PDA

View Full Version : Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PHAT
20-06-2004, 10:17 PM
That would make people think that ACF is running this BB.

Well, MATE, the licksplittles you have moderating this BB are all affiliated by proxy to the ACF. So, I guess it is a de facto ACF BB.

skip to my lou
20-06-2004, 10:20 PM
If you haven't realised, ACF has ABANDONED this BB. And yes, there will be a new set of rules which the admins and moderators will create together. This basically means you can forget your current way of posting. Better hide the screen from the kids. Wouldn't want them to see the previous few messages eh?

ursogr8
21-07-2004, 08:28 AM
.

hi J/K

I wish to report a serious problem.
Matthew's post count was 1952 yesterday, and is 1949 today.
How can this be? :eh:
Accuracy and reliability of these figures is paramount.
There are people out here betting on this data, mate. :uhoh:

starter

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 09:36 AM
hi J/K

I wish to report a serious problem.
Matthew's post count was 1952 yesterday, and is 1949 today.
How can this be? :eh:
Accuracy and reliability of these figures is paramount.
There are people out here betting on this data, mate. :uhoh:

starter
during kevins moving of the matt v bill olympiad selection garbage to the non chess section, he deleted a few posts, so i would guess 3 of them were Matts.

skip to my lou
21-07-2004, 09:40 AM
I was just about to say that. :classic:

ursogr8
21-07-2004, 12:02 PM
during kevins moving of the matt v bill olympiad selection garbage to the non chess section, he deleted a few posts, so i would guess 3 of them were Matts.

KB
Can this allegation be true? Are you removing garbage that smells a bit? But leaving garbage than has no intrinsic value except that it pushes up the post-count by +1?
starter

Bill Gletsos
21-07-2004, 01:02 PM
during kevins moving of the matt v bill olympiad selection garbage to the non chess section, he deleted a few posts, so i would guess 3 of them were Matts.
Are you certain he deleted 3 of Matt's post or just speculating ( ;) ) due to the difference in post count.
The reason I ask is that he moved 3 of Matt's posts from the Olympiad thread to the non chess section.

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 01:06 PM
Are you certain he deleted 3 of Matt's post or just speculating ( ;) ) due to the difference in post count.
The reason I ask is that he moved 3 of Matt's posts from the Olympiad thread to the non chess section.
ABSOLUTE SPECULATION :lol:

ursogr8
21-07-2004, 01:37 PM
Are you certain he deleted 3 of Matt's post or just speculating ( ;) ) due to the difference in post count.
The reason I ask is that he moved 3 of Matt's posts from the Olympiad thread to the non chess section.

Thanks Bill for bringing a bit of sanity here. :clap:
Moderators are not what they used to be.
In view of the new policy to move Matt's posts because they are classed as clutter (rather than what the speculator thought was unclean), can we hope for even-handedness here and see the moderators move other posters clutter from the chess threads. I can give hints.

starter

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 07:03 PM
An off-topic exchange involving several posters was moved. No posts were deleted but several were edited, some heavily.

arosar
21-07-2004, 07:54 PM
We should just set thresholds so that once the 'off-topic exchange' gets past 'n' number of posts - then you move them. Sometimes, it's pointless creating a whole new thread when it could only be 1 or 2 posts; or it could just be a temporary detour and not intended at all to generate any lengthy discussion.

AR

ursogr8
21-07-2004, 08:47 PM
An off-topic exchange involving several posters was moved. No posts were deleted but several were edited, some heavily.

Nicely phrased statement Kevin.
Could you be equally as eloquent addressing the question I raised in post #138.

starter

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 10:18 PM
Could you be equally as eloquent addressing the question I raised in post #138.

If people want a series of posts moved that they feel has gone off-topic, they should click the report post button on the first post that was completely off topic, and say something like "please move the off-topic exchange starting with this post". This action should be reserved for cases where off-topic excursions are especially severe or prolonged. Only one post report should be made per exchange. Thread may be locked while the matter is investigated.

There is no policy to move any specific poster's posts, although AR may have earned a bit of special treatment with his recent displays of laziness. Rather this was a situation where a whole bunch of posters had become embroiled in an off-topic exchange. In this case it was arguably Matt's fault that it ended up there but the action was not directed at him.

PHAT
21-07-2004, 11:59 PM
In this case it was arguably Matt's fault that it ended up there but the action was not directed at him.

MY FAULT ? FMD! It takes two to tango.

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2004, 06:56 PM
MY FAULT ? FMD! It takes two to tango.

I did say "arguably". While there was a fair amount of to-and-fro as usually occurs in a debate between you and Bill, it had maintained at least some on-topic content until you made it otherwise.

PHAT
22-07-2004, 07:47 PM
Why did you edit my post #143 to delete my reference to you brown nosing BG? You are showing signs again of being a thin skinned private school mummy's boy.

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2004, 10:07 PM
Why did you edit my post #143 to delete my reference to you brown nosing BG?

Vulgarity. I don't remember the exact comment but there was a typically crude Sweeney anatomical reference, heavily disguised with one of the more overdone deliberate misspellings I have seen here.


You are showing signs again of being a thin skinned private school mummy's boy.

The only one with a thin skin here is you - witness your numerous hissy fits and your petulant threat to leave over nothing. Get over yourself - the world will not end if you are not allowed to be pointlessly crude on a chess bulletin board.

Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

Alan Shore
18-11-2004, 09:56 PM
I can't seem to locate a list of forum rules, can someone provide a link?

Garvinator
19-11-2004, 02:42 AM
I can't seem to locate a list of forum rules, can someone provide a link?

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Chess Chat Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Chess Chat Forum, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Chess Chat Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Alan Shore
19-11-2004, 03:05 PM
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

And yet, the mods don't seem to adhere to these standards at all :hand:

Cat
12-12-2004, 11:20 PM
What the hell's going on, Bruce says he'll meet me at the GG Chess centre and you close the thread already? What the hell did Bruce say to deserve that?

skip to my lou
12-12-2004, 11:35 PM
Which thread is this?

Garvinator
12-12-2004, 11:39 PM
Which thread is this?
the hospitality textiles schools thread was split because it was starting on a big ratings debate, so Jenni moved it to the ratings arena after I asked for a thread split. Bruce just happened to be the last poster.

ursogr8
14-12-2004, 12:14 PM
the hospitality textiles schools thread was split because it was starting on a big ratings debate, so Jenni moved it to the ratings arena after I asked for a thread split. Bruce just happened to be the last poster.

Is it just me gg'', or is thread drift morphing to now become thread re-location? :confused:

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 09:23 PM
Correction:

15 Accounts...GONE ;)

Thanks Mr K. sir

I will update my metics.
You are in total control.
So, when you can spare a moment, could you just let us know who was the 15th to be discombobulated. The community out here have become a bit attached to some members and it would be nice if we could wish them
> bon voyage, or
> other
as the case may be.


yours


starter

Rincewind
20-12-2004, 09:34 PM
The community out here have become a bit attached to some members and it would be nice if we could wish them
> bon voyage, or
> other
as the case may be.

We marched to the station in the rain
We kissed him as got onto the train
We sang him a song of times long gone
Oh, we knew that we'd be seeing him again.

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 09:49 PM
We marched to the station in the rain
We kissed him as got onto the train
We sang him a song of times long gone
Oh, we knew that we'd be seeing him again.

Baz
Incidentally, is there a thread somewhere that has all the answers to these puzzles you set? Like a thread called "THE BACK OF THE BOOK thread"?

Now, as to the puzzle...I do presume it is a true puzzle, not just doggerel?
Not CHESSLOVER because we have not seen him once, let alone again.
And not Matt, because you say "we" and he has had few supporters.
Not the GURU, because K. has got a filter on the addresses.

I guess the key clue is 'kiss'. :hmm: Now which poster would we 'kiss'. Gee, that narrowed it down quickly. :eek:
But, I promised not to give away his secret. :uhoh:

starter

Spiny Norman
20-12-2004, 10:01 PM
BEST POST thread...GONE

Is it 'gone' now? I noticed yesterday it had been locked. What's the story there??? :hmm:

Rincewind
20-12-2004, 10:23 PM
Now, as to the puzzle...I do presume it is a true puzzle, not just doggerel?
Not CHESSLOVER because we have not seen him once, let alone again.
And not Matt, because you say "we" and he has had few supporters.
Not the GURU, because K. has got a filter on the addresses.

Just a great song about absent friends.

skip to my lou
21-12-2004, 05:20 AM
Thanks Mr K. sir

I will update my metics.
You are in total control.
So, when you can spare a moment, could you just let us know who was the 15th to be discombobulated. The community out here have become a bit attached to some members and it would be nice if we could wish them
> bon voyage, or
> other
as the case may be.


yours


starter

Sure. The 15th is to be a member called 'starter' if he doesn't stop being so annoying.

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 07:11 AM
Sure. The 15th is to be a member called 'starter' if he doesn't stop being so annoying.

That is ever so unlikely. ;)

Cat
22-12-2004, 09:13 PM
What exactly was Matt banned for this time, Skip?

Alan Shore
23-12-2004, 12:03 AM
What exactly was Matt banned for this time, Skip?

Isn't it obvious? He doesn't like him!

Trent Parker
23-12-2004, 12:17 AM
see KB's comment in shoutbox.

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 12:26 AM
Isn't it obvious? He doesn't like him!
What is more likely is that Matt doesnt know when to keep his mouth shut.
On top of that there was no apology whatsoever by Matt for his behaviour and his unnecessary crude language whilst posting drunk.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2004, 12:34 AM
As with many self-styled internet bad-boys, Matt has always had more pride than sense. Put him in a room with John Howard and see which one learns the word "sorry" first.

