be certain that your alleged interpretation of evidence is factual?
    We can't but if we become convinced that we were incorrect then we can alter a decision.

    I disagree. It matters not what you think of WE's consistency. If this is so important, create a side thread, just as you suggest in your moderation guidelines.
    I think it's entirely relevant so if you want the thread split (now that would be a first!) then ask another mod.

    Lets accept two facts.

    First, you entered this thread voluntarily in response to my initial thread start and immediately took issue with WE and myself in a confrontational way.
    Irrelevant. In any case both of you had already taken issue with us in a critical fashion - in WE's case I would call it confrontational. My initial response to your comments was not confrontational.

    Second, You entered the conversation and in doing so started to assert your opinions about other posters. Hence my playing the ball comments. Something
    you speak about in your moderation guidelines.
    Where?

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    I find this comment really silly. The moderation guidelines clearly state.
    But I did not insult Brian's business, and have no reason to do so. I simply asked him how he would feel if someone called for a boycott of it without giving any reasons.

    Furthermore, I suggest that since Bonham is involved in the banning he should stick to the facts of the thread not discussions about his views of other peoples morality, beliefs or values.
    I'll discuss whatever I consider relevant. But in this case my purpose is not to discuss Brian's business, but to use it as an example to discuss my objection to his comments.

    I'd prefer to address the substance of his comment, but I can't. There isn't any.

  14. #14
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    No, you are to presume from that reply that there is not a formalised process.
    Yes I agree. Fact#1 Chesschat does not have a formalised process for dealing with bans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Easiest way for a small group to discuss matters.
    Thats not a defense for the "secrecy" of your open discussions. Its an explanation that suggests that your group believes it to be an expedient process. Surely any protaganist should be involved in the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    No need for it, and in many cases our discussions are sensitive, eg if the identity of the complainant is confidential.
    So what? Don't mention the complainants name, but there is still no reason to not include the potentially banned poster in the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If our decisions are wrong and posters convince us of that they can be reversed as has happened sometimes in the past.
    This ideology should be reversed. The poster should be allowed to defend themselves first before being banned. Then they should have a process of appeal. That would be a better form of justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

    I was referring to what happens where someone is guilty. We also have cases where a mod might see something and not be sure if it's an offence so then we will first have the discussion: is this person in breach of the rules, and only if they are do we move on to what to do about it.
    It sounds very complicated and slightly irrational without clear protacol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Moderation rules and decisions post, first thread. Plus our discretion as indicated in that post.
    Its interesting that you say this. Where exactly in the moderation would somebody who has never been banned before recognise what defamation was on chesschat? and what is the usual length of time for banning a first time offender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    But there are no set penalties.
    Yes, this is becoming abundantly clear. Maybe you might want to think about that one so that posters understand where they are situated. Maybe a FAQ might help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Get over it, take it up with the site owner, continue to debate it with the moderators via email or after the suspension is served.
    I don't quite understand what you want me to get over. Could you explain your criticisms with civilised articulation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    We can't but if we become convinced that we were incorrect then we can alter a decision.
    Could you name a clear example of the steps it took for a poster to have decision altered by the moderators in relation to a ban on chesschat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I think it's entirely relevant so if you want the thread split (now that would be a first!) then ask another mod.
    We will have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Irrelevant. In any case both of you had already taken issue with us in a critical fashion - in WE's case I would call it confrontational. My initial response to your comments was not confrontational.
    I'm sorry but who were you giving a simul to then? Maybe Brian could give you a simul he is certainly strong enough in chess terms, objectively speaking, based on rating?


    cheers fg7

  15. #15
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,489
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Thats not a defense for the "secrecy" of your open discussions.
    No, that bit was to explain why the mods/admin have open discussions between themselves rather than a series of one-to-one discussions.

    Surely any protaganist should be involved in the discussion.
    Why? This is an internet forum, not the Australian High Court. Can you show me other forums where posters up for suspension are given the opportunity to do this?

    I would also be concerned about the time component involved (giving time for the poster to defend themselves gives them more time in which they can break the rules and create work for the mods). Furthermore there are a lot of cases where we think a poster might be guilty but later decide otherwise. If we had to challenge the poster to defend their actions in all such cases then many posters would feel they were being persecuted by such constant summonses.

    This ideology should be reversed. The poster should be allowed to defend themselves first before being banned. Then they should have a process of appeal. That would be a better form of justice.
    As above. You can appeal to the site owner.

    It sounds very complicated and slightly irrational without clear protacol.
    It is far less complicated than most of your notions.

    Where exactly in the moderation would somebody who has never been banned before recognise what defamation was on chesschat?
    Defamation on chesschat is what defamation is anywhere else in Australia as best we understand it. (before the uniform laws we considered something defamatory if it was so anywhere in Australia). Although none of us are experts in defamation it is something we need to keep off the forum as best we're able, as the forum's existence has been threatened by possible legal action a few times before.

    and what is the usual length of time for banning a first time offender?
    For defamation there is no usual length. As I mentioned, the usual standard for minor offences is no ban for first offence (just a warning) but if offences persist then eventually a one-day ban is applied.

    Yes, this is becoming abundantly clear. Maybe you might want to think about that one so that posters understand where they are situated. Maybe a FAQ might help.
    I see no benefit in setting inflexible penalties for specific offences. Posters who repeatedly break the rules on a privately-owned internet forum don't deserve the luxury of knowing where they stand.

    I don't quite understand what you want me to get over.
    Could you explain your criticisms with civilised articulation?
    I was listing "get over it" as one of a series of options posters who think the mods have done them wrong could pursue.

    Could you name a clear example of the steps it took for a poster to have decision altered by the moderators in relation to a ban on chesschat?
    Certainly. At one stage I banned a poster who appeared to be a spammer. Some posters (including WE) said - I think it was in the feedback thread - that they did not think the poster was a spammer and had found the link of interest. Once I saw that and checked the link I immediately unbanned the poster.

    I'm sorry but who were you giving a simul to then?
    If "simul" was confrontational then so was your first post.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Rosario's Blog Discussion 101
    By antichrist in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 253
    Last Post: 06-09-2013, 02:02 AM
  2. Is Kevin Bonham a PMT (Power Tripping Moderator)?
    By Arrogant-One in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 21-08-2007, 03:02 PM
  3. Bill and SVA? Vote here please
    By PhilD707 in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 19-08-2006, 07:27 AM
  4. Junior performance and training
    By auriga in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 20-12-2004, 09:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •