PDA

View Full Version : Request: The old ACF BB be immediately restored to full func



Pages : [1] 2

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 07:32 PM
If you want the old BB full restored send an email requesting such to Paul B the ACF webmaster at

broekhuysep@bigpond.com

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:11 PM
I agree.

Also why is Jeo, locking threads that he does not like? I thought there was going to be robust freedom of expression here.

Is no criticisms of this BB, or ACF or any of chesskit's live telecasting now banned :(

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:13 PM
There was a thread about 80 posts long arguing this topic, It was a decision of ACF to move to this BB. If you have any complaints about this BB, make them to admin@chesskit.com, if you are going to complain about ACF moving their bulletin board over here, complain to the ACF, not me.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:25 PM
There was a thread about 80 posts long arguing this topic, It was a decision of ACF to move to this BB. If you have any complaints about this BB, make them to admin@chesskit.com, if you are going to complain about ACF moving their bulletin board over here, complain to the ACF, not me.

Where is this thread arguing this topic?

Don't get me wrong - I am not for or against the ACF website moving here :?

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:26 PM
I deleted it, when it started to go way off topic. How ACF BB transfers is not my responsibility. My responsibility is this forum. So, if any of you have any complaints about THIS forum, please feel free to mail admin@chesskit.com.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 09:34 PM
Jeo, why delete a post when it starts to go offtopic? The ontopic sections are still relevant and deleting the rest has caused discussions to have to be restarted again on the same matters discussed above.

Based on what I have seen I have no confidence at all in your ability to moderate the ACF-relevant sections of this BB. I must ask you to agree to not moderate them and leave it to the mods from the old forum - if you do not agree then I must support Bill's call for a return to the old BB. The technical gains are not worth having heavy-handed, poorly-considered and nonsensical moderation. I am sorry to have to express things so forthrightly as that but that is the way I see it, as one who has experience in moderating forums with a far higher post volume than this one.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:37 PM
Why I deleted was because I realised I dont need to cop any crap from anyone about how the BB was transfered. And thats all that was happening. If you dont like this board or any admin, then dont post in it.

peanbrain
01-01-2004, 09:39 PM
I deleted it, when it started to go way off topic. How ACF BB transfers is not my responsibility. My responsibility is this forum. So, if any of you have any complaints about THIS forum, please feel free to mail admin@chesskit.com.

wow ... you are one powerful man Mr Jeo!
You've chosen to delete a whole discussion thread just because YOU THINK its off the topic. :twisted:

Can you actually play chess?!

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:40 PM
No, I forgot how to play chess.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:42 PM
Why I deleted was because I realised I dont need to cop any crap from anyone about how the BB was transfered. And thats all that was happening. If you dont like this board or any admin, then dont post in it.

wityh all due respect Jeo, I think that kevin has a very valid point. I think that the moderating has been very heavy handed and that zero tolerence has been shown for opposing views.

Many times in the old BB, the Forum Admin, paul b, has been criticised - mostly wrongly. There have also been many instances where topics have gone off topic, and then come back into topic again

I do not think deleting threads because they are off topic, or are critical of this BB is the way to go

peanbrain
01-01-2004, 09:45 PM
Why I deleted was because I realised I dont need to cop any crap from anyone about how the BB was transfered. And thats all that was happening. If you dont like this board or any admin, then dont post in it.

That's what we are all trying to tell you Mr Jeo - we don't want to post here .... if we have a choice!!

You offered to host our good old BB on your chesskit and you decided you can't accept any criticism so you deleted any posts/threads you don't like. We want to be able to revert back to our old BB and be able to attack you with our crap there, so a win/win for all, don't you agree?? :D

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 09:50 PM
There was a thread about 80 posts long arguing this topic, It was a decision of ACF to move to this BB. If you have any complaints about this BB, make them to admin@chesskit.com, if you are going to complain about ACF moving their bulletin board over here, complain to the ACF, not me.
This is a lie.
No decision was made by the ACF Council regarding this.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:52 PM
I do not LIE. Are you saying I hacked your ACF site and changed the link and put an announcement on the front page?

Im seriously sick of your shit. If you post about the change here AGAIN, say bye.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 09:52 PM
I deleted it, when it started to go way off topic. How ACF BB transfers is not my responsibility. My responsibility is this forum. So, if any of you have any complaints about THIS forum, please feel free to mail admin@chesskit.com.

So you deleted all the criticism of yout behaviour regarding deleting posts and complaints.

Thats a great policy.

You are a disgrace.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 09:52 PM
Why I deleted was because I realised I dont need to cop any crap from anyone about how the BB was transfered. And thats all that was happening. If you dont like this board or any admin, then dont post in it.

That's what we are all trying to tell you Mr Jeo - we don't want to post here .... if we have a choice!!

You offered to host our good old BB on your chesskit and you decided you can't accept any criticism so you deleted any posts/threads you don't like. We want to be able to revert back to our old BB and be able to attack you with our crap there, so a win/win for all, don't you agree?? :D

I must agree with most of the sentiments by the old ACF BB posters.

I only post here because for some reason (and I cannot find out why since the old 80 posts thread on this was deleted) the old ACF BB has been merged into this.

Did the ACF know that the price of merging was that teh Forum Admin would delete entire threads and lock threads, if he thought that it was criticising him,was off topic or he does not agree with the views expressed?

:?:

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 09:54 PM
I do not LIE. Are you saying I hacked your ACF site and changed the link and put an announcement on the front page?

Im seriously sick of your [censored]. If you post about the change here AGAIN, say bye.

The ACF Council made no such decision.

It was apprently made by Paul B by himself.

And as usual you cannot handle criticism.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 09:54 PM
Why I deleted was because I realised I dont need to cop any crap from anyone about how the BB was transfered. And thats all that was happening. If you dont like this board or any admin, then dont post in it.

Not good enough. I have just written to Paul endorsing Bill's call for a return to the old BB. It is Paul's decision that has caused the problem, but you should have thought things through more thoroughly before accepting the arrangement - either that or you should adapt to it. Once again - a moderator should not, except in extreme cases like death threats or completely mindless abuse - use their moderator powers to defend themselves from criticism, valid or invalid.