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 08:38 AM
On another board that I frequent where I am a moderator I have recently had a situation where one of the posters has twice posted comments along the line of:

"I'd prefer to pay someone $50 to bash them"

Since many participants of that board (and probably the staff working for the company involved) would find such physical threats intimidating I've taken the following steps:

1st offence: Deleted the offending words

2nd offence: Deleted the offending words, notified the poster both publicly and via PM of my actions and the reason for deletion, requested that he refrain in the future, notified the company to make a note on his CRM file

If there is a 3rd offence I will ban him (probably for 7 days, possibly permanently, depending on the level of the offence) and will recommend to the company that they consider taking their own action (whatever that might be).

I believe that if the offence is in private, the response should be in private. If the offence is in the public arena, the response and/or the apology from the offender needs to be also in public. So I think it should be appropriate for there to be a notification posted so that innuendos and misunderstandings are avoided.

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 09:43 AM
On the issue you raise frosty, that post you cited could actually be used in legal proceedings as intent of a crime. I would suggest that the admins of that bb delete the post and keep a record of it just in case.

Alan Shore
23-12-2004, 01:33 PM
On the issue you raise frosty, that post you cited could actually be used in legal proceedings as intent of a crime. I would suggest that the admins of that bb delete the post and keep a record of it just in case.

Intent is a load of crap.. it cannot be proven. The law should make people responsible for their actions, not their mere intentions.

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 04:35 PM
Intent is a load of crap.. it cannot be proven. The law should make people responsible for their actions, not their mere intentions.
you missed the point bruce, it could be used with all the other 'evidence' to prove that the said persons actions were thought through and not just reactionatory or emotional.

arosar
23-12-2004, 04:44 PM
You mean premeditated.

AR

arosar
18-02-2005, 05:43 AM
What is a post with a bump?

AR

Alan Shore
18-02-2005, 06:18 AM
What is a post with a bump?

AR

It's to bring a topic back to the top of the forum by posting.. if that's the sole reason and there's nothing more to add specifically with another post the terminology is 'Bump' (bumping the thread back to the top).

Trent Parker
18-02-2005, 11:16 AM
What you posted is a bump, and you have been doing it a lot lately.. so stop wasting server resources.


Hey STML Do you think that my thread on "should starter keep his CI in his own thread" is a waste of server resources?

:) :hmm:

Garvinator
18-02-2005, 01:35 PM
It's to bring a topic back to the top of the forum by posting.. if that's the sole reason and there's nothing more to add specifically with another post the terminology is 'Bump' (bumping the thread back to the top).
bumping is also done to get someone's attention to a question previously asked that wasnt answered or has gotten lost in all the postings, especially when it is clear that the respondant to the question/post has been posting on the same thread ;)

arosar
18-02-2005, 01:41 PM
Bumping. Well, you learn something everyday. Anyway, just bought Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point. I should learn something I hope.

Now, what was I here for? Oh yeah ....Mr STML, the pgn download doesn't work.

AR

Cat
20-02-2005, 10:27 PM
Oh come on Skip, why's The Antichrist been banned?

skip to my lou
20-02-2005, 10:29 PM
Oh come on Skip, why's The Antichrist been banned?

It's a temporary ban, not long either. He's been banned because he kept reposting what was being deleted. If any moderators can be bothered to stay up and moderate they can unban him.

JGB
20-02-2005, 11:11 PM
It's a temporary ban, not long either. He's been banned because he kept reposting what was being deleted. If any moderators can be bothered to stay up and moderate they can unban him.

Im not babysitting Antichrist, sorry.

antichrist
06-03-2005, 11:20 AM
Barry,
there should be consistency in moderating. The thread "Denovo Meme - What a hypocrite " is combo chow mein yet nothing is said, my post in this thread re god is to an extent relevant.

All the mods and admin should get togeather and work out a policy and stick to it. Otherwise favouritism and discrimination take place. At least Jenni tries to be fair.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 11:52 AM
there should be consistency in moderating. The thread "Denovo Meme - What a hypocrite " is combo chow mein yet nothing is said, my post in this thread re god is to an extent relevant.

All the mods and admin should get togeather and work out a policy and stick to it. Otherwise favouritism and discrimination take place. At least Jenni tries to be fair.

Do you have to try to be this clueless or is it a natural gift of yours?

Here is a hint: Mull over the words "unmoderated forum" for a few minutes and then tell me if you can answer your own question above.

antichrist
06-03-2005, 12:33 PM
I considered unmoderated in other manners, this means that there is anarchy out there

antichrist
06-03-2005, 05:15 PM
Barry
I think my posts 4 had 5 had some relevancy in that Peter and Dave thread. Maybe the second sentence in post 5 was banter but it referred to discussion taking place re relevancy. Surely not worth a warning now that I now that Coffee Lounge also means unmod re relevancy. that is a diff kind of unmod which I did not expect

Barry
You should at least be respectful to posters instead of putting on a rude thread title such as Peter and Dave show, as well there was already a relevant thread Does God Exist. Change it.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 08:45 PM
You should at least be respectful to posters instead of putting on a rude thread title such as Peter and Dave show, as well there was already a relevant thread Does God Exist. Change it.

It's a pity you did not recognise that a more relevant thread existed at the time of posting. I thought the title had quite a ring to it. Perhaps you two could pitch a show to Aunty. You could be the next Roy and H.G.

antichrist
06-03-2005, 09:40 PM
It's a pity you did not recognise that a more relevant thread existed at the time of posting. I thought the title had quite a ring to it. Perhaps you two could pitch a show to Aunty. You could be the next Roy and H.G.

What I meant by a more relevant thread is Does God Exist is more relevant than Dave & Pete..., which is just showing childness on your part.

My post had a degree of relevancy. if the other posters complained about the irelevancy then maybe there was a case. There are two famous books written about the clash of religion and science so they do meet and collide which was what I was doing. There is even a church called something like: "Jesus Christ church of science", which is a creationist outfit.

As this is definitely a gray area you can't be arbitrary clear cut, and definitely not in a rude manner. If you can't responsisbly carry out your duties then reconsider your positon.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 09:49 PM
What I meant by a more relevant thread is Does God Exist is more relevant than Dave & Pete..., which is just showing childness on your part.

Sorry but the usual suspects, the same MO I'm starting to see a trend theat extends over the whole board. Off topic posts by you, sensless humourless responses to serious questions by Dave.


My post had a degree of relevancy. if the other posters complained about the irelevancy then maybe there was a case. There are two famous books written about the clash of religion and science so they do meet and collide which was what I was doing. There is even a church called something like: "Jesus Christ church of science", which is a creationist outfit.

The thread is called teach me evolution. It is not a religion vs evolution debate thread.


As this is definitely a gray area you can't be arbitrary clear cut, and definitely not in a rude manner. If you can't responsisbly carry out your duties then reconsider your positon.

OK. Since I should not have inclued your names in the thread title, I repent and have updated the thread title. Will you try to chose an approriate thread for all your posts in the future?

antichrist
06-03-2005, 09:55 PM
The new title is not much better. As those arguments are already in other threads it would be better if the whole thread were deleted.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 10:01 PM
The new title is not much better. As those arguments are already in other threads it would be better if the whole thread were deleted.

OK, your wish is my command. But that is your third wishes. I'm now disappearing back in the bottle/lamp from whence I came. Good night. :beard:

skip to my lou
06-03-2005, 10:20 PM
whence

I did not know such a word existed :)

Cat
06-03-2005, 10:29 PM
What I meant by a more relevant thread is Does God Exist is more relevant than Dave & Pete..., which is just showing childness on your part.

My post had a degree of relevancy. if the other posters complained about the irelevancy then maybe there was a case. There are two famous books written about the clash of religion and science so they do meet and collide which was what I was doing. There is even a church called something like: "Jesus Christ church of science", which is a creationist outfit.

As this is definitely a gray area you can't be arbitrary clear cut, and definitely not in a rude manner. If you can't responsisbly carry out your duties then reconsider your positon.


A/c, I think you'll get back on the evolution thread as long as you don't mention the G-O-D word. I did once, but I think I got away with it!

antichrist
06-03-2005, 10:48 PM
A/c, I think you'll get back on the evolution thread as long as you don't mention the G-O-D word. I did once, but I think I got away with it!

David
I have replied in a new thread in non-chess titled Humour, so as not to upset mods.

Spiny Norman
07-03-2005, 05:20 PM
I did not know such a word existed :)


Its only ever used by us intilektuall types. ;)

antichrist
08-03-2005, 08:04 AM
JGB
concerning removing "another debating thread" to coffee shop section, my usual opinion on this type of slinging match is to delete the whole thread as there is nothing redeeming about it. But I think the atmosphere in this one is electric and has entertainment value. It also is a good intro to BB personalities and tactics of the BB including those of mods. Maybe it can be returned to Non chess thread under a more suitable and interesting title, something like "Escalating Mayhem". I am only referring to the first two pages. I should have thrown a few more punches myself - more climaxes, then it would have been a masterpiece. Wouldn't you agree Bill?

Rincewind
08-03-2005, 10:57 PM
I did not know such a word existed :)

It's a perfectly cromulent word. :D

skip to my lou
08-03-2005, 11:05 PM
cromulent

:doh:

antichrist
11-03-2005, 09:06 PM
MOd, I have put a post in coffee lounge in approp thread, check out if okay.

antichrist
12-03-2005, 07:56 AM
Can another debating thread be re-titled "Escalating Mayhem" please?

Rincewind
12-03-2005, 09:01 AM
Can another debating thread be re-titled "Escalating Mayhem" please?

