Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437

    ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    ursogr8 suspended from the Coffee Lounge for quoting from the Coffee Lounge without permission. While it was only two words (being the title of a thread) he was clearly aware that he may be in breach of site rules in so doing, and has only just recovered access to the site after a suspension so doesn't seem to have learnt too much from it.
    Good morning Kevin,

    Its now 1 month since this suspension was applied. I have a couple of questions about it:

    -- is it a permanent suspension, such as "life without possibility of parole"?

    -- is it a life sentence, with possible parole conditions?
    ---- what would such conditions be?; and
    ---- when will parole be considered?

    -- is it a fixed term?
    ---- what is the term?; and
    ---- is there any time off for good behaviour?

    I note a propensity for martyrdom (of the online kind) amongst some former participants here. I would be disappointed if ursogr8 ended up being driven in that direction.
    Last edited by Spiny Norman; 21-11-2007 at 02:26 PM.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  2. #2
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,487
    The term of the suspension is indefinite but not necessarily permanent. However, as I see it there is no reason why ursogr8's Coffee Lounge access should be restored anytime especially soon - not on account of the offence (which was minor, although he now does have quite a long charge sheet) but I simply don't see any reason why he should be in there.

    He hasn't posted for over a year and four months. He isn't actively part of the site community (at least not publicly) and his comments about it elsewhere are in large part hostile, frequently unfactual and teeming with misrepresentations. The Coffee Lounge is meant to be a bonus area for regulars but ursogr8 is not a typical regular on the site anymore but more of an ex-regular. Furthermore he has a serial problem with confidentiality, having not only quoted from the Coffee Lounge but also having republished text from PMs and letters not intended for the general chess public's consumption without permission.

    The only reason I recall that he's given me as to why he should be let in was because naughty people might say nasty things about stuff of interest to him in there (like that the CV bid for the Australian Championships wasn't very good, oooh errr), and he might miss it. Perhaps he should also put in an application to ASIO for permission to tap phones at ACF Council hookups while he's at it?

    If ursogr8 would like to make me an offer for conditions under which he would be promptly readmitted to the Coffee Lounge then I will consider it. (NB posting on other forums will not be considered to be an offer). Of course I do not have the final say, it is a group decision. I would look on his case more sympathetically if he was actually a poster here rather than a somewhat erratically behaved lurker, or if he agreed to cease discussing the contents of the Lounge elsewhere at all given his incredible ability to get it wrong.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 21-11-2007 at 05:48 PM.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    I think you know that I'm somewhat sympathetic to various points you mention. However I really don't agree with the idea that someone's recent posting frequency should be a factor when determining a punishment. I'm appealing here to a sense of natural justice. Respectfully, when you note that access is not likely to be restored soon because:

    ... not on account of the offence (which was minor, although he now does have quite a long charge sheet) but I simply don't see any reason why he should be in there
    I just don't buy that as a valid reason. You (and others) know full well the reasons that he doesn't post here. But he is entitled, on the basis of having made >200 posts, to read and post if he so wishes. If he chooses not to post, that is no reason to also prevent reading. There's nothing in the board rules AFAIK that says that someone who chooses not to post can be prevented from reading.

    If you want to made a decision, publicly, on the basis of his actions, then do so (and I will support that). But just don't do it on the basis of non-actions (like "not posting").
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,544
    He makes no actual contribution to this site whatsoever and is only using it for its PM facilities. On top of that he seems more than happy to misrepresent and obfuscate about here elsewhere (previously in the defunt telephone box and recently in the toolbox).

    As such his only reason for access to the CL would be to continue his obfuscation and misrepresentation.

    Therefore as far as I am concerned his loss of CL rights is entirely reasonable

    In fact he should consider himself lucky that no further action has been taken against him with regards the site rule:
    The moderators/admins reserve the right to take any action they deem appropriate against members who make demonstrably false or misleading claims about this site or its administration/moderation on other sites. We recommend that members having issues with administration/moderation pursue those issues on this site.
    Last edited by Bill Gletsos; 22-11-2007 at 07:29 AM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    He makes no actual contribution to this site whatsoever and is only using it for its PM facilities.
    Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.