If you want people from the old ACF BB here you are going to have to change your tune massively because the way it is going there will be emails in the weekly ACF Bulletin complaining about it. The way you are going at the moment it is certain that most of the regulars off the old board will leave or be banned. This is a huge step backwards for Australian chess if it goes from having an excellent functional BB to one which is more functional but which almost no-one wants to post on. That is a decision which you can have a say in - do you want the Australian chess BB community to be able to access your board and its features or not? If you do, you have to do it on terms that community finds acceptable. If you don't want to, just write to Paul saying you have changed your mind.

I should point out that those complaining about your moderation actions already have included two ACF Councillors and all the five most frequent posters on the old ACF BB. It is now your moderation style that is the only serious obstacle to the changeover to this BB succeeding.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 09:58 PM
Hmm..

Ok ive stopped moderating this forum, and all the ACF forums.

PHAT
01-01-2004, 10:02 PM
Hmm..

Ok ive stopped moderating this forum, and all the ACF forums.

Thanks, I am impressed with your ability to make the right decission under pressure. :)

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:04 PM
Hmm..

Ok ive stopped moderating this forum, and all the ACF forums.

Does anyone know why and when the decision was made to move teh ACF BB to this chesskit BB?

As far as I am aware there was no consultation or information dissemination. When I posted in the ACF BB at about noon, there was still no information about the move to the chesskit BB.

I also think that moderation policies so far has been disgraceful and very heavy handed.

Deleting entire threads for critiscisms that the moderator does nto agree with is very stupid. Like Kevin, I think that the only reason threads should be locked or deleted is if there is a breach of privacy, defamition, death threats or wanton abuse

very bad start by the chess kit adminsitrator :evil:

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:14 PM
Ok so Jeo wont moderate here.

Where does that leave all his comments in now deleted threads about following the posting policy of this site.

Clearly we dont follow his posting policy..
As such I still believe we should all email PAul B asking/demanding that the old BB restored immediately.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:18 PM
Hmm..

Ok ive stopped moderating this forum, and all the ACF forums.

Does anyone know why and when the decision was made to move teh ACF BB to this chesskit BB?

As far as I am aware there was no consultation or information dissemination. When I posted in the ACF BB at about noon, there was still no information about the move to the chesskit BB.

I also think that moderation policies so far has been disgraceful and very heavy handed.

Deleting entire threads for critiscisms that the moderator does nto agree with is very stupid. Like Kevin, I think that the only reason threads should be locked or deleted is if there is a breach of privacy, defamition, death threats or wanton abuse

very bad start by the chess kit adminsitrator :evil:

This decison had absolutely nothing to do with the ACF Council.

In fact in a now deleted thread Jeo said that he and Paul B thought it was a good idea that we transition now. It would seem he therefore was aware that the decision was one of Paul B's and not the ACF.

I find it amazing that Jeo argued there was no way they had found to allow for the old BB to be made available in read only mode.
However after numerous complaints it magically appeared in a few hrs.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 10:19 PM
What I did was corrupt the Post.pl, so you cant post.

It didn't occur to me at first, oh well.

Garvinator
01-01-2004, 10:19 PM
hey hasnt anyone realised that for only the second time on the bbs that we managed to get uniform consensus :oops:

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:20 PM
Hmm..

Ok ive stopped moderating this forum, and all the ACF forums.

Thanks, I am impressed with your ability to make the right decission under pressure. :)

Matt its good to see that when things really matter all the old antagonists of chesslover, peanbrain and you and I can all agree.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:21 PM
What I did was corrupt the Post.pl, so you cant post.

It didn't occur to me at first, oh well.
With experience comes wisdom.

Either that or you can sometimnes just be lucky.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:23 PM
hey hasnt anyone realised that for only the second time on the bbs that we managed to get uniform consensus :oops:
Yes 24 hours ago who would have thought it possible.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:23 PM
Im seriously sick of your [censored]. If you post about the change here AGAIN, say bye.

I think this is very bad. A moderator should NEVER threaten a poster with banning, if they post items that they think is important and relevant.

It is upto the rest of the BB community to detrmine if they think it is important or relevant, not the moderator.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:25 PM
Jeo,

Will you please stop telling people who are unhappy to email the ACF.
This is totally misleading.

The ACF had nothing to do with this decision.

I suggest you chnage them to suggesting they email Paul B.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 10:26 PM
Ive changed ACF to ACF Webmaster.

Thanks

PHAT
01-01-2004, 10:27 PM
I am now Lclosing and locking this thread. We - or at least I am - happy enough again. So, to quote a quotable quote from today's fracas. "Get over it" - Jeo.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 10:30 PM
Ok so Jeo wont moderate here.

Where does that leave all his comments in now deleted threads about following the posting policy of this site.

Clearly we dont follow his posting policy..
As such I still believe we should all email PAul B asking/demanding that the old BB restored immediately.

If Jeo is now happy to let that go in those sections relevant to us then the matter is solved as far as I am concerned. The same posting policy formally existed on the ACF BB as well, but nearly all breaches of it were let go or simply deleted.

Regular ACF posters should be sensitive to the existing community on this site though, especially when posting in other areas of the board, and especially if new posters from this board want to check out what the fuss is about. Be aware that many of the established posters here are juniors. There's a welcome thread where you can say hello if you want to.

Garvinator
01-01-2004, 10:30 PM
pmsl matt :P

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:38 PM
Ok so Jeo wont moderate here.

Where does that leave all his comments in now deleted threads about following the posting policy of this site.

Clearly we dont follow his posting policy..
As such I still believe we should all email Paul B asking/demanding that the old BB restored immediately.

If Jeo is now happy to let that go in those sections relevant to us then the matter is solved as far as I am concerned. The same posting policy formally existed on the ACF BB as well, but nearly all breaches of it were let go or simply deleted.

Regular ACF posters should be sensitive to the existing community on this site though, especially when posting in other areas of the board, and especially if new posters from this board want to check out what the fuss is about. Be aware that many of the established posters here are juniors. There's a welcome thread where you can say hello if you want to.


Are you sure.
Or is it just a ceasfire in hostilities.

As was said previously by Jeo this site is open to kids.
It would therefore seem that our fairly open attitude to moderation/censorship is at total odds with the policy of this board.

After a few more weeks if the current policy was reintroduced to our sections it would become intolerable and returning to the old board may be nowehere near as simple or easy.