I'd rather see it be called "Let sleeping dogs lie". There has not been a post in that thread for a week. I think most posters have wised up and decided to not responded to your trolling posts.

antichrist
12-03-2005, 09:44 AM
I'd rather see it be called "Let sleeping dogs lie". There has not been a post in that thread for a week. I think most posters have wised up and decided to not responded to your trolling posts.

But this thread is still listed so having an approp name is better. as already stated I think this thread does have some redeeming qualities in that it is a good snapshot of BB personalities and tactics. I will rev it up again don't worry

antichrist
15-03-2005, 08:00 AM
Do you want to move STrip chess poll to Coffee lounge please yourself, I had included "warning adults only " etc but was shortened.

antichrist
23-03-2005, 08:04 PM
Baz and Libby, knock, knock anyone home?

antichrist
28-03-2005, 05:18 PM
can I crack an AO beauty in Coffee Lounge AO only?

antichrist
02-04-2005, 07:08 PM
The new pope poll got ga gaed so had to repeat, can you please delete the post without thread. thanks

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 07:48 PM
The new pope poll got ga gaed so had to repeat, can you please delete the post without thread. thanks

Why don't you just delete it yourself? Go Edit, then delete.

antichrist
02-04-2005, 08:59 PM
Blimey Charlie
someone has knocked out the two threads, the proper one included the poll, the aborted on never??

Trent Parker
02-04-2005, 09:07 PM
Yes a/c i deleted them both because i feel it is inappropriate. I have let the other Moderators know and have told them that if they disagree they can reinstate the thread. But i do not think it will be reinstated.

antichrist
02-04-2005, 09:24 PM
Well TCN, that is the funniest ruling I have come across but I won't/can't dispute it.

Do you realise that you have taken away the tinniest bit of democracy we had in choosing a Pope.

You can kill the person but not their idea.

Somewhere around the place I have some holy water that was blessed by him. I should send it back to him, he needs it.

He was a good chessplayer you know.

antichrist
03-04-2005, 09:24 AM
Mods, there are two threads which may be duplicating, I am not sure as I am not reading Paul & A/C thread nor Paul's Whinging thread. If duplicating I suggest one be deleted, as I have no intention of discussing the issue any further having my name in the thread is ???

Garvinator
18-04-2005, 09:01 PM
What is the policy of cross bulletin board debates?

arosar
18-04-2005, 09:21 PM
What is the policy of cross bulletin board debates?

Gee gray, mate, you're one of these types who need a policy on everything. Just do what you gotta do.

AR

antichrist
07-05-2005, 09:49 PM
Baz, is it okay to post from Shoutbox to "over there"?

Garvinator
14-05-2005, 05:14 PM
Moderators,

I would like to see cross board replies stopped, especially in the tone of the cross board replies in the nswca may weekender thread.

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 05:44 PM
I would like to see cross board replies stopped, especially in the tone of the cross board replies in the nswca may weekender thread.
It is under consideration.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Moderators,

I would like to see cross board replies stopped, especially in the tone of the cross board replies in the nswca may weekender thread.What part of my reply do you object to the tone.

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 06:02 PM
I would like to see cross board replies stopped, especially in the tone of the cross board replies in the nswca may weekender thread.

I have just now contacted the Mods with a formal request for cessation of re-posting of Matthew Sweeney's content to this board ... not because it is "cross board" but because the punishment meted out to Matthew was to prevent him from posting his "abuse" (which he later tried to get around and was then banned for longer, perhaps indefinitely). Bill, by reposting Matthew's content, is assisting Matthew in flouting the ban, regardless of where Bill believes this is justified or not and regardless of whether this is Bill's intention. It ought to be stopped.

I don't give a rip about cross board posting as such, but when it related to a banned poster then I am not prepared to tolerate it.

ursogr8
14-05-2005, 06:13 PM
I have just now contacted the Mods with a formal request for cessation of re-posting of Matthew Sweeney's content to this board ... not because it is "cross board" but because the punishment meted out to Matthew was to prevent him from posting his "abuse" (which he later tried to get around and was then banned for longer, perhaps indefinitely). Bill, by reposting Matthew's content, is assisting Matthew in flouting the ban, regardless of where Bill believes this is justified or not and regardless of whether this is Bill's intention. It ought to be stopped.

I don't give a rip about cross board posting as such, but when it related to a banned poster then I am not prepared to tolerate it.

That is a big call Frosty.
I was just pursuing the point that Bill not drag the posts from a restricted forum over into general view here.
But you have gone further.
I will be educated by what(s) the mods rule.

starter

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 06:37 PM
That is a big call Frosty.
I was just pursuing the point that Bill not drag the posts from a restricted forum over into general view here.Please refrain from continuing to misrepresnt things. The Gloves Off forum on UCJ is in no way a restricted forum. The fact that it has a warning on it about its language does not make it a restricted forum. The forum is publically viewable to all and sundry.

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 06:52 PM
That is a big call Frosty.
<snip>
But you have gone further.

In what way is it a "big call"? Bill, whether he does it consciously or unconsciously, is assisting the promulgation of content written by Matthew Sweeney on to this board. Does anyone really believe that if I started re-posting Matthew's content for him I would not be pulled into line for doing so?

Perhaps I should test this theory ... :hmm: ... then again, perhaps I won't.

AC was 100% correct earlier today when he pointed out that MatthewS's diatribes would be quickly forgotten if it weren't for Bill's constant re-posting over from UCJ. I've always gotten along reasonably well with Matthew, but I pointed out my opinion months ago where I said that UCJ was counter-productive for chess and I would not support it. I couldn't care less about the ravings over on UCJ. Anyone with half a brain and a moment's time to think would soon realise that Matthew has an axe to grind and that all the ranting in the world isn't going to change anything. Change is better introduced from the inside out ... revolutions are over-rated and people always end up getting hurt if you go that way.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 07:14 PM
Frosty, we all know that this idea you have refloated from somewhere else, Gareth Charles or someone. Good try anyone, and hope you are successful.

It is a shame we don't have a Madame Waxworks for chess personalities and champs. Only how would we categorise Bill?

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 08:04 PM
Frosty, we all know that this idea you have refloated from somewhere else, Gareth Charles or someone.

Who's "we"? My ideas and opinions are my own. Except where I happened to agree with something you said and therefore I pointed that out. AFAIAC Bill is more than welcome to argue the toss with MatthewS ... but he shouldn't be doing it here because MatthewS has forfeited his right to have a voice here, for the time being at least. BTW, I don't know who Gareth Charles is or whether he even has an opinion on this topic.

ursogr8
14-05-2005, 08:07 PM
Please refrain from continuing to misrepresnt things. The Gloves Off forum on UCJ is in no way a restricted forum. The fact that it has a warning on it about its language does not make it a restricted forum. The forum is publically viewable to all and sundry.

Bill

Convince me that you have registered on UCJ and have read both their generic BB policy and their local bb policy re privacy etc.
Then I will have some idea if you are aaware of the conditions of the Gloves Off Forum.
In addition, there is a warning on the Forum title.

starter

ursogr8
14-05-2005, 08:15 PM
In what way is it a "big call"? Bill, whether he does it consciously or unconsciously, is assisting the promulgation of content written by Matthew Sweeney on to this board. Does anyone really believe that if I started re-posting Matthew's content for him I would not be pulled into line for doing so?

<snip>.

Frosty.

I meant 'big call' in the contxt that you are effectively suggesting to take away Bill's right to post. (My point to him is that he can drag_and_drop, but he should observe proprietaries....and drop in the relevant area).


Now that is different from posting on behalf of Matt, who is a banned poster. Such behaviour would earn three demerit points
> posting as a hydra/alias/clone/proxy
> breaking a ban
> unseemly material
and would definitely cause Bill to be banned.

I like the rest of your work though.

regards
starter


btw...welcome back fg7.

Rincewind
14-05-2005, 08:18 PM
The quoting of banned posters on this forum shall no longer be considered acceptable. In particular, Bill, can you please desist quoting Matt on this board? I understand your reasons for doing so but you are in effect breaking Matt's ban on this board.

I suggest you simply ignore the existence of UCJ or respond to Matt's posts there.

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 08:24 PM
I meant 'big call' in the contxt that you are effectively suggesting to take away Bill's right to post.

:hmm: I don't think I'm being that extreme. I'm not stopping Bill from defending himself (if that is what he believes he needs to do) ... but if he's that worried about Matt he ought to front him head on over at UCJ. Not here. I'm sick of the name calling nonsense. It simply doesn't need to be here. Its much more at home "over there". If Bill doesn't want to post THERE, great, don't post there. Just ignore Matt. He's already gone away... ;)

Spiny Norman
14-05-2005, 08:26 PM
The quoting of banned posters on this forum shall no longer be considered acceptable. In particular, Bill, can you please desist quoting Matt on this board? I understand your reasons for doing so but you are in effect breaking Matt's ban on this board. I suggest you simply ignore the existence of UCJ or respond to Matt's posts there.

RW et al ... thanks ... now we can all get some sleep. :clap:

ursogr8
14-05-2005, 08:34 PM
^^
Baz


Thanks for the ruling...and I will be law-abiding.

But I do want to protest about something. I just seemed to have been green-gonged for disclaiming I have an interest in Bill's nethers. What have you all been thinking the past couple of years? :eek: ;)


starter

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 08:38 PM
Bill

Convince me that you have registered on UCJ and have read both their generic BB policy and their local bb policy re privacy etc.
Then I will have some idea if you are aaware of the conditions of the Gloves Off Forum.
In addition, there is a warning on the Forum title.So what.
You called the forum restricted. That forum is in no way restricted.
It is a publically accessible forum.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 08:39 PM
The quoting of banned posters on this forum shall no longer be considered acceptable. In particular, Bill, can you please desist quoting Matt on this board? I understand your reasons for doing so but you are in effect breaking Matt's ban on this board.