    If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?

    I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.

    So I'm requesting that the smokescreen be removed and the issue dealt with properly and publicly.

    Kevin is not enforcing the ongoing punishment on the basis of any documented false or misleading claims ... its being enforced on the basis of Kevin's value judgement that he "sees no reason why he should be in there [the Coffee Lounge]".

    I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  6. #6
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.

    If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?
    No, because they would not have breached the site rules relating to confidentiality repeatedly, nor would they be engaged in misrepresentation and denigration of the site elsewhere.

    Given ursogr8's repeated breaches of confidentiality-type rules on this site, what guarantee do we have that if he is readmitted he will not continue to breach such rules?

    If we were to readmit him would you agree that any further instance of quoting from the Coffee Lounge (even if only a few words) would justify him being permanently banned from it?

    I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.
    If I want a mindreader I sure won't be hiring you.

    As if I could care less (or ever cared) about things ursogr8 posted on this board when the last such example of the generally harmless waffle he used to generate here was sometime before the evolution of the dinosaurs.

    I am of the view that ursogr8 should show cause why he should be readmitted to the Coffee Lounge - either via an agreement or by ceasing to make misleading comments about it - and has not yet done so. Given that he now and then buzzes us with PMs about the most trivial things I am sure there would be something in my inbox (either here or in the other place) if the issue was of any greater moment to him than a pretext for increasing his postcount elsewhere with another silly metric.

    I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.
    What your simplistic conceptions of the defunct concept of objective morality consider defensible doesn't concern me. I'm more concerned with whether he deserves to be there and whether he can be trusted not to reoffend. Two things that of course have nothing to do with morality or ethics whatsoever.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 22-11-2007 at 09:40 AM.

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,487
    By the way, I see that Arrogant-One is, on a thread supposedly devoted to whinging about alleged bullying on this site, genuinely attempting to bully me by making threats concerning hacking the access to the Coffee Lounge.

    The cognitive dissonance is amazing even by his extremely dissonant standards.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Given ursogr8's repeated breaches of confidentiality-type rules on this site, what guarantee do we have that if he is readmitted he will not continue to breach such rules?
    None, of course. You also have no guarantee that I, or anyone else, will not breach site rules. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I inadvertantly breached site rules myself. Bill was kind enough to draw it to my attention, and I corrected it immediately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If we were to readmit him would you agree that any further instance of quoting from the Coffee Lounge (even if only a few words) would justify him being permanently banned from it?
    That's completely up to you. As long as the conditions are clear, then its up to ursogr8 to decide whether he's prepared to accept the conditions or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If I want a mindreader I sure won't be hiring you.
    You'll find that I was responding to Bill's comments ... he's welcome to reject my mindreading prognostications himself if I've got it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I am of the view that ursogr8 should show cause why he should be readmitted to the Coffee Lounge, and has not yet done so.
    Well I can at least be pleased that my enquiries have elicited this useful piece of information. He'll be reading this post in due course and can, if he wishes, make representations to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Given that he frequently buzzes us with PMs about the most trivial things I am sure there would be something in my inbox (either here or in the other place) if the issue was of such great moment to him.
    Perhaps now, that the conditions are known, a PM or post will be forthcoming. We shall see ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    What your simplistic conceptions of the defunct concept of objective morality consider defensible doesn't concern me.
    That much, at least, is crystal clear ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I'm more concerned with whether he deserves to be there and whether he can be trusted not to reoffend.
    That's reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Two things that of course have nothing to do with morality or ethics whatsoever.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,232
    Stephen, I do hear what you are saying and it is certainly arguable and reasonable IMO.