I believe we should heed Shaun Press's advice (which unfortunately I can no longer refer you to) and let both boards run simultaneously for awhile.

Based on todays fracas, I would suggest at least 2 months.

PHAT
01-01-2004, 10:43 PM
[quote="Kevin Bonham"][quote="Bill Gletsos"]

Are you sure.
Or is it just a ceasfire in hostilities.

As was said previously by Jeo this site is open to kids.
It would therefore seem that our fairly open attitude to moderation/censorship is at total pdds with the poilicy of this board.

After a few more weeks if the current policy was reintroduced to our sections it would become intolerable and returong to the old board may be nowehere near as simple or easy.

I believe we should heed Shaun Press's advice and let both boards run simultaneously for awhile.

Based on todays fracas, I would suggest at least 2 months.

No mate. If you get a new girl friend you don't keep servicing the old one. No, we should ride this one for a while and see how she performs.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:44 PM
[quote="Kevin Bonham"][quote="Bill Gletsos"]

After a few more weeks if the current policy was reintroduced to our sections it would become intolerable and returong to the old board may be nowehere near as simple or easy.

I believe we should heed Shaun Press's advice (which unfortunately I can no longer refer you to) and let both boards run simultaneously for awhile.

Based on todays fracas, I would suggest at least 2 months.

I guess Shaun's advice was one of teh posts that was in the deleted thread?

Jeo sent a private email to me just now, stating taht some of the posts were very rude and racist. Assuming that Shaun's posts were not like that, then why not delete the so called crude, vulguar and racist posts, and leave the remaing posts in teh thread intact?

Also is there any way of bringing the deleted threads back, or is it goen forever?

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:46 PM
[quote="Kevin Bonham"][quote="Bill Gletsos"]

Are you sure.
Or is it just a ceasfire in hostilities.

As was said previously by Jeo this site is open to kids.
It would therefore seem that our fairly open attitude to moderation/censorship is at total pdds with the poilicy of this board.

After a few more weeks if the current policy was reintroduced to our sections it would become intolerable and returong to the old board may be nowehere near as simple or easy.

I believe we should heed Shaun Press's advice and let both boards run simultaneously for awhile.

Based on todays fracas, I would suggest at least 2 months.

No mate. If you get a new girl friend you don't keep servicing the old one. No, we should ride this one for a while and see how she performs.

Ha ha, nice turn of phrase.

I am however not convinced that under the current circumstances we should not be like some cultures and have multiple choice.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:47 PM
What he considers rude I doubt most of us would.

Most appeared to be complaints about his heavy handed approach to moderation.

I dont recall seeing any racist comments in the know deleted thread.

PHAT
01-01-2004, 10:49 PM
HEY HEY. None of those posts were made by me, except for one (I think) in which I said someone should "get cancer"

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 10:49 PM
You dont recall seeing any because I deleted it.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:50 PM
You must have deleted them damn quickly then, because I was reading the thread in virtually real time.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:52 PM
HEY HEY. None of those posts were made by me, except for one (I think) in which I said someone should "get cancer"

Yes I quoted that post of yours in one of the now deleted threads but without that last sentence.
It therefore lasted till the thread was deleted.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 10:53 PM
"real time"?

PHAT
01-01-2004, 10:53 PM
... I was reading the thread in virtually real time.


:shock: What kind of temporal state is that?

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:00 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:01 PM
... I was reading the thread in virtually real time.


:shock: What kind of temporal state is that?
Its when you keep hitting the refresh button almost constantly because you are aware that the admin is deletling posts left, right and centre and want to catch them.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:02 PM
cool

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:03 PM
... I was reading the thread in virtually real time.


:shock: What kind of temporal state is that?
Its when you keep hitting the refresh butoon almost constantly because you are aware that the admin is dletling posts left right and centre and want to catch them.

hehe cool, I use firebird. so I right click and make it refresh automatically, and just sit there for you to post :P :P

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:04 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

Garvinator
01-01-2004, 11:07 PM
i have broadband on a sb4200 cable modem

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 11:08 PM
As was said previously by Jeo this site is open to kids.

As was the old ACF BB.

I hope Jeo is also ready for what happens when ACF BB posters start to spill into the off-topic section of the board. That is another area where the moderation needs to be kept reasonably minimal or else everybody is going to end up getting banned. However there is an existing off-topic section and if you have a look at it it is nothing like as serious or feisty as ours has sometimes been.

It is a decision for Jeo. I think he needs to be sure that he really wants us here, long term, just as we are - for us to be here for a month or two and then have the arrangement terminated would not be good at all for anyone.

If he's not sure then we should run the old board as well until he has more time to make up his mind.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:08 PM
i have broadband on a sb4200 cable modem
Optus or telstra?

Garvinator
01-01-2004, 11:11 PM
optus, but still it has been difficult to post and read all the comments tonight here :D

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:11 PM
As I said guys, im not moderating these forums, im leaving it up to Kevin and Paul.

I would prefer ADSL (Which I have), its much lower speed, but much more download limit. Most of my friends on cable run out of d/l limit fairly quick.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 11:13 PM
Its when you keep hitting the refresh button almost constantly because you are aware that the admin is deletling posts left, right and centre and want to catch them.

Also fun if people are flaming you and you want to catch them re-editing their one-liner over and over. Then you quote back all their re-edits at them. "Your first try at a one liner against me was <insert>. It took you six minutes to add two words to that masterpiece and improve it to <insert 2> and then finally in a fit of guilt you seem to have slimmed it down to <insert3>". Almost as much fun as trapping a rook on an open board.

By the way - another important merit of this BB - it is faster.

PHAT
01-01-2004, 11:15 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

No wonder you have no sense of humour.

Hey, how come you went balistic on the old BB when you found out I suckered you with that codswhollop about my life.

[For those who didn't read it. I said i a post today - now lost :evil: - "Just kidding . Though I'ld make you sqirm a bit until your gulability ran out. The truth is mactually much worse - I was an only child with two absent parents. Anyway, have a great new year and love your family :D " CL went completely bonkers calling me all the ahems and "... I was begining to feel sorry for you ..." Priceless]

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:18 PM
As I said guys, im not moderating these forums, im leaving it up to Kevin and Paul.