I suggest you simply ignore the existence of UCJ or respond to Matt's posts there.Not a problem.
I will not of course be registering and posting on UCJ.

I note you used the words "quoting of banned posters".
As fg7 is no longer banned here the above obviosuly does not apply to him.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 08:48 PM
And my poll was going to be: should cross-posting of barred posters be allowed!

Thanks a million RW, now you only have to muzzle me somehow.

Firesale on carrier pigeons, contact Bill Gletsos.

antichrist
14-05-2005, 09:01 PM
Who's "we"? My ideas and opinions are my own. Except where I happened to agree with something you said and therefore I pointed that out. AFAIAC Bill is more than welcome to argue the toss with MatthewS ... but he shouldn't be doing it here because MatthewS has forfeited his right to have a voice here, for the time being at least. BTW, I don't know who Gareth Charles is or whether he even has an opinion on this topic.


Plagiariser Frosty
You are wrong.

For answer to this question go to post 87 in Coffee Lounge "Should Bill Be Muzzled..." thread. Cannot re-post from there. It is a wonder Bill did not pick it up, he is probably distressed and humbled.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 09:10 PM
Plageuriser Frosty
You are wrong.

For answer to this question go to post 87 in Coffee Lounge "Should Bill Be Muzzled..." thread. Cannot re-post from there. It is a wonder Bill did not pick it up, he is probably distressed and humbled.Oh I saw it. I just couldnt be bothered wasting my time on it.

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2005, 09:12 PM
And my poll was going to be: should cross-posting of barred posters be allowed!

Thanks a million RW, now you only have to muzzle me somehow.

Firesale on carrier pigeons, contact Bill Gletsos.Perhaps I should consider euthanising the pigeons as they are now useless. ;)

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2005, 09:27 PM
I'd assume the new rule Barry mentions applies only to posters who have been banned indefinitely or permanently and not yet to those who have merely been briefly suspended.

antichrist
15-05-2005, 10:11 PM
Though not mentioned of course it would apply to all, as the principle is the same. Maybe after the suspension their posts "over there" could be reposted but even that should not be allowed as it ultimately defeats the purpose of the suspension.

Lucena
16-05-2005, 10:48 AM
Who's "we"? My ideas and opinions are my own. Except where I happened to agree with something you said and therefore I pointed that out. AFAIAC Bill is more than welcome to argue the toss with MatthewS ... but he shouldn't be doing it here because MatthewS has forfeited his right to have a voice here, for the time being at least. BTW, I don't know who Gareth Charles is or whether he even has an opinion on this topic.

For the record Frosty, here is my opinion:

"As much as I hate to agree with AC, I don't think we need Bill posting Matthew Sweeney's remarks here and then responding to them. The whole point of banning Matt was to exclude his input from this forum - by bringing Matt's remarks here Bill is in effect flouting this ban. I suspect Matt is pleased that Bill is doing him a favour, so that he is in effect posting vicariously through Bill. If Bill is in fact interested in debating Matthew and doing it on this board, he should not only post his replies to Matthew's posts but should also post Mathew's replies to his own posts, as otherwise he is in effect denying Matthew the right of reply on this board.

Failing this, I propose another solution, which will please all parties involved. Since Matt cannot post on this forum, and Bill will not post on Matt's forum, I propose the creation of a third bulletin board, with posting rights restricted solely to Matt and Bill, impartially moderated. They can then slug it out in a virtual boxing ring, with the chess world looking on, like Neo and Mr Smith in that scene at the end of Matrix Revolutions.

The question is, who is Neo and who is Smith?"

Spiny Norman
16-05-2005, 11:18 AM
AC conveniently overlooked your [in jest] comments about the extra bulletin board when trolling for me with his plagiarism comments.

Hey AC ... just so you're completely happy ... I hereby promise never to agree with anyone else's position on anything ever again unless I can provide documentary proof that I thought of it first. :wall:

Of course, I expect you to reciprocate.

Lucena
16-05-2005, 12:55 PM
AC conveniently overlooked your [in jest] comments about the extra bulletin board when trolling for me with his plagiarism comments.

Hey AC ... just so you're completely happy ... I hereby promise never to agree with anyone else's position on anything ever again unless I can provide documentary proof that I thought of it first. :wall:

Of course, I expect you to reciprocate.

To set thing's straight I don't support claims of plagiarism (sorry AC) or claim to be the first to disagree with Bill's bringing Matt's comments over here. It is hardly suprising there were 2 people expressing a similar point of view when having Bill bring Matt back over here to argue with him was so flipping irritating(among other things).

antichrist
16-05-2005, 01:18 PM
But Gareth was the first or first in recent memory to put clearly that Bill was in effect breaking the ban.

Spiny Norman
16-05-2005, 06:38 PM
But Gareth was the first or first in recent memory to put clearly that Bill was in effect breaking the ban.

So who was the first person to invent the light bulb AC? Was it Edison, or ... ? What about radio? Was it Marconi, or ... ? Perhaps they were just plagiarists? Go get 'em mate! There's lots of them plagiarists hiding all over the place, just waiting to be outed. :uhoh:

antichrist
16-05-2005, 11:41 PM
I hit a soft spot here. Frosty, you should know that I am not happy unless I am upsetting somebody. I will pick on someone else soon, don't worry. Had a go at Kez in Shoutbox but that is like trying to move a mountain - and I am not Mohammed.

Spiny Norman
17-05-2005, 07:54 AM
I hit a soft spot here. Frosty, you should know that I am not happy unless I am upsetting somebody.

Don't take your bat and ball and go home ... we're just starting to have fun!

antichrist
01-06-2005, 09:12 AM
Mr RW
A week ago I re-submitted that "over there" [re Jase's pm] into the shoutbox and the sky did not crash down.

Do you think if I re-submitted that Papal Poll post there won't be a bolt of BB-Mod lightning to strike it down?

Down to rush to answer, think about freedom of speech and the use of mockery as a form of criticism as used in "In Praise of Folly" by Erasmus about 300 years ago.

A google search of "Folly" is fruitful

antichrist
14-06-2005, 07:42 AM
My post in interesting websites re the cartoon of Arab sodemising Bush may be considered not suitable for children - a fantastic political cartoon otherwise - even though the participants should be in reverse roles.

antichrist
26-07-2005, 08:04 AM
There are reasons for some posters been afforded anonymity but I think it should only be for serious issues and not personal attacks as "Eric" has enjoyed.

Many of the posters know each other outside and can take criticism and stirring and actually enjoy it as they are our friends.

Conversely we have posters like Eric, who myself and many other posters don't know, just comes in and being rude or who is often rude.

Can I have a mod-team decision on it please?

antichrist
26-07-2005, 08:05 AM
Can posts 145-8 on St George thread be considered for deletion please as off-thread and negative.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2005, 12:52 AM
I totally agree. Posts in question deleted.

PHAT
29-07-2005, 04:59 PM
I totally agree.

Stuffed shirt.

ElevatorEscapee
29-07-2005, 08:45 PM
I believe you may have made a couple of typos there Matty... :lol:

antichrist
29-07-2005, 09:49 PM
I believe you may have made a couple of typos there Matty... :lol:

You're right, he forgot the apostrophe before the "s" in "theirs".

antichrist
05-08-2005, 02:58 PM
Post referred to in Post 666 of Does God exists breaks copyright rules - take God out of the BB now!

ElevatorEscapee
11-08-2005, 10:10 PM
I guess it was only a matter of time before He showed up here; He tends to make himself a member of all Internet forums sooner or later... :lol:

Spiny Norman
12-08-2005, 09:31 AM
Must be the combination of omnipresence + fruit-loops. ;)

ElevatorEscapee
12-08-2005, 07:05 PM
Unfortunately, by definition, "omnipresence" means residing in such things as breakfast cereals... :lol:

antichrist
22-08-2005, 08:35 PM
That thread title about George Howard defrauding... should be changed. seems defamatory

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2005, 09:34 PM
That thread title about George Howard defrauding... should be changed. seems defamatory

Please stop making the same post in multiple places - you've done it at least twice in the last day.

See response on the thread itself.

antichrist
23-08-2005, 09:40 AM
Can I repost the Shoutbox post with your original editing?

I assume you assassinated them.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2005, 11:54 PM
Yes.

antichrist
31-08-2005, 10:11 PM
What exactly is the role of administrator please? Their powers also.

What does one do when receives a threatening PM?

antichrist
31-08-2005, 10:18 PM
Mods, remove off-topic posts from Rating arena please

Kaitlin
31-08-2005, 10:30 PM
eeek that was me hey :( .... sorry :(

eclectic
31-08-2005, 10:30 PM
Mods, remove off-topic posts from Rating arena please

it bit rich coming from you isn't it?

eclectic

antichrist
31-08-2005, 10:35 PM
it bit rich coming from you isn't it?

eclectic

I am trying to reform if you don't mind. And I did entice the other offender. He loves me so much that guy I am afraid to be in a compromising position.

Kaitlin
31-08-2005, 10:38 PM
it bit rich coming from you isn't it?

eclectic

Hey noooo fighting u two, my friends arnt allowed to fight... I del them anywho ..but :( they are still kinda there cause quoted replys :(

eclectic
31-08-2005, 10:45 PM
kaitlin,

i regarded your lyrics sample (from laika) more as a slight diversion than as being off topic.

technically this thread will end once bill gletsos puts up the september ratings thread and begins to put up the various lists

so as to being off topic i wouldn't worry about it if i were you

hope to see your rating up one day ;)

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2005, 11:45 PM
What exactly is the role of administrator please? Their powers also.

What does one do when receives a threatening PM?