    If the decision were mine (and it's clearly not), I would:
    1. Maintain the embargo on the grounds that the board is private and that URSOGR8's access to the CL is detrimental to the users of this board, and or
    2. Access to the CL is a stated privilege (not a right), and although a minimum criterion for access is 200 posts, it is not the sole criterion.

    If it is a precedent which you seek, I refer to my own case where I was denied access to the CL well after reaching 200 posts.

    1. I recall specifically asking Barry for a time-frame for readmittance. It wasn't given.
    2. My 'crime' was
    - minor
    - an isolated incident
    - one for which I showed immediate remorse
    - one where there was no known damage to person or reputation, but simply that the possibility existed

    URSOGR8's behaviour does not fit any of these categories.

    Again, and with the Sweeney case, while I champion the call for transparency, I also champion the cause of miscrients to accept some bloody responsibility for the actions and not to slip and slide between bleeding heart, crying foul and wedge politics.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    That's completely up to you. As long as the conditions are clear, then its up to ursogr8 to decide whether he's prepared to accept the conditions or not.
    I'm sure the conditions of any agreement to readmit him that was made would be clear enough. However there's no point talking about them unless he shows an interest in negotiating them.

    You'll find that I was responding to Bill's comments ... he's welcome to reject my mindreading prognostications himself if I've got it wrong.
    If you mean Bill you should say Bill. If you say "the mods" I will assume you at least mean both of us and possibly others as well.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If you mean Bill you should say Bill. If you say "the mods" I will assume you at least mean both of us and possibly others as well.
    Upon reflection, you're quite right. You were well within your rights to comment. I did say "... the mods ...". If we were in court I'm sure the judge would overrule my objection with a "Well, you opened the door counsellor".
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Gunner, I'm pursuing clarity (about the issue) and transparency (of decision-making). So far, so good, the mists are clearing.

    On the other side of the equation, I heartily agree that acceptance of responsibility for one's actions is desirable (though of course, that's just my simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality in action).

    This particular offence strikes me as a fragment of a straw that may have broken the proverbial camel's back.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.
    You are entitled to your POV. I do not however agree with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?
    Quite possibly if they also repeatedly misrepresented things elsewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.

    So I'm requesting that the smokescreen be removed and the issue dealt with properly and publicly.
    No smokescreen at all.
    He broke the site rules when he quoted from the CL.
    On top of that he has broken the rules by repeatedly misrepresenting it elsewhere.
    All his access here could have been removed for his continual misrepresentation, however the only action taken so far was the indefinite removal of his CL access.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Kevin is not enforcing the ongoing punishment on the basis of any documented false or misleading claims ... its being enforced on the basis of Kevin's value judgement that he "sees no reason why he should be in there [the Coffee Lounge]".
    I wasnt speaking for Kevin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.
    There is no higher ground when you are already at the summit, unless of course you think I should be reaching for 'heaven'.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    He broke the site rules when he quoted from the CL.
    Am I permitted to mention the precise nature of this infraction?

    My problem is that, in doing so, I am also going to be quoting two words from the Coffee Lounge. Having recently received a warning for quoting inadvertantly, I'm not of a mind to confuse the issue by committing the same offence. The justice (or otherwise) of this particular penalty cannot be seen by many others (those who do not have access to the Coffee Loung) and therefore cannot be seen to be a just penalty (or otherwise) unless its talked about openly in the public arena.

    There is no higher ground when you are already at the summit ...
    Careful ... one man's summit is another man's simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality ...
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  15. #15
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Am I permitted to mention the precise nature of this infraction?

    My problem is that, in doing so, I am also going to be quoting two words from the Coffee Lounge.
    Then you cannot do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Having recently received a warning for quoting inadvertantly, I'm not of a mind to confuse the issue by committing the same offence. The justice (or otherwise) of this particular penalty cannot be seen by many others (those who do not have access to the Coffee Loung) and therefore cannot be seen to be a just penalty (or otherwise) unless its talked about openly in the public arena.
    The exact words he quoted are immaterial.
    Why he lost access to the CL is stated in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=132
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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