I would prefer ADSL (Which I have), its much lower speed, but much more download limit. Most of my friends on cable run out of d/l limit fairly quick.
Yes but the reason you exceed your download limit faster on cable than ADSL is because your download speed is faster.

I have had 3 downloads of over 600MB each running at around 110k/sec each from a US site when I was downloading developer pre-release s/w.

At that speed it does not take long to reach a limit, no matter what the limit is.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:22 PM
hmm,

cable -> really fast 3gb limit

adsl -> 512k 20gb limit.

Also alot of ADSL providors have free upload,.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:23 PM
[quote="Jeo"]As I said guys, im not moderating these forums, im leaving it up to Kevin and Paul.

[quote]

yes that is true.

since karthik stated that he has not deleted, or locked any thrads, or threatened anyone with a ban.

I have posted some posts that have been critical of Jeo's moderator policy, s has Bill, kevin, Matt, barry, peabrain ...well pretty much most of us - and these posts are still here.

So like George stated maybe it is a issue where overtime the Moderator comes to terms with the "unique" ACF BB posters...

However Kevin's point is also very good. Jeo needs to be sure that he wants us here, for if in 2 months the discussionm becomes robust like it was prone to do often in the old BB, and Matt goes abusive like he does often, and Kartick does nto liek it, then there may be problems going back.

maybe Jeo needs to read some of the oldBB posts, to get an idea of what he can expect from us? :P

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:23 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

No wonder you have no sense of humour.

Hey, how come you went balistic on the old BB when you found out I suckered you with that codswhollop about my life.

[For those who didn't read it. I said i a post today - now lost :evil: - "Just kidding . Though I'ld make you sqirm a bit until your gulability ran out. The truth is mactually much worse - I was an only child with two absent parents. Anyway, have a great new year and love your family :D " CL went completely bonkers calling me all the ahems and "... I was begining to feel sorry for you ..." Priceless]

You obviously missed my comment on the old board saying how I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that. I said I wouldnt make that mistake again.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:25 PM
hmm,

cable -> really fast 3gb limit

adsl -> 512k 20gb limit.

Also alot of ADSL providors have free upload,.
Yes but I work for a major computer company, so if I really need something large I'll just download it at work.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:26 PM
Yeah.. not all of us have that privelege :(

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:29 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

No wonder you have no sense of humour.

Hey, how come you went balistic on the old BB when you found out I suckered you with that codswhollop about my life.

[For those who didn't read it. I said i a post today - now lost :evil: - "Just kidding . Though I'ld make you sqirm a bit until your gulability ran out. The truth is mactually much worse - I was an only child with two absent parents. Anyway, have a great new year and love your family :D " CL went completely bonkers calling me all the ahems and "... I was begining to feel sorry for you ..." Priceless]

You obviously missed my comment on the old board saying how I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that. I said I wouldnt make that mistake again.

Yes it was a disgraceful lie. This tells you how low matt will stoop to. He said his dad beat him and his brother, how his dad raped his sister, how his dad died of cancer,how his sister and brother died of AIDS

I was feeling sorry for him, when he then came out and said it was all a lie. Truely a disgraceful disgusting piece of work

In fact, now that kartivck is the moderator, I would not blame him if he kicks out Matt from the BB if he ever repeats stunts like this

Truely disgraceful was matt

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:30 PM
I'm not sure having

"If you dont like this board, dont post at it, quite simple."

in the thread titled "Old ACF BB" will win over those people who are yet to login here.

Just a thought.

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Yes it was a disgraceful lie. This tells you how low matt will stoop to. He said his dad beat him and his brother, how his dad raped his sister, how his dad died of cancer,how his sister and brother died of AIDS

I was feeling sorry for him, when he then came out and said it was all a lie. Truely a disgraceful disgusting piece of work

In fact, now that kartivck is the moderator, I would not blame him if he kicks out Matt from the BB if he ever repeats stunts like this

Truely disgraceful was matt

Reminds me of the classic Aussie film The Club. If you haven't seen it it is definitely worth checking out.

I couldn't believe Matt left out the bit about his sister being an amputee.

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:32 PM
im not moderating this forum anymore... ask one of the admins to do whatever bill.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:34 PM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

No wonder you have no sense of humour.

Hey, how come you went balistic on the old BB when you found out I suckered you with that codswhollop about my life.

[For those who didn't read it. I said i a post today - now lost :evil: - "Just kidding . Though I'ld make you sqirm a bit until your gulability ran out. The truth is mactually much worse - I was an only child with two absent parents. Anyway, have a great new year and love your family :D " CL went completely bonkers calling me all the ahems and "... I was begining to feel sorry for you ..." Priceless]

You obviously missed my comment on the old board saying how I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that. I said I wouldnt make that mistake again.

Yes it was a disgraceful lie. This tells you how low matt will stoop to. He said his dad beat him and his brother, how his dad raped his sister, how his dad died of cancer,how his sister and brother died of AIDS

I was feeling sorry for him, when he then came out and said it was all a lie. Truely a disgraceful disgusting piece of work

In fact, now that kartivck is the moderator, I would not blame him if he kicks out Matt from the BB if he ever repeats stunts like this

Truely disgraceful was matt

I still think I was on the money when I suggested his father was one of the 12th Man's cricketers. :D

PHAT
01-01-2004, 11:34 PM
You obviously missed my comment on the old board saying how I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that. I said I wouldnt make that mistake again.

Fair dinkum, I thought you were smarter than CL :D

BTW when you are caught by a practical joke, it is chirlish to whine about "lies". Then again I do recall the day Bill Gletsos met Bill Gletsos and very nearly killed Bill Gletsos. ;)

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:36 PM
I thought that just degenrated into each of us abusing the other.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:37 PM
im not moderating this forum anymore... ask one of the admins to do whatever bill.

Yes but its your post. I'm not asking you to use your admin powers. I see no reason why you cannot change your own post.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:37 PM
im not moderating this forum anymore... ask one of the admins to do whatever bill.

i thought you were moderating this BB, but not the section rleating to australian chess?

Is that the only section of the BB that you are not moderating - so that you will still be modertaor of the non chess, general chess, games sections?

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:40 PM
I will not moderate this, tournament, non-chess and games section. I'll let paul and kevin do it for now.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:42 PM
im not moderating this forum anymore... ask one of the admins to do whatever bill.