Threatening with what and for what? :hmm:

Don't see why the admin/mod distinction is such a deal here since the mods here can ban as well.

Rincewind
01-09-2005, 08:38 AM
What exactly is the role of administrator please? Their powers also.

The role of the administrators is to look after the board not to moderate the content therein. Their powers are not absolute but include all the powers of the moderators plus the ablity to do things like change BB options, alter user handles and options, add and subtract new forums, change forum titles, etc.

I occasionally do things that would be classified as as moderation provided I believe the moderators wouldn't mind and that time is of the essense. An example is a couple of thread splits which I've performed over the last month. These are generally best to nip in the bud as the longer they go the more work they become.

Why do you ask? Have you been naughty?

antichrist
01-09-2005, 10:10 AM
Can I divulge the partial contents of a PM without mentioning the sender, it is not obvious at all from whom it is sent, or can divulge in PM to you?

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2005, 02:02 PM
It's best not to post a PM publicly even if you don't identify the author, although you might summarise it if you really had to. Forwarding PMs offline we're not too fussed about as it is almost impossible to police anyway. Any threats involving violence or other illegal activity should definitely be forwarded to a mod. But I get this strange feeling that that was not the case here ... :hmm:

Garvinator
06-09-2005, 01:21 PM
why does it look like antichrist is banned :hmm:

Mischa
06-09-2005, 01:36 PM
cos he is!

Garvinator
06-09-2005, 02:00 PM
cos he is!
:eek: what happened? i must have missed it all :hmm:

ursogr8
06-09-2005, 02:52 PM
:eek: what happened? i must have missed it all :hmm:
Let me tell you over a cup of coffee. :uhoh:

antichrist
09-09-2005, 02:56 PM
you are welcome to delete about two thirds of my polls if it helps the cause

antichrist
09-09-2005, 04:55 PM
when a poster is temporarily barred there could be a provision for continuing correspondence games - so that his opponent is not also penalised

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2005, 05:04 PM
when a poster is temporarily barred there could be a provision for continuing correspondence games - so that his opponent is not also penalised

I rather think not. It sounds like asking if prisoners could be allowed to go fishing with their mates each Sunday so their mates don't miss out on the company.

antichrist
09-09-2005, 05:10 PM
well I threw a line in and got a bite - at least I tried

PHAT
10-09-2005, 06:33 AM
I rather think not. It sounds like asking if prisoners could be allowed to go fishing with their mates each Sunday so their mates don't miss out on the company.

It is also like courts giving suspended sentences to mums with small children to care for.

Rincewind
10-09-2005, 07:52 AM
It is also like courts giving suspended sentences to mums with small children to care for.

Or courts giving lesser sentences to teachers who have sex with their students if the teacher happens to be female. Oh wait, that does happen.

PHAT
10-09-2005, 02:51 PM
If sentence #1 ~ #2 ~ #3
Then #1 not= #2.

Be that as it may, I will still go along with the deversion ...

Or giving an middle aged indigenous man 2 weeks for buggering a 14 y.o. girl.

Denis_Jessop
10-09-2005, 03:23 PM
I rather think not. It sounds like asking if prisoners could be allowed to go fishing with their mates each Sunday so their mates don't miss out on the company.

But, Kevin, aren't prisoners allowed to play correspondence chess? :confused:

DJ

Rincewind
10-09-2005, 03:34 PM
But, Kevin, aren't prisoners allowed to play correspondence chess? :confused:

DJ

I believe it is a priviledge and not a right.

Interested readers might wish to research the case of Claude Bloodgood. An elite level US player who was on deathrow for many years before his life sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Also wrote at least one book on the Grob, played many, many games of correspondence while in prison and at one stage even earned the priveledge of temporary release to play in chess tournaments. However these rights (and the correspondence rights too, I believe) were removed after an escape attempt while on release. (Edit: He was originally gaoled for matricide.) (Edit #2: Further research indicates that it might have been step-matricide.)

Regarding the matter at hand I would say there would be no problem with the banned player emailing their moves to the opponent and then the opponent posting both the banned player's move and their response, provided the ban was short term. In the case of an indefinite ban, the players should probably just complete the game via email. The unbanned player may still post the game move-by-move of course but I can't see the point and perhaps just posting a score at the game's completion would be appropriate.

Denis_Jessop
10-09-2005, 04:29 PM
I believe it is a priviledge and not a right.

Interested readers might wish to research the case of Claude Bloodgood. An elite level US player who was on deathrow for many years before his life sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Also wrote at least one book on the Grob, played many, many games of correspondence while in prison and at one stage even earned the priveledge of temporary release to play in chess tournaments. However these rights (and the correspondence rights too, I believe) were removed after an escape attempt while on release. (Edit: He was originally gaoled for matricide.) (Edit #2: Further research indicates that it might have been step-matricide.)

Regarding the matter at hand I would say there would be no problem with the banned player emailing their moves to the opponent and then the opponent posting both the banned player's move and their response, provided the ban was short term. In the case of an indefinite ban, the players should probably just complete the game via email. The unbanned player may still post the game move-by-move of course but I can't see the point and perhaps just posting a score at the game's completion would be appropriate.

I think it probably is a privilege as all those kinds of things are so regarded by prison authorities. As a matter of interest, or not, when I was playing Melbourne Interclub matches in the 1960s, our StKilda C Reserve team played a Pentridge prisoners team but they weren't allowed out (the games were played in a recreation room) and they also had to resign if their game wasn't finished by 10pm (or it might have been 10.30). I scurrilously retained my unbeaten record for the season thanks to that rule (or so it could have been alleged).

As for the BB I don't really see how someone can be banned from only part of it.

DJ

PHAT
10-09-2005, 04:51 PM
As for the BB I don't really see how someone can be banned from only part of it.

DJ


I am reminded of the fact that air is still free because they do not know how to tax it. You see, people will only make rules if there is a way to enforce them, even when it is an unjust one-size-fits-all vengence machine.

Banning is such a crude blunt instrument - wielded by those who have the stomach for cruelty, and a head for justifying it.

PHAT
10-09-2005, 05:02 PM
As for the BB I don't really see how someone can be banned from only part of it.

DJ


Yes it can.

Make all forums "Restricted", and all new people are automatically allowed in to all of them - except for coffee.

Then a poster can be refused entry to any particular forum, or all but one.

The problem is, IT people are unimaginative and lazy, and not likey to be customer focused. Evidense the products that the IT industry foist upon decent ordinary people.



[MS thinks to self: I wonder if I should go all the way and call the whole IT industry "filth".]

Rincewind
10-09-2005, 05:18 PM
As for the BB I don't really see how someone can be banned from only part of it.

No but for the sake of game continuity I can't see that an unbanned opponent posting the moves of the banned member along with their own response is a major infraction on the ban. Perhaps the moderators may disagree as it is not in the punitive "spirit" of the ban.

A ban prevents posting but not reading so in that sense all bans affect only a subset of board access.

antichrist
10-09-2005, 05:23 PM
Well I (@@##$$)will have to remember to get my opponents e-mail address before my next adventure. .

Spiny Norman
10-09-2005, 06:09 PM
[MS thinks to self: I wonder if I should go all the way and call the whole IT industry "filth".]
IT people think to themselves: What retribution should we extract from MS if he makes good his "threat"? ;) Don't you know the rules? Never annoy the paymaster, and never annoy the network administrator! :cool:

antichrist
10-09-2005, 06:29 PM
IT people think to themselves: What retribution should we extract from MS if he makes good his "threat"? ;) Don't you know the rules? Never annoy the paymaster, and never annoy the network administrator! :cool:

nor God

PHAT
11-09-2005, 12:53 PM
IT people think to themselves: What retribution should we extract from MS if he makes good his "threat"? ;) Don't you know the rules? Never annoy the paymaster, and never annoy the network administrator! :cool:

Others one should never annoy:

The waiteress or barman.
The wife.
The parole officer.
The wife (again).
The wasp's nest.
The wife (ever).
The relevant god.
And most importantly, the wife.

Spiny Norman
12-09-2005, 07:03 AM
And most importantly, the wife.
I might've once or twice ... but I think I got away with it. Problem is, one never REALLY knows whether one has "gotten away with it", not even until years later, because it might just come up as an issue in conversation at the least opportune moments. I suspect God built wives with a special pattern-recognition memory system for things like that. Like elephants, they never forget.

Spiny Norman
12-09-2005, 07:13 AM
I might've once or twice ... but I think I got away with it.
Was just chatting to she who must be obeyed and mentioned this ... all she would say was "Steve, you annoy me CONSTANTLY". :doh:

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2005, 07:06 PM
Banning is such a crude blunt instrument - wielded by those who have the stomach for cruelty, and a head for justifying it.

That must be why we banned you immediately and permanently the first time you deserved it and hired a doppleganger to run your old account.

PHAT
13-09-2005, 07:46 AM
That must be why we banned you immediately and permanently the first time you deserved it and hired a doppleganger to run your old account.

Sarcasm does not make your point valid. An act of cruelty postponed is still an act of cruelty.

A ban is a ban. Those who ban are as I said earlier - a stomach for cruelty and a proclivity for justifying it.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2005, 12:44 PM
Sarcasm does not make your point valid. An act of cruelty postponed is still an act of cruelty.

A ban is a ban. Those who ban are as I said earlier - a stomach for cruelty and a proclivity for justifying it.

Your whinging is pathetic. Why don't you run off to your psychiatrist and come back with a full account of the deep psychological scars that being banned from a bulletin board for several months has inflicted upon your entire life? The point is that far from you being crudely and bluntly banned the first time you transgressed, we gave you plenty of chances and were lenient for far longer than was necessary.

