Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos : 27-12-2006 at 06:58 PM. Reason: quoted a banned poster.

    Hilarious!!

    AR

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,617
    That's the way it is AR: no quoting of Matthew Sweeney (or any other banned poster while they are banned) is permitted on this board. If Matthew wishes to be quotable here once more, all he needs to do is agree to abide by the site rules in future.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,212
    Seems fairly straightforward to me.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That's the way it is AR: no quoting of Matthew Sweeney (or any other banned poster while they are banned) is permitted on this board. If Matthew wishes to be quotable here once more, all he needs to do is agree to abide by the site rules in future.
    Dear Kevin, How about you have a word or two with your moderator mate and see if you can't return Chess Chat to its rightful place as a forum for discussion and debate of issues to do with Australian chess? Please don't continue to defend a foolish position. We all know that pride comes before a fall. Don't get dragged down with Him. The situation has become farcical. It's the stuff of Billy McMahon. If contributors to Chess Chat can't discuss and quote from Australia's major chess magazine then the time has come for the current moderators to step down. I personally think you do a good job and I'd like to think you can rise above the BS and make a stand in the name of common sense,
    Yours Sincerely,
    Steve Kernohan

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K
    Dear Kevin,
    ...
    Yours Sincerely,
    Steve Kernohan
    Hi Steve. I think the thrust of your point is well argued (although I can't support your attack on the umpire's decision - let's forget personalities). I believe the difficulty lies with the rules themselves (the law sometimes being an ass, but it's the best we've got).

    The rules are fairly straight forward, and I believe the one Bill is applying is in place for good reason. As soon as one gets into relaxing the rules or making exceptions (and Matt's exception in this case is certainly arguable - the benefit of the open discussion you call for), it leaves the door open to the next person who wants to manipulate the precedent.

    Much better, I believe to change the rules, or just accept the occasional limitation. A bit like no video umpire for Hayden yesterday Plumb on 10 or so and went on to make a ton and them some. Getting cranky with Rudy Koertzen is mis-placed. The bloke's just doing his job. The only difference in this case is that Bill got it right!
    Last edited by Basil; 28-12-2006 at 01:06 AM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Duggan
    Hi Steve. I think the thrust of your point is well argued (although I can't support your attack on the umpire's decision - let's forget personalities). I believe the difficulty lies with the rules themselves (the law sometimes being an ass, but it's the best we've got).

    The rules are fairly straight forward, and I believe the one Bill is applying is in place for good reason. As soon as one gets into relaxing the rules or making exceptions (and Matt's exception in this case is certainly arguable - the benefit of the open discussion you call for), it leaves the door open to the next person who wants to manipulate the precedent.

    Much better, I believe to change the rules, or just accept the occasional limitation. A bit like no video umpire for Hayden yesterday Plumb on 10 or so and went on to make a ton and them some. Getting cranky with Rudy Koertzen is mis-placed. The bloke's just doing his job. The only difference in this case is that Bill got it right!
    Actually Howard, Steve doesnt know what he is talking about.

    You see, back in 2005 when Matthew was banned from here I used to quote Matthew's on his BB UCJ on here to refute his claims. Other posters complained about it on the grounds that I was essentially posting on his behalf and circumventing his ban.

    Therefore mods at that time (I wasnt one of them) decided that quoting a banned poster on here was no longer permitted and in line with the new rule I ceased quoting him.

    As such any claim that I instigated the ban on quoting banned posters just isnt supported by the facts.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 28-12-2006 at 01:11 AM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K
    If contributors to Chess Chat can't discuss and quote from Australia's major chess magazine
    Perhaps the real issue is why is "Australia's major chess magazine" publishing the thoughts on chess admin of a widely and deservedly banned foulmouthed ineffectual armchair-revolutionary pariah whose reinventions of the wheel are more or less invariably impractical and melodramatic?

    However not having seen it, I shall try not to assume it is down to Matt's usual standard until I have done so. I am sure Brian would not have published it if it was, but I expect it is still rubbish.

    The purpose of the rule in question is simple. It is to prevent banned posters from evading their bans by writing material elsewhere (such as on other forums or in emails), then having their unbanned sycophants (or in this case, a stirrer) here link or quote from it.

    If posters can continue to have material posted for them while banned then banning is not much of a deterrent to poster misbehaviour.

    If you think there's a good case for allowing quoting of material by banned posters in certain specific cases where there's a strong public interest in debating their output, feel free to suggest how it should be worded. If someone (including possibly me) can come up with some way of codifying such exceptions I may very well support it.

    However Bill was acting completely correctly in applying the rules as they stand.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 28-12-2006 at 12:58 AM.

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    The purpose of the rule in question is simple. It is to prevent banned posters from evading their bans by writing material elsewhere (such as on other forums or in emails), then having their unbanned sycophants (or in this case, a stirrer) here link or quote from it.
    Hmm, I wonder which category I fell into when I used to quote his posts from UCJ. Perhaps a third category, of refuting his rubbish.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,617
    It always surprised me that some of those complaining about post-dragging pretended that quoting a banned poster to criticise them was the same thing as wilfully helping them to escape a ban.

    Yes, discouraging cross-forum dragging, which many posters objected to with varying degrees of coherence, was another part of the reason for the rule.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    15,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Actually Howard, Steve doesnt know what he is talking about.

    You see, back in 2005 when Matthew was banned from here I used to quote Matthew's on his BB UCJ on here to refute his claims. Other posters complained about it on the grounds that I was essentially posting on his behalf and circumventing his ban.

    Therefore mods at that time (I wasnt one of them) decided that quoting a banned poster on here was no longer permitted and in line with the new rule I ceased quoting him.