Yes but its your post. I'm not asking you to use your admin powers. I see no reason why you cannot change your own post.

Yes I agree with Bill. What Bill has asked is as usual very reasonable and correct. You are not using your admin power but your normal user rightrs.

Whilst we are at it, what about you having 2 id's - one as forum admin, and the other as Jeo? That way you can give your own personal comments, as di***inct from that of the Forum Admin, on any issues that you have an opinion on :idea:

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:44 PM
I changed that part of the post almost immediately, locking/unlocking is up to kevin and paul.

I stick to my word. I said I will not moderate here.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:46 PM
I changed that part of the post almost immediately, locking/unlocking is up to kevin and paul.

I stick to my word. I said I will not moderate here.
Ah its locked. Now I understand. #-o
You would have to use your admin power to unlock it.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:48 PM
Hopefully Grand Pooba Kev will change it then. ;)

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:50 PM
hehe great use of smilies. =D>

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:58 PM
Hopefully Grand Pooba Kev will change it then. ;)

let us hope that the tinpot foreigner from tasmania, exercises his powers wisely :P

power corrupts!! :P :P

on second thoughts, given the great restraint and sensible moderatorship that Jeo has displayed so far, and the universal approval he has recieved from us, it may be safer to let Jeo take over the moderator fucntion from a power crazed tasmanian. The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

Feldgrau
01-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Haven't read all the posts on the matter but it makes sense that the old BB is available in a locked format for reference, some people invested a lot of time in that board. How useful that investment was is another point, but it shouldn't be discarded.

Personally I can't think why someone would want to give their time/bandwith to host this forum, the amount of garbage they are likely to have to wade through.

With my spam filters I can simply block domains, now that would be a great feature for BB's would it not, censoring the fools so their posts don't even make your computer screen.

People I would definitely not censor/block! Jenni (logical and considered), Bill Gletsos (loves a stoush - always worth a read, though the maths loses me), Kevin B (thinks reason and logic can defeat trolls, idealist) - Jase, Paul B, Kerry Stead and many more..

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:00 AM
haha! :D :D :D

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:02 AM
hrmmmmm an ignore feature eyyy, I'll implement that soon, if its not already on the board?!

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:03 AM
I try. 8)
Some would say I'm very trying. :rolleyes:
Of course I dont listen to them. [-X

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:04 AM
BTW the whistling emoticon does not work.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 12:04 AM
Hopefully Grand Pooba Kev will change it then. ;)

The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

Why can't you just say what you think. eg "The only thing these Tasmanians were good for is making sure their niecesand nephews are their sons and daughters." See, it is easy - and much clearer as a point of fact.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:06 AM
BTW the whistling emoticon does not work.

Ill take a look. Thanks for the input.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 12:06 AM
I try. 8)
Some would say I'm very trying. :rolleyes:
Of course I dont listen to them. [-X

no, you are not trying at all

I think your posts arew great, and in the old BB learnt a lot from them. You made me a little bit wiser as a result, and more knowlegable

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 12:09 AM
Kevin B (thinks reason and logic can defeat trolls, idealist)

I have other ways of dealing with them, you just never saw them much on the old ACF BB as I was trying to be diplomatic. In another forum I dealt with a troll by turning troll myself and counter-trolling it so massively that it soon ran away with its head between its legs. However it was a poor and sickly specimen, easily destroyed. There are other forums where I am the troll, and there is one I post on where I have the theory that everyone there (except the really clueless ones) is a were-troll.

I will fix up the announcements post to something more appropriate for the old ACF BB crowd or replace it with one of my own shortly.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:09 AM
BTW the whistling emoticon does not work.

Fixed. :-''

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 12:12 AM
The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

And you call yourself a cricket fan. :shock:

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:12 AM
BTW the whistling emoticon does not work.

Fixed. :-''

8)

chesslover
02-01-2004, 12:12 AM
Hopefully Grand Pooba Kev will change it then. ;)

The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

Why can't you just say what you think. eg "The only thing these Tasmanians were good for is making sure their niecesand nephews are their sons and daughters." See, it is easy - and much clearer as a point of fact.

This is a very offensive post.

Aprreciate it if you could warn matt, or better still ban him.

Think about the poor Tasmanians

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:13 AM
dont look at meeeeee :P :-''

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:16 AM
Hopefully Grand Pooba Kev will change it then. ;)

The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

Why can't you just say what you think. eg "The only thing these Tasmanians were good for is making sure their niecesand nephews are their sons and daughters." See, it is easy - and much clearer as a point of fact.

This is a very offensive post.

Aprreciate it if you could warn matt, or better still ban him.

Think about the poor Tasmanians

Actually he is just stating a well known fact. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:17 AM
dont look at meeeeee :P :-''
The :-'' sure came in handy there. :D

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 12:18 AM
hahaha =;

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 12:21 AM
Why can't you just say what you think. eg "The only thing these Tasmanians were good for is making sure their niecesand nephews are their sons and daughters."

Because he sometimes cares about his credibility and remembers that I wasn't born here.

In some respects, after living here three quarters of my life, I still feel like a tourist.

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 12:24 AM
The only thing these Tasmanians were good for was......was...was.....welll....um.....ergh....um. ..um...... :P :P

And you call yourself a cricket fan. :shock:

I thought you would get up them for not using the correct adjective. (Isn't it Taswegians?)

Anyway, if you are referring to the 'Gong's own Ricky Thomas Ponting, you're too late. He may have Launceston heritage but has adopted a new home with a milder climate. :D

Of course, there is a chance you're talking about the boy from Bernie, one of the greatest uncapped players of the modern era. Or the original Launceston-born test player, heavy drinker and current selector.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 12:56 AM
Anyway, if you are referring to the 'Gong's own Ricky Thomas Ponting, you're too late. He may have Launceston heritage but has adopted a new home with a milder climate. :D

Does he live there now? Not a word about it in the Tassie press, not one. Could be a big scandal that needs leaking through alternative media. :D He still plays cricket for us, when not attending his wife's graduation ceremony (all the papers here really slammed him for that one then backed down in a huge way the day after when their readers flamed them in droves).