PHAT
13-09-2005, 05:35 PM
Your whinging is pathetic. Why don't you run off to your psychiatrist and come back with a full account of the deep psychological scars that being banned from a bulletin board for several months has inflicted upon your entire life?

If I did have a psychiatrist, your comments would be more than a little insensitive.



The point is that far from you being crudely and bluntly banned the first time you transgressed, we gave you plenty of chances and were lenient for far longer than was necessary.

So:

1. You were being lenient.
2. You think leniency was necessary - albeit for a shorter duration.


Q1. What was the perpose(s)s for being lenient?

Q2. What was the purpose(s) of the ban? What were the desired outcomes.

Q3. Did were those outcomes achieved.

Q4. What were the unwanted outcomes of the ban?



KB, get real. Banning is a net negative, and you know it. However, you aren't a big enough man to say so. You maintain your meter-maid stance because you cannot live without exersizing your petty whims using the power you bought with the little dignity you ever had.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2005, 02:56 PM
If I did have a psychiatrist, your comments would be more than a little insensitive.

Sensitivity is not in your vocabulary and only middle of the pile in mine so I'm puzzled that you mention it. In any case, I disagree - any person that badly affected by so little on the internet could well be better off off it. To fail to mention this would surely show a callous disregard for their wellbeing.


Q1. What was the perpose(s)s for being lenient?

While we could ban posters for first infractions, we realise this would reduce the number of posters significantly, and we think it's better to have a few minor infractions sneak through unpunished than lose perhaps 10% of the regulars.


Q2. What was the purpose(s) of the ban? What were the desired outcomes.

This depends on whether you are referring to your initial bans or to the long ban, which was essentially as a result of posting while banned on top of all the other stuff.

The aim of banning is to reduce the amount of stuff that's not allowed by deterrence in deterrable cases and exclusion in others. You were excluded for a long time because deterrence had not been working very well. Based on your posts since returning you seem to have eased off a bit - not surprising when you know that any more serious trouble and your account gets permanently fed to the daleks.


Q3. Did were those outcomes achieved.

Did yes.


Q4. What were the unwanted outcomes of the ban?

From the perspective of the board, only these:

(i) It became necessary to introduce a posting limit to access PMs and set that limit at a number of posts, which meant that new posters sometimes posted rubbish to get their posts up, creating some confusion and one incorrect banning (which was fortunately overturned quickly and the poster is still with us).

(ii) There was a bit of work banning your hydras, none of which behaved especially badly.

(iii) There was a fair amount of effort soaked up in discussing the ban (especially thanks to starter's sometimes inaccurate commentaries).


KB, get real. Banning is a net negative, and you know it. However, you aren't a big enough man to say so.

Unsubstantiated false consciousness claim = forfeiture of debate on spot. Karl Marx has a lot to answer for and you are his latest zombie puppet. :rolleyes:

Now, what dignity did I buy this power with? Except for cases where I've stood up for others under unfair attack, I wasn't aware that I had any.

ursogr8
14-09-2005, 03:34 PM
<snip>

(iii) There was a fair amount of effort soaked up in discussing the ban (especially thanks to starter's sometimes inaccurate commentaries).

<snip>


KB

A bulletin board is where people chat.
We discussed the ban...and there was more than just my point of view....but somehow this, discussion on a bulletin board, is an 'unwanted outcome'.
I don't think I understand that one.

What about recognizing the 'wanted outcomes'?
Before the ban we had been promised a bb policy on posting protocols. It didn't eventuate until we had the (long-winded) discussion (complete with starter's inaccuracies) on the ban.

starter

PHAT
14-09-2005, 06:22 PM
(i) It became necessary to introduce a posting limit to access PMs and set that limit at a number of posts, which meant that new posters sometimes posted rubbish to get their posts up, creating some confusion and one incorrect banning (which was fortunately overturned quickly and the poster is still with us).

(ii) There was a bit of work banning your hydras, none of which behaved especially badly.

(iii) There was a fair amount of effort soaked up in discussing the ban (especially thanks to starter's sometimes inaccurate commentaries).

You forgot that UCJ was a large problem too - crossposting et cetera.

Overall, my banning was a net negative. Admit it or shrink.





Now, what dignity did I buy this power with? Except for cases where I've stood up for others under unfair attack, I wasn't aware that I had any.

You bow and scrape to the admins and owners and do their bidding like a loadying private school prefect. You have no dignity - like an Ork from Mordor.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2005, 10:30 PM
A bulletin board is where people chat.
We discussed the ban...and there was more than just my point of view....but somehow this, discussion on a bulletin board, is an 'unwanted outcome'.
I don't think I understand that one.

Yes, but contrary to arguably a substantial portion of your postcount, the point isn't just to chat about anything whatsoever for the sake of chatting. In the case of this BB, the primary functions are to discuss (i) chess and (ii) non-chess subjects of interest to the posters. Meta-chat has some kind of value to the culture of the board, but where it's just the same old beatups going round and round in circles it doesn't contribute very much IMO.


What about recognizing the 'wanted outcomes'?
Before the ban we had been promised a bb policy on posting protocols. It didn't eventuate until we had the (long-winded) discussion (complete with starter's inaccuracies) on the ban.

This is another example of your ill-founded meta-speculations. The reason for the posting of rules had nothing to do with discussion on the ban, but rather arose because one of the other moderators said I should post a list of all the standards that had evolved, because there were enough of them that even some of the mods were having trouble keeping track of what we had decided was and wasn't allowed.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2005, 11:01 PM
You forgot that UCJ was a large problem too - crossposting et cetera.

Not a "large problem" at all. Sure there were a few issues.


Overall, my banning was a net negative. Admit it or shrink.

I shan't be doing the former because it's not true, so what would you like me to diagnose you with today? :P

You didn't answer my question and your insults are so lame you actually deserve a flame for being unable to spell them.

PHAT
15-09-2005, 12:01 AM
The reason for the posting of rules had nothing to do with discussion on the ban, but rather arose because one of the other moderators said I should post a list of all the standards that had evolved, because there were enough of them that even some of the mods were having trouble keeping track of what we had decided was and wasn't allowed.

Fabulous. The only reason the rules get posted is because the MOD were so confused in the imbroglio they had to be posted. Nothing about fairness or service to the customer, oh no no, it is all about the MODs and how inconsistant they are.

You realy should shut up because lately, every time you say something it has proved to be yet another unintentional gaff that illuminates the ineptness of the BB authorities.

PHAT
15-09-2005, 12:05 AM
...so what would you like me to diagnose you with today? :P

a cute iditis


You didn't answer my question and your insults are so lame you actually deserve a flame for being unable to spell them.


SPELLING NAZI DIE DIE DIE.

Alan Shore
15-09-2005, 12:25 AM
LOL Banhammer.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2005, 01:09 AM
Fabulous. The only reason the rules get posted is because the MOD were so confused in the imbroglio they had to be posted. Nothing about fairness or service to the customer, oh no no, it is all about the MODs and how inconsistant they are.

I should have said that was the impetus. Of course it was not the only reason.

Historically I had been reluctant to start that kind of thread because of the sheer volume of stuff that would need to go on it. However, when it came up as a suggestion, I thought "why not, with Matt banned the amount of stuff that will need to go on it won't be all that large". Therefore the existence of that thread was a positive outcome of your banning! :owned:


You realy should shut up because lately, every time you say something it has proved to be yet another unintentional gaff that illuminates the ineptness of the BB authorities.

Yeah right Matt, we've seen how good you were at it too.


SPELLING NAZI DIE DIE DIE.

You miss the point. The point is that while spelling flames are normally the epitome of lameness on the net, your feebleness is such that even a spelling flame looks good placed next to it.

PHAT
15-09-2005, 01:29 AM
Yeah right Matt, we've seen how good you were at it too.

I was good. I didn't ban anyone. As BazzCoxs said to me at the club, I was the dictator of an anarchy.




You miss the point. The point is that while spelling flames are normally the epitome of lameness on the net, your feebleness is such that even a spelling flame looks good placed next to it.

Bullshit. You said:


... your insults are so lame you actually deserve a flame for being unable to spell them.

Don't try to worm out of it. You flammmed me on speelink. You are the lame BBer. Have you taken to drugs lately, because you are slipping under the table it a pool of you own bodily fluids.

ursogr8
15-09-2005, 08:41 AM
Yes, but contrary to arguably a substantial portion of your postcount, the point isn't just to chat about anything whatsoever for the sake of chatting. In the case of this BB, the primary functions are to discuss (i) chess and (ii) non-chess subjects of interest to the posters. Meta-chat has some kind of value to the culture of the board, but where it's just the same old beatups going round and round in circles it doesn't contribute very much IMO.

KB
Thanks for the response.
I don't think I have seen the discussion previously putting forward the relative values of the many posts on diverse topics such as
> ratings as seen by the CAT and MATT
> competitive indicies
> GOD, various
> posting protocols and emerging MOD rules

Each to his own time-waster I suppose.



This is another example of your ill-founded meta-speculations. The reason for the posting of rules had nothing to do with discussion on the ban, but rather arose because one of the other moderators said I should post a list of all the standards that had evolved, because there were enough of them that even some of the mods were having trouble keeping track of what we had decided was and wasn't allowed.

Cause and effect.
Why were the MODS having trouble keeping track? Because there was discussion perchance (on drag-and-drop; on hydras; on banning; on ...)?

starter

antichrist
15-09-2005, 09:56 AM
May I quote Kegless's post 71 from 2005 NSW Championships CLOSED DIVISION in shoutbox?

Alan Shore
15-09-2005, 01:29 PM
May I quote Kegless's post 71 from 2005 NSW Championships CLOSED DIVISION in shoutbox?

fofw

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2005, 01:31 PM
I was good. I didn't ban anyone. As BazzCoxs said to me at the club, I was the dictator of an anarchy.

