PDA

View Full Version : "censorship" of oz chess (SF MCC Aust Day WEer 2013)



Rincewind
25-01-2013, 01:47 PM
(On an unrelated note, I noticed that my attempt to type the name of the competitor forum shows up as *****. This is censorship of the worst kind and should be reversed by the administrators of chesschat ASAP.)

It is not censorship in the sense that discussion of that forum is discouraged or censured. It simply ensures that links to that forum from here is made more difficult so as to curtail the spam attacks that promoters of that forum were making here.

Regarding reversing the decision, I think that bridge was burnt some time ago.

UrBANE
25-01-2013, 02:01 PM
It is not censorship in the sense that discussion of that forum is discouraged or censured. It simply ensures that links to that forum from here is made more difficult so as to curtail the spam attacks that promoters of that forum were making here.

Regarding reversing the decision, I think that bridge was burnt some time ago.

The reason you give does not justify preventing people from uttering the name of your competitor. I'm quite disappointed by chesschat's conduct here. I might reconsider using chesschat in the future.

mikesguns
25-01-2013, 02:17 PM
The reason you give does not justify preventing people from uttering the name of your competitor. I'm quite disappointed by chesschat's conduct here. I might reconsider using chesschat in the future.
I have to agree with Urbane here, but I don't think anything is going to be done, so just refer to it as oz chess.

Rincewind
25-01-2013, 02:26 PM
The reason you give does not justify preventing people from uttering the name of your competitor.

Exact copies of the domain name as might be needed in a URL are banned. Pronounceable modifications (as might be needed for uttering) are not. So I don't think you have a point here. It is linking and not uttering which was an issue.


I'm quite disappointed by chesschat's conduct here. I might reconsider using chesschat in the future.

That is your decision.

UrBANE
25-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Exact copies of the domain name as might be needed in a URL are banned. Pronounceable modifications (as might be needed for uttering) are not. So I don't think you have a point here. It is linking and not uttering which was an issue.



That is your decision.

I was not aware that "oz chess" was allowed. I tried "oz chess" with a full stop between oz and chess instead of a space, and that was censored too.

Obviously you do not understand the free speech / competition law implications of censoring the name like this. Anyway, I will use the term "oz chess" from now on.

I request that the last few posts be moved to a more appropriate location.

mikesguns
25-01-2013, 02:57 PM
I was not aware that "oz chess" was allowed. I tried "oz chess" with a full stop between oz and chess instead of a space, and that was censored too.

Obviously you do not understand the free speech / competition law implications of censoring the name like this. Anyway, I will use the term "oz chess" from now on.

I request that the last few posts be moved to a more appropriate location.
Rincewind, you just got lawyered. :)

Rincewind
25-01-2013, 03:23 PM
Rincewind, you just got lawyered. :)

That's ok. Just so long as I don't get MCCed.

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2013, 06:01 PM
Obviously you do not understand the free speech / competition law implications of censoring the name like this.

Obviously there are none and any lawyer who tried to tell us otherwise would be doing their personal and professional image a disservice.

This is a privately owned forum. Through the rights of the owner of this site, we have absolute right to make any decision we like about what is or is not published on our site, so long as we publish no illegal material. To argue otherwise is to argue against our free speech to publish or not publish what we like, and is not only legally invalid but politically inappropriate as well. And to draw comparisons with competition law is like claiming websites have a responsibility to accept free advertising for their rivals - in other words, utter nonsense.

We have a right to protect our site from linkspam attacks of the sort that have repeatedly happened in the past. An easy way to do this is to simply block not only the name of the other forum but also some alternative versions of it that have been used to attempt to get around the block.

If someone wants to use their free speech to link to the other place without limit on their own site, that is their right. But there are obstacles to doing so, and the past behaviour of key figures on the other site is the reason for those obstacles.

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2013, 08:59 PM
And some historical details for those who joined relatively recently yet feel they should pass adverse judgement on us continuing to block links to the other forum, just because of minor inconvenience, and without bothering to find out the facts first:

The other site was established by Alex (Just2Good) but he claims Matthew (Iconoclast) is a co-owner of the forum.

[UPDATE: It is now the case that one site URL is registered to Matthew (but with Alex's email address) and another, the main one, to Alex. Anyway, the designation of Matthew as registrant only strengthens our case for not linking to it given Matthew's past behaviour.]

1. Iconoclast signed up an account here while banned from this site for constantly crude posting, and abused our private message facilities to spam our users with unwanted advertisements for one of his previous sites.

2. In view of Iconoclast's involvement and the stated intention of Alex's forum to outcompete ours, and the fact that Alex had been permanently banned from here for breaching agreements with the site to behave himself after defaming other members, and an attack on our site by Alex threatening "revolution" against our site, when we became aware of Alex's new site we blocked its URL.

3. Alex registered some URLs similar to ours (invalidly as he was a sole trader and not permitted to register them; we had them cancelled for this reason later), redirected them to his site, and signed up new accounts here (while banned from this site) in order to PM our users with false claims that our domain name had changed so that they would cross to his site. (If successful, this plot may have also allowed him to steal passwords, though we do not know if that was his intention.)

4. Alex also made numerous attacks on this site in which he signed up accounts here (while banned) and tried in various ways to link to or promote his site or to abuse people here. One of these, posted under the name "Chee Chee", involved the posting of 94 identical defamatory and false posts to existing threads in 91 minutes. This attack occurred just before Alex's forum started.

5. Another attack that involved writing in a style bearing hallmarks of Alex's work, involved a poster to Ford Forums (a very large car forum, probably chosen specifically for its size) pretending to be Bill and me and pretending to be posting spam posts for Chesschat. Not only did this lead to us being groundlessly criticised on Ford Forums but it resulted in people from Ford Forums falsely assuming the spam was really from this site and coming over here to troll. A happy ending though: it was all cleaned up, the FF admins know that Alex was a jerk, and I am now a posting member there.

I would think someone looking for illegal behaviour in the conflict between the two forums, historically, would find plenty of genuine cases of it on the other side without needing to spuriously allege the same here.

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2013, 04:30 PM
Alex has responded to the above and I'll respond to his comments on the Toolbox-Detox (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9190) thread.

Response here (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=351998&postcount=1325).