Of course, there is a chance you're talking about the boy from Bernie, one of the greatest uncapped players of the modern era. Or the original Launceston-born test player, heavy drinker and current selector.

In chess terms, Boon and Ponting are equivalent to what? Strong GMs? And a few of our state side might be IMs? A pity neither Tasmania nor Australia are as strong at chess as we are at cricket. Mind you, if we had those sorts of funds perhaps we would be - in both cases.

Gandalf
02-01-2004, 03:44 AM
Good grief, what is going on in here? Has the dispute been resolved? Don't ask me to read a seven page thread while on holidays. :)

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 08:37 AM
Does he live there now? Not a word about it in the Tassie press, not one. Could be a big scandal that needs leaking through alternative media. :D He still plays cricket for us, when not attending his wife's graduation ceremony (all the papers here really slammed him for that one then backed down in a huge way the day after when their readers flamed them in droves).

Yeah, his wife was going to Wollongong Uni but as CL also points out, has graduated now. As you know though a graduaion doesn't mean she is finished with Uni.

Of course the rigours of international cricket mean he doesn't speand too much time at home, where ever that may be. He still plays for Tassie when he can, so I'm he no doubt has a major base in the Hobart area somewhere.


In chess terms, Boon and Ponting are equivalent to what? Strong GMs? And a few of our state side might be IMs? A pity neither Tasmania nor Australia are as strong at chess as we are at cricket. Mind you, if we had those sorts of funds perhaps we would be - in both cases.

I would say Boonie and Punter are definitely elite GM level. Jamie Cox would be 2600-strength GM. Shane Watson an emerging IM on the cusp of earning his third GM norm. But I think he is not local product, a Queenslander from memory. ;)

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 08:40 AM
Haha spongebob has a pawn in his hand :D

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 08:53 AM
It's good to see my artistic efforts have not gone entirely unnoticed. ;)

peanbrain
02-01-2004, 10:10 AM
"real time"?
Yes Because there was posts being made at an extremley fast rate, I just kept updating the page almost continuously.
Very easy to do when you are on cable.

You dont miss much that way. You even get to see a post there one sec and gone the next.

wow, you got broadband cable?

I just got 56.6 dialup modem :(

No wonder you have no sense of humour.

Hey, how come you went balistic on the old BB when you found out I suckered you with that codswhollop about my life.

[For those who didn't read it. I said i a post today - now lost :evil: - "Just kidding . Though I'ld make you sqirm a bit until your gulability ran out. The truth is mactually much worse - I was an only child with two absent parents. Anyway, have a great new year and love your family :D " CL went completely bonkers calling me all the ahems and "... I was begining to feel sorry for you ..." Priceless]

You obviously missed my comment on the old board saying how I figured it was a load of crap, but that I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the mistaken belief that even you would post a lie like that. I said I wouldnt make that mistake again.

Yes it was a disgraceful lie. This tells you how low matt will stoop to. He said his dad beat him and his brother, how his dad raped his sister, how his dad died of cancer,how his sister and brother died of AIDS

I was feeling sorry for him, when he then came out and said it was all a lie. Truely a disgraceful disgusting piece of work

In fact, now that kartivck is the moderator, I would not blame him if he kicks out Matt from the BB if he ever repeats stunts like this

Truely disgraceful was matt

Excellent piece of work matt - you are a good gambit player!! I am glad to see even CL was feeling sorry for you! :twisted:

However, I was not sucked in by your story and as I've said - I knew you've made up the story cos one minute your mum was dead and next minute you said it was your brother who died .... Think you were half drunk when you wrote it. :D

peanbrain
02-01-2004, 10:14 AM
BTW now we are on this new BB what happened to the titles of BB GM, IM etc?

Another question - is there going to be a $ prize for the best post on this BB?

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 10:34 AM
I have provided Jeo with the post counts from the old BB for all posters whose count was greater than or equal to 10.

What he does with them is up to him.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 10:57 AM
Excellent piece of work matt - you are a good gambit player!! I am glad to see even CL was feeling sorry for you! :twisted:

However, I was not sucked in by your story and as I've said - I knew you've made up the story cos one minute your mum was dead and next minute you said it was your brother who died .... Think you were half drunk when you wrote it. :D

Half drunk? It was 10am - I have just sobered up by then. Anyway I laughed [deleted] when CL admitted to being so gulible. I showed my wife the ruse and when she was that someone actually fell for it - it was soooo horribly cliche - she laughed so hard and long she was dribbling. I was extremely surpized that Bill fell for it though.

So you and Barry Cox picked it imediately while CL and Bill were stooged. I'ld love to know if Kevin squirmed :D Come on Bonham, fess-up.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 11:13 AM
Actually I said I believed your post was full of crap but was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the basis I could not believe you would be such an absolute and blatant liar.

You proved me wrong.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 11:24 AM
Actually I said I believed your post was full of crap but was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on the basis I could not believe you would be such an absolute and blatant liar.

You proved me wrong.

Cut it out. You are trying to have it both ways. Either you IDed it as BS or you were suckered in a prank.

In any case, you really do need to think about the the words "blatant lie" and see if is correct to use it to describe such a prank. Of course, it might sooth your wounded ego to think that you were a poor pathetic victum of a wicked "blatant lie", but in truth, you were stooged.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 11:40 AM
You can twist it as much as you like. It was a blatant lie. A disgraceful act.

Of course we have all become used to such behaviour by you.

No one should be surprised.

ursogr8
02-01-2004, 11:58 AM
Of course we have all become used to such behaviour by you.

No one should be surprised.

Well Bill

I wasn't surprised.
And yes, it was expected behaviour.

My first reaction was to laugh very much at Matt's 'family history' . In the context of the probable readers it was a first class spoof.
My second reaction was to draw Paul S's attention to the last minute candidate for his consideration. But while I was musing on this, the BB transitioned and the moment was lost.
The article was transparent, well-written, and v. funny. And yes it was edgy
My view.

starter

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 12:43 PM
So you and Barry Cox picked it imediately while CL and Bill were stooged. I'ld love to know if Kevin squirmed :D Come on Bonham, fess-up.