You were so good at self-moderation you got yourself banned from NSWCA events because of your lack of online self-control and are still to be seen melodramatically whinging about it. Furthermore there was no reason for you to ban anyone because there was hardly anyone there to ban ... and the kinds of people you might have been tempted to ban did not post there anyway. It would be exaggerating to say it was a monoculture but it had nothing like the culture clashes we get here that can sometimes make things tricky.

And the two things I said above re spelling flame mean exactly the same thing, so give up trying to pretend that I am worming out of anything.

And no, I haven't taken to drugs. I do drink a bit more lately, but I am certainly not in kegless' class, or your lack of it. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2005, 01:40 PM
Cause and effect.
Why were the MODS having trouble keeping track? Because there was discussion perchance (on drag-and-drop; on hydras; on banning; on ...)?

Not really because of the discussion as such but it was around the time that drag-and-drop from UCJ was an issue that we decided it would be a good idea to post up as many of the standards as we could remember and to start logging mod decisions. So far I'm the only mod doing that but where one of the others does something significant I'm putting it up when I find out about it - eg so you can tell why someone has been suspended and for how long.

antichrist
19-09-2005, 09:36 PM
Will someone please delete posts 21 onwards on Classic stirs as off-topic, as they are not classic stirs, any discussion of topics should take place in original topical threads.

Rincewind
19-09-2005, 11:51 PM
Will someone please delete posts 21 onwards on Classic stirs as off-topic, as they are not classic stirs, any discussion of topics should take place in original topical threads.

Are they discussions or just multi-part classic stirs? I thnik they must be on topic or else you wouldn't be asking so strenuously for them to be removed. ;)

Kevin Bonham
19-09-2005, 11:53 PM
Will someone please delete posts 21 onwards on Classic stirs as off-topic, as they are not classic stirs, any discussion of topics should take place in original topical threads.

Thread is of dubious value anyway as it basically consists of your idea of what is a "classic stir" and includes numerous self-nominations. Irrelevant commentary on threads like this is very difficult to avoid.

#19 by Rincewind was itself a stir, and a better one IMO than some of those you've nominated, and assuming it was intended as a nomination of itself then it is on-topic by definition. Indeed it would have been far more off-topic had it been moved to the original thread. Your #20 is then completely off-topic. Your thread, you manage it better instead of taking it off-topic and then complaining when others respond likewise.

antichrist
20-09-2005, 03:39 PM
Can I request a locked thread like you have for classics? Only I can access.

Trent Parker
20-09-2005, 04:59 PM
Yeah the classics can become a locked thread if you want...... don't know about your access.... :evil: :lol:

antichrist
20-09-2005, 06:22 PM
Yeah the classics can become a locked thread if you want...... don't know about your access.... :evil: :lol:

If KB can have a locked thread with private access only for admin decisions well...

And who is more important?

Rincewind
20-09-2005, 06:42 PM
who is more important?

You ain't no Zaphod Beeblebrox and this ain't no universe create from a small piece of fairy cake.

PS I'm not implying that KB is. :P

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2005, 02:34 PM
Can I request a locked thread like you have for classics? Only I can access.

Yes you can request it but I don't see why you should have it. Indeed I'm not even sure we could do it. Perhaps we could give you an exclusive forum which only you could post on and which no-one else could see. :D

And the moderation decisions thread is not for my exclusive use but is available for any mod or admin who wants to put something there.

PHAT
21-09-2005, 02:45 PM
You ain't no Zaphod Beeblebrox and this ain't no universe create from a small piece of fairy cake.


But I am Zaphod, real hoopy frood is me. I got my towel and my orange sash, and if you think that's impossible it is realy only improbable. See you at Milliway's. :cool: (Can't see a thing)

antichrist
21-09-2005, 02:50 PM
I am lucky that these "youngsters" use images out of space movies (I presume) to have a go at me because I have no idea what they are on about. Ignorance is bliss.

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 06:33 PM
I am lucky that these "youngsters" use images out of space movies (I presume) to have a go at me because I have no idea what they are on about. Ignorance is bliss.

Actually my "images" are from the books. I haven't seen the film.

Alan Shore
21-09-2005, 10:31 PM
Actually my "images" are from the books. I haven't seen the film.

It wasn't bad.. Zaphod was quite good in the film.

Gringo
22-09-2005, 09:12 PM
I get the impression that Sweeney's chess moves are from an Improbability Drive- jut like the "Heart of Gold".

PHAT
23-09-2005, 12:03 AM
I get the impression that Sweeney's chess moves are from an Improbability Drive- jut like the "Heart of Gold".

How did you escape from Ark Ship B? ;)

Garvinator
05-12-2005, 09:27 PM
It's best not to use quote marks where you are actually paraphrasing. Yes there was a Khmer Rouge reference with the above meaning in Inside Sport but I'm pretty sure (without my copy in front of me) that those are not the exact words. The Inside Sport article was written in an over-the-top, politically incorrect and satirical style and had a lot of those sorts of stereotypes in it.

Given that the "soft pawn" cliche is as old as the hills (indeed over them) within the chess community, but would be relatively novel outside it, what is your objection to the heading of the article above? Seems to me that the heading accurately describes the contents of the article and the article, while about as shallow as the issue it covers, is nonetheless balanced in its coverage. I have seen much worse media practice in newspapers from people inside the chess community.

I have merged your thread into this one because I saw absolutely no reason to start a new thread.

ok it does seem that moderation is now going too far. No questions asked about why I decided a new thread was called for.

So what if I made a new thread? Why should it be merged with this one? These are two completely different issues and part of the reason I created the new thread was that if Vaness asked for the article to be removed or the whole thread to be deleted, then it would make less work to work out which posts were about the article and which were just about the world chess beauty contest.

Therefore, in fact you have moderated a thread and merged it with this one, when I was attempting to decrease the amount of potential moderation.

I strongly suggest that you please return these two threads to their separate threads.

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2005, 12:33 AM
Moved this here because having threads clogged up with discussion about their own moderation is also pointless.


ok it does seem that moderation is now going too far. No questions asked about why I decided a new thread was called for.

So what if I made a new thread? Why should it be merged with this one? These are two completely different issues and part of the reason I created the new thread was that if Vaness asked for the article to be removed or the whole thread to be deleted, then it would make less work to work out which posts were about the article and which were just about the world chess beauty contest.

Well, thanks for trying to save us work, but I don't agree with your reasoning. You might think that the thread should be deleted if Vaness requests, but I don't see why other posters who respond to it should have to have their posts deleted for that reason, assuming she even makes such a request in the first place. If she does make such a request and you want to edit your post to nothing that is fine by me but I won't be imposing such a solution on other posters who comment on the article, at least not just for that reason.

The WCBC and specific examples of media coverage of the WCBC, given the low number of posts about either issue so far, are the same issue IMO. Especially as people have already commented on media coverage within the thread several times. If you want to make it a general discussion of coverage of chess in the media then feel free to suggest a more appropriate title for that purpose.

Garvinator
04-02-2006, 02:36 PM
i wonder when the moderators will ask the new poster starting with the name angelica to change their handle:doh:

Rincewind
04-02-2006, 04:58 PM
i wonder when the moderators will ask the new poster starting with the name angelica to change their handle:doh:

Actually they spelt it with a 'j' but in any case the subject is now moot.

WhiteElephant
02-03-2006, 09:12 AM
Anyone know why the tiffanie_scott account is banned?

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 09:48 AM
Anyone know why the tiffanie_scott account is banned?Yes.

EGOR
02-03-2006, 10:19 AM
Yes.
Can you tell us, or is it a secret?:hmm:

bergil
02-03-2006, 11:08 AM
Anyone know why the tiffanie_scott account is banned?
What's it to ya big nose! :P

PHAT
02-03-2006, 11:12 AM
Yes.A typically secretive response from the Dog King of Keeping Secrets.

WhiteElephant
02-03-2006, 11:20 AM
What's it to ya big nose! :P

I don't like seeing people banned.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 11:48 AM
A typically secretive response from the Dog King of Keeping Secrets.He didnt ask why they were banned, he asked if anyone knew why they were banned.
I answered the question he asked.

WhiteElephant
02-03-2006, 12:00 PM
He didnt ask why they were banned, he asked if anyone knew why they were banned.
I answered the question he asked.

Hi Bill,

Could you tell us why tiffanie_scott was banned. Thanks.

PHAT
02-03-2006, 12:00 PM
He didnt ask why they were banned, he asked if anyone knew why they were banned.
I answered the question he asked.

:lol: You are a TOTAL AUTISTIC

PHAT
02-03-2006, 12:03 PM
Hi Bill,

Could you tell us why tiffanie_scott was banned. Thanks.

:naughty:

Don't play 20 Questions with the Dog King of Keeping Secrets. It just makes him feel more superior.

EGOR
02-03-2006, 12:26 PM
Hi Bill,

Could you tell us why tiffanie_scott was banned. Thanks.
Please.:D

PHAT
02-03-2006, 12:32 PM
Please.:D

Don't crawl to this DOG

arosar
02-03-2006, 12:38 PM
Please.:D

Prolly because the handle sounds pornographic.

AR

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 12:39 PM
Don't crawl to this DOGIf anyone has been acting like a neutered dog its you. One just has to look at your lack of them in the CL threads.

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 12:44 PM
Hi Bill,

Could you tell us why tiffanie_scott was banned. Thanks.Two accounts were created one after the other. Both were from the same IP address. A thread then appeared and a conversation started that was totally non chess related between the two new accounts. The Admins/mods decided to ban both accounts and the thread deleted.