    As such any claim that I instigated the ban on quoting banned posters just isnt supported by the facts.
    Well why didn't you appreciate my re-posting your replies to UCJ, you were dragging his over here so why could not I drag yours over there. The decision was taken on those grounds but that was only an excuse.

    The reason we had to come up with an excuse because you were driving us all mad and we were sick of hiding you from the funny farm collectors. As well Mrs Gletsos was complaining that you would not eat your meals, visit the toilet or anything else, even sleep - you were on purple hearts or something - all so that you could instantaneously shove every word back down Matt's throat.

    He had you punch drunk.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    15,630
    Hi Matt, I reakon that you are the guest watchng. Eat your heart our. I will take care of Gleso don't you worry. I won't let him come to any harm.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    15,630
    As I said in the shoutbox, Matt reminded me at a comp that years ago I wiped him out in a comp game, if this is the case well they he should not be writing in a chess magazine. But I do consider myself best of the patzers.

  13. #13
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Perhaps the real issue is why is "Australia's major chess magazine" publishing the thoughts on chess admin of a widely and deservedly banned foulmouthed ineffectual armchair-revolutionary pariah whose reinventions of the wheel are more or less invariably impractical and melodramatic?
    Is it really the real issue Kevy Wevy...well is it? Let us examine your claim.

    Fact or Fiction Time

    1. Matt is foul mouthed. I have yet to see Mr Sweeney ever be charged in a court of law for verbal abuse. I am unaware as to whether he brushes his teeth or not. Having not played him over the board I simply cannot draw any definition conclusion about whether his breath stinks of a foul odor.

    What is clear is that his use of language is different from yours. If you find it annoying the problem may reside with you (hint). See I suspect that Matt has grown up in a culture where this sort of language is common place. I know with certainty that basically their are class differences in the way people express themselves. No court in the land would convict Matt for the way he expresses himself (nobody with any brains would even attempt to charge him). You should grow up and accept that with the digital age comes the recognition that class differences are a lot more in the face then they used to be. You ought to reflect and recognise that the way you express yourself is just as offensive to people like Matt and myself, especially the way you name people without bothering to reflectively understand why you find it necessary to do so.

    Verdict:Fiction

    2.deservedly banned
    There have been no elections by people within the chess community over the moderating standards within this site. As such, as a public chess space, any attempt to claim moral authority over the masses is based on undemocratic decision making. We (the masses) should have a say in who moderates this site. Moderators are human beings with their own personal biases and bents (see yourself) . Therefore, because there has been no attempt to set up a democratic process for these bans, I find them invalid. At the moment the big stick approach is not working because the people who weild the sticks are making the laws on an ad hoc basis without any community involvement. The laws on this board are not a general consensus designed to run things democratically and smoothly. They are totalitarian nonsense produced by power obsessed wannabes.

    Matt may have deserevd a ban under your rules. But your rules are untenable because they are undemocratic. they have no process of appeal and are often based on personal biases (this has been demonstrated on numerous occasions)
    Verdict: Fiction

    3. ineffectual armchair-revolutionary A really ridiculous claim. Matt is actively involved in the local Woolongong chess scene. He has also managed to start two BB in competition to chesschat. He has also helped out at the Doeberl cup and ACF meetings. To suggest that he is not hands on is just stupid. Granted he has had his failures, but so what. At least he trys to do some things and sometimes they work. Much better then doing nothing like mostr chessplayers. He has also written for Australian chess forum. Maybe that is where the problem is. Maybe you can't accept that people actually want to listen to what he has to say. Maybe your jealous because he has more interesting things to say then you.

    Verdict: Fiction

    Conclusion:

    Your authority is based on fiction Bonbot. Nobody should believe you because you are not accountable to anybody except yourself. Validate the problem by resigning and calling for democratic elections to all Chesschat moderation positions. Establish a charter for behaviour that is based on systematic democratic sense instead of ad hoc authoritarianism.

    cheers Fg7

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,313

    on posters

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It always surprised me ...
    I took the trouble and checked some postings of the banned person in discussion. I just could not continue reading that insurmountable load of scatological profanities... No reason to stand up for people like that in the name of any kind of democratic principles.
    By the way throughout the Christmas period, Christians on this board had to go through another series of delirious wanton attacks by a certain poster.
    I wonder what the reaction would have been if some similar attacks were directed against our Jewish or Muslim friends?
    I would love to believe (please feel free to correct me If I am wrong) that the non existant reaction to those attacks on behalf of the moderators is based upon the Christian values of understanding and forgiveness and not upon some sort of a hard boiled exhibition of selective apathy.
    Cheers and good luck!
    which dad is your mum?

    Zero trollerance!


    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  15. #15
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    a widely and deservedly banned foulmouthed ineffectual armchair-revolutionary pariah whose reinventions of the wheel are more or less invariably impractical and melodramatic? .
    Dear Sir,

    I beg to differ with your description of Matt Sweeney.

    His contribution to chess in this country is substantial.

    Maybe you are confused by his earlier Bulletin Board personality.

    Yours faithfully,

    B A Jones
    Member 06223, NSW Chess Association

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The culture of selection
    By firegoat7 in forum Australian Chess Championships 2006
    Replies: 339
    Last Post: 19-01-2006, 05:18 PM
  2. 2006 Myer Tan Australian Chess Grand Prix
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-12-2005, 02:01 PM
  3. Xstrata Australian Chess Championships 2006
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-11-2005, 07:01 AM
  4. Chess article in Inside Sport!
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2005, 05:01 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
  •