I'm notoriously gullible but even I only managed to keep an open mind for about the first para. The problem was that I was the one who set you the challenge to come up with a family history for yourself and in the context it was meant to be one related to other BB posters. So when you come out with one not related to other BB posters sirens went off immediately - especially as the discussion was obviously jokey, why would you suddenly come out with something so personal? I was sure it was a joke from the sheer melodrama of it long before you contradicted yourself in the final paragraph.

I have to give you credit for trolling anyone successfully with that.

arosar
02-01-2004, 01:40 PM
If Jeo is now happy to let that go in those sections relevant to us then the matter is solved as far as I am concerned. The same posting policy formally existed on the ACF BB as well, but nearly all breaches of it were let go or simply deleted.

It should be recalled that none of us were consulted in this change. We did not impose ourselves on him (Jeo); he imposed himself on us.


Be aware that many of the established posters here are juniors.

OK. But been to ch66 on ICC?

AR

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 01:57 PM
It should be recalled that none of us were consulted in this change. We did not impose ourselves on him (Jeo); he imposed himself on us.

True but no longer relevant. Standards here will be much the same as on the old ACF BB, except that as it is now much easier for me to moderate a lot more of the swearing and anatomical references quickly. I'm discussing what our exact standards will be with Paul at the moment.


OK. But been to ch66 on ICC?

That privelege has not been mine. Yes, it's unlikely even Matthew could come up with much that nine out of ten ten-year-olds haven't already heard and used freely. But some parents (unlike Matthew) don't really understand that, and we don't want children being disallowed from coming here.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:14 PM
Yes, it's unlikely even Matthew could come up with much that nine out of ten ten-year-olds haven't already heard and used freely. But some parents (unlike Matthew) don't really understand that, and we don't want children being disallowed from coming here.

Not all parents are as irresponsible as matt, and allow their children to be exposed to swearing or violence. I will want my daughter not to be exposed to such words or violence or sex, which is why I am going to send her to a christian school when she is old enough to start school.

It is up to parents to teach children to explain and control their children's exposure to violence, sex and swearing.

Thus I am happy with the stricter land that you intend on adopting

Bravo, kevin, Bravo :D

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:16 PM
vby the way why am I called a Queen, while Kevin is called an arbiter, and Bill is called the chief head kicker under their user id's :? :?

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:18 PM
You can twist it as much as you like. It was a blatant lie. A disgraceful act.

Of course we have all become used to such behaviour by you.

No one should be surprised.

EXACTLY :x

I was so sorry that I even prayed for Matt and his family :x

Complete and utter disgrace with his lies :x :evil: :evil:

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 08:30 PM
vby the way why am I called a Queen, while Kevin is called an arbiter, and Bill is called the chief head kicker under their user id's :? :?

Ah the ranking system is Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, King.

When you get to 1400 posts you can have custom status. Since Kevin is an admin he also gets custom status.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:38 PM
vby the way why am I called a Queen, while Kevin is called an arbiter, and Bill is called the chief head kicker under their user id's :? :?

Ah the ranking system is Pawn, Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, King.

When you get to 1400 posts you can have custom status. Since Kevin is an admin he also gets custom status.

But there is 7 grades?

when do the cutoffs begin for pawn. knight, bishop etc?

The highest grade is King? and then you get custom status which is the 7th and final grade? :?

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 08:41 PM
Thats correct, 1400 being King.

100 Knight

250 Bishop

500 Rook

800 Queen

1400 King or Custom Status.

I can ofcourse change the names, provided someone comes up with something interesting.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:48 PM
Thats correct, 1400 being King.

100 Knight

250 Bishop

500 Rook

800 Queen

1400 King or Custom Status.

I can ofcourse change the names, provided someone comes up with something interesting.

what about changing it to the equivalent of chess titles?

Custom as the ultimate

World Champion for the highest non custom rank

Super GM, GM, IM, FM, beginner etc?

I quite enjoyed being a GM :)

Also there are 7 circles, so when do they kick in?

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 08:55 PM
1 when you start off, 5 you add on, I haven't decided anything for the 7th.

I would oppose to using titles to represent post counts. It may give the wrong impression, as post count does not reflect post quality.

Maybe set up a thread for suggestions?

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 09:15 PM
We used to use Rookie, Candidate Master, Fide Master, International Master, Grandmaster. Yes, they do carry the issue with post quality not equalling quantity that you mention, but any system of ranks by post count will do that to some extent. Also with chess pieces, some females may not want to be Knights, males don't (generally) want to be Queens, atheists don't want to be Bishops and nobody much wants to be a Pawn. :shock:

The titles system made for some good in-jokes because people complained about how GM titles were getting devalued just like in the real chess world (hardly surprising as we set GM to just 500 posts).

Really not a big deal whatever way you want to go.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:18 PM
I dont mind, if the majority of people want the ACF system, thats ok.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:23 PM
Also with chess pieces, some females may not want to be Knights, males don't (generally) want to be Queens, atheists don't want to be Bishops and nobody much wants to be a Pawn.

Well thats a valid point.

Rookie 0
Candidate Master 100
Fide Master 250
International Master 500
Grandmaster 800
International Grandmaster 1100

1400 + = Custom Status..

Ok?

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:27 PM
Also with chess pieces, some females may not want to be Knights, males don't (generally) want to be Queens, atheists don't want to be Bishops and nobody much wants to be a Pawn.

Well thats a valid point.

Rookie 0
Candidate Master 100
Fide Master 250
International Master 500
Grandmaster 800
International Grandmaster 1100

1400 + = Custom Status..

Ok?

The best thing I liek about your current system is having confirmed athesists/ agnostics having to wear the title Bishop. hahaha

But what is the difference between a GM and an International GM? A GM is a GM is a GM domestically as well as internationally?

maybe calling them super GM at 1100?

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:30 PM
Ok maybe, but then why are top players IGM, I assumed if you never played overseas, you couldn't attain "International"

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 09:36 PM
1400 + = Custom Status..

Ok?

I'm not fussed - just as long as we can moderate Custom Status to prevent people from putting something inappropriate there. :shock:

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 09:37 PM
Yeah, you can edit Custom Status

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 09:37 PM
The best thing I liek about your current system is having confirmed athesists/ agnostics having to wear the title Bishop.

Aren't most high-ranking clerics closet atheists anyway? :D

Ian Rout
02-01-2004, 09:59 PM
But what is the difference between a GM and an International GM? A GM is a GM is a GM domestically as well as internationally?