WhiteElephant
02-03-2006, 12:58 PM
Two accounts were created one after the other. Both were from the same IP address. A thread then appeared and a converstaion started that was totally non chess related between the two new accounts. The Admins/mods decided to ban both accounts and the thread deleted.

Hehe sounds like a fruit cake.

ElevatorEscapee
02-03-2006, 04:43 PM
Hehe sounds like a fruit cake.
It could have been two different people posting from the same computer, who had a row and weren't talking with one another... :lol: err, maybe not.

PHAT
02-03-2006, 06:01 PM
Two accounts were created one after the other. Both were from the same IP address. A thread then appeared and a conversation started that was totally non chess related between the two new accounts. The Admins/mods decided to ban both accounts and the thread deleted.

Killjoys. Someone (or two) want to post non-chess in the non-chess forum, just let them. Stop being so petty, relax, this is not the Department of the Auditor General. :rolleyes: It isn't even a rated chess game but you tossers enforce the rules like robots. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 06:25 PM
Killjoys. Someone (or two) want to post non-chess in the non-chess forum, just let them. Stop being so petty, relax, this is not the Department of the Auditor General. :rolleyes: It isn't even a rated chess game but you tossers enforce the rules like robots. :hand:No doubt the Admins/mods will give your opinion the consideration it deserves. :hand:

PHAT
02-03-2006, 09:08 PM
No doubt the Admins/mods will give your opinion the consideration it deserves. :hand:

While you get all the respect you deserve :hand:

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 09:17 PM
While you get all the respect you deserve :hand:Yes, from those that matter.
Your opinion on the other hand doesnt.

PHAT
02-03-2006, 10:25 PM
Yes, from those that matter.


My my, cosy little clique, eh. Big alpha dog is always one challenge from being breakfast. V..

Bill Gletsos
02-03-2006, 10:47 PM
My my, cosy little clique, eh.I wasnt referring to chess.
However if I had been at least there are no ratbags like you.

Big alpha dog is always one challenge from being breakfast. V..You certainly are a dogs breakfast.

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2006, 11:58 PM
Killjoys. Someone (or two) want to post non-chess in the non-chess forum, just let them.

Best to just get rid of it right away. I can add to Bill's post that the two posted 4 mins apart from the same IP and with identical posting styles - probably a new hydra-troll and if not that then one or more kiddies being silly.

A post or two here is no big deal but in the past we've had some quite serious chatter-troll attacks filling threads with dozens of posts of junk - best to nip them in the bud.

ElevatorEscapee
03-03-2006, 09:12 PM
Bah... you spoil all the fun of both the troll, and the general posters who can "gang up" against them! ;)

Sometimes these things have vastly more entertainment value on a bulletin board if they are just left to run their natural course (as long as no one is getting hurt! :eek: ). :P

ursogr8
28-03-2006, 07:57 AM
28/3/2006
8.57am

New chesschat member. manvendra singh, sends an advertising e-mail to my home post-box.

If I was still in the Punters Club we would be betting how long till he is banned, and perhaps if.

starter

Rincewind
28-03-2006, 08:04 AM
28/3/2006
8.57am

New chesschat member. manvendra singh, sends an advertising e-mail to my home post-box.

If I was still in the Punters Club we would be betting how long till he is banned, and perhaps if.

starter

8 minutes.

Do not reply to the email.

ursogr8
28-03-2006, 10:28 AM
8 minutes.

Do not reply to the email.

Thanks Baz

Is that your ''bet' for the Punters Club sweep', or is that the answer to my conjecture? ;)


Do not reply.

regards
starter

antichrist
29-03-2006, 02:21 PM
How about a thread split removing all the energy questions etc out of Blood on Hands thread. At least until the Palestinians have equal nuke weapons as the Zionists.

Garvinator
30-04-2006, 06:22 PM
seems like ac has actually been given a suspension (not of his choosing). What did he do this time?

ElevatorEscapee
30-04-2006, 09:49 PM
According to the shoutbox, it was an accident.

If we all pray hard enough (in the right way) for his return, he might even be back as soon as tomorrow!

http://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gifhttp://barry.chesschat.org/eusa_pray_666.gif

:lol:

antichrist
01-05-2006, 12:31 PM
It was no accident, it was done by RW it highly seems to me as I seemed to proved he had been lying. The reason for the ban was to quote being a "di.khead".

What a terrific admin officer we have there. I have stated earlier that he is the most biased of all the mods (though he is not even one).

PHAT
20-06-2006, 12:18 AM
I deleted a post by PHAT (Matthew Sweeney) that blatantly contradicted the site policy on responsibility for posts. I have also added a mention of that policy to the moderation rules list at the top of this thread just so that it can be seen with the rest of the rules. Although Matthew is on a zero-tolerance policy I did not ban him because I was the only party affected by his comments and I do not impose (or generally recommend) bans in such cases.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about!! PM me.

antichrist
30-06-2006, 09:40 PM
Mike Baron
While soccer is not chess it also requires some brains...Palestinian soccer team would never qualify for world cup!
__________________________________________

I consider this comment racist as pointed out in the thread concerned - will this poster be barred???

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2006, 10:03 PM
I consider this comment racist as pointed out in the thread concerned - will this poster be barred???

It's at least no worse than your comments equating Jews and Nazis in the same thread today.

That thread is a bit of a special case - it seems that people on both sides are willing to sling some pretty silly propaganda-style rubbish so I've generally just let it go; enter at own risk (I'm tempted to include "enter at own risk" in the title). Very severe material that might expose the forum to outside action can still expect to get modded but generally so long as those concerned are happy being as bad as each other I couldn't care less about it.

antichrist
30-06-2006, 10:36 PM
As each individual Aussie cannot be responsible for actions taken under the banner of Union Jack, I consider the Star of David the same. But those actions are performed in the name of the country with that flag flying so somehow I think can say "Star of David" and not refer to individuals, or only the government.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2006, 10:40 PM
If anyone wants to respond to AC's comment, please do so on the "Blood on Hands" thread.

Desmond
01-07-2006, 08:28 AM
If anyone wants to respond to AC's comment, please do so on the "Blood on Hands" thread.
I will do so here if you don't mind, because my comment is on the thread, not the subject of it.

I looked at that thread once. I think I read 3 or so pages before I was so disguisted that I could not go on. I think it is a real shame that some of those things are said by people who otherwise seem reasonably decent and/or intelligent. I find many of those comments highly offense to any human being, not to mention those at whom they are directed.

antichrist
03-07-2006, 08:20 PM
KB, why mod non-chess threads, in the Football one I was drawing an analogy, aren't we allowed to draw analogies and as expected they may be off thread. Isn't this interfering just a bit too much?

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2006, 01:53 AM
KB, why mod non-chess threads, in the Football one I was drawing an analogy, aren't we allowed to draw analogies and as expected they may be off thread. Isn't this interfering just a bit too much?

Analogies in general are fine. The problem is that a very great proportion of the "analogies" you draw are to Israel-Palestine, and whether intended or not, have the effect of dragging Israel-Palestine debate rubbish into other threads.

Find some better analogies that are less likely to colonise the whole board with Israel-Palestine rubbish.

(Note: I'm not saying the I-P debate is rubbish in general, but when you get people with very strong feelings chucking slogans at each other it is pointless and annoying to many posters.)

Boris: I am putting a "read at own risk" warning on "Blood On Hands" as a few people have been offended by that one.

antichrist
04-07-2006, 11:00 PM
..........
(Note: I'm not saying the I-P debate is rubbish in general, but when you get people with very strong feelings chucking slogans at each other it is pointless and annoying to many posters.)

................

What about your flame wars that went on whole weekends, against Matt and FG mainly? And Bill during UCJ era?

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2006, 11:58 AM
What about your flame wars that went on whole weekends, against Matt and FG mainly?

I don't think I was disparaging entire nations during those.

Arrogant-One
05-07-2006, 03:36 PM
I don't think I was disparaging entire nations during those.
Okay, do you admit to simply being critical of those nations then?

Bill Gletsos
05-07-2006, 03:47 PM
Okay, do you admit to simply being critical of those nations then?The flamewars A/C referred to did not involve nations but individual posters.

Arrogant-One
05-07-2006, 04:02 PM
The flamewars A/C referred to did not involve nations but individual posters.
I thought that was what he was referring to Bill, but wasn't 100% sure. That's why my post was ambiguous - so I could sus out whether that was the case based on his answer.

antichrist
10-07-2006, 08:37 AM
KB, Axiom is polluting my Blood on Hands thread - at'em boy!

Garvinator
10-07-2006, 11:36 AM
^^

what did he get tossed for this time and how long :P

WhiteElephant
13-07-2006, 06:07 PM
Mods - could someone please explain why bigredcar was banned. Thanks.

ElevatorEscapee
13-07-2006, 07:03 PM
Apparently, Mr Broom-broom-chugga-chugga was someone else who was here already! ;) (not that I'm a mod, mind you!)

WhiteElephant
13-07-2006, 08:37 PM
There have been a few queries about why bigredcar was banned.

bigredcar was banned by Rincewind for being an unnecessary hydra of an existing user. That user had restarted under a new account name, perhaps to evade responsibility for flames made under the old account, or perhaps so he could pretend to be something he wasn't (namely: 14 years old). bigredcar was offered the choice of merging his accounts under the old name or the new one, or losing his second account. He chose to lose the bigredcar account, but is still permitted to post under his original account name.

Thanks. Can you tell us who it is... :)

Edit: Just looking through his posts and I can't pick who it is from posting style, though I can narrow it down based on certain info he has provided. Still not enough to point to a particular poster.

Mischa
13-07-2006, 09:01 PM
pm me

Cat
13-07-2006, 10:56 PM
Why is a hydra such a bad thing? Its normal for Cats to have more than 1 life!