I'm not certain, but I believe the International Grandmaster designation was only codified by FIDE c. 1951 though the term had been in use before that. The USSR and maybe others already had their own formalised GM title nationally, so the term IGM was used for the new title. Of course IGM and GM now mean the same.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:13 PM
I'm not certain, but I believe the International Grandmaster designation was only codified by FIDE c. 1951 though the term had been in use before that. The USSR and maybe others already had their own formalised GM title nationally, so the term IGM was used for the new title. Of course IGM and GM now mean the same.

See as IGM and GM means the same, we cannot have rating title of GM and then IGM.

Perhaps GM and then Super GM/ World Champ? There may eventiually be a lot of people who will get the posts for the World Chmps, so that eventually you will have about 5 or 6 people calling themselves World Champs - but then this is happeining in real chess now anyway

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 10:18 PM
I put it as Super Grandmaster already.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 03:55 AM
1400 + = Custom Status..

Ok?

I'm not fussed - just as long as we can moderate Custom Status to prevent people from putting something inappropriate there. :shock:I've already made preliminary arrangements regarding this potential problem. At the moment though, any prominent display of offensive words is a serious breach of our terms of use, especially regarding the Custom Title. If someone wants to risk losing their membership, let them try this kind of childish idiocy. I have faith that most players here will be above that kind of thing. :)

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 12:16 PM
If someone wants to risk losing their membership, let them try this kind of childish idiocy. I have faith that most players here will be above that kind of thing. :)

Is that another threat Gandalf?! :-k

Your posts on this BB is becoming more annoying with more hints of trigger happy attitude to ban people on this BB. This BB is not a membership, it is a forum for people to exchange and debate ideas - including yours!! :evil:

GET A LIFE!!

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 12:30 PM
You are reffered to as members, therefore it is a membership. It is a privelege to post on this forum, not a right.

PHAT
04-01-2004, 02:22 PM
You are reffered to as members, therefore it is a membership. It is a privelege to post on this forum, not a right.

Since when has speech in a public forum be a privledge. You can call us members if you like, but it is in effect public in that anyone can come in here - just like a shopping mall./ Now We all know that mall owners rule with an iron fist in their malls, however, their claims are currently being tested in the courts. Suffice to say, yourcalling this a "private" site is not legally rock solid and may in the near future be found untrue.

This being the case you should shut up about privledges. The ACF bequested the BB chalice to you. You are now [deleted] in it and telling us to drink-up. CHESSKIT will bow to the vast majority of the voices here or you will be drinking from the chalise you poissoned.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:36 PM
Wrong again.

Membership is granted to those who agree to the terms of use. At the time of your registration you did not have to read through the terms of use, I'll grant you that. However, even malls have conditions of entry. I would very much like you to refer to me these court proceedings you have alluded to, if you know what you're talking about.

ChessKit is indeed a private forum in that is not a commercial institution. Nothing is sold and no money is turned. You join by your own volition and continue to be a member with the knowledge that your membership is subject to the terms of use. At the moment our terms of use are the board default, a statement of legal requirements. Members agree not to post offensive, hateful, sexual or discriminatory content. Administrators are charged with upholding these terms.

The ACF did provide us with the right to host their Bulletin Board and its members. As such their board has been dissolved and we have taken its place. We are not legally subject to the ACF but will accomodate their will out of good will. You are bound by our terms of use, and have repeatedly contravened them. As such I am suspending your account for seven days, at which point I will reinstate you.

I really, really did not want to do this, especially to you. However your repeated attacks on our Webmaster, as well as your use of offensive language, has given me cause to take this action. May I never have to do this again.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:47 PM
You are reffered to as members, therefore it is a membership. It is a privelege to post on this forum, not a right.

Since when has speech in a public forum be a privledge. You can call us members if you like, but it is in effect public in that anyone can come in here - just like a shopping mall./ Now We all know that mall owners rule with an iron fist in their malls, however, their claims are currently being tested in the courts. Suffice to say, yourcalling this a "private" site is not legally rock solid and may in the near future be found untrue.

This being the case you should shut up about privledges. The ACF bequested the BB chalice to you. You are now p.issing in it and telling us to drink-up. CHESSKIT will bow to the vast majority of the voices here or you will be drinking from the chalise you poissoned.

No that is not correct.

Malls whilst open to the public, are not entirely "public" places. The mall owners have an obligation to other mall shopers, shops, planning regulations etc. If the mall owners believe that a shopper is being a hazard (ie threatening other shoppers), ten they can evict the person with their security personnel.

Most malls do not like youths hanging around their mall for it seems to discourage other shoppers. Thus they do it subtly now, by using some silly "non cool" music, as reaseacrh has shown in the US, that this will discourage groups of youth from coming :)

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 02:52 PM
The ACF did provide us with the right to host their Bulletin Board and its members. As such their board has been dissolved and we have taken its place. We are not legally subject to the ACF but will accomodate their will out of good will. You are bound by our terms of use, and have repeatedly contravened them. As such I am suspending your account for seven days, at which point I will reinstate you.
Let me point out that the ACF did no such thing.

As a member of the ACF Council I know for a fact that the ACF made no such decision.

The decision was made by Paul B NOT the ACF.

As for the shutdown of the ACF BB I think its time it was re-opened.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:54 PM
George Howard the president of ACF gave Paul the power to make that decision.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 02:55 PM
George Howard the president of ACF gave Paul the power to make that decision.

As I said Paul B made the decisoin. THe ACF Council which runs Australian Chess did not.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:56 PM
But Paul is making it on behalf of ACF, which George authorized.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 02:57 PM
You are bound by our terms of use, and have repeatedly contravened them. As such I am suspending your account for seven days, at which point I will reinstate you.

I really, really did not want to do this, especially to you. However your repeated attacks on our Webmaster, as well as your use of offensive language, has given me cause to take this action. May I never have to do this again.

So because someone has the temerity to question your actions you suspend them.

I thought you guys were going to leave the discipline or others to Paul B or Kevin.

That appears not to be the case.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:59 PM
We did not use moderation features to take any action. As clearly I said, I or Gandalf will not moderate here.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:59 PM
Wrong again.

Membership is granted to those who agree to the terms of use. At the time of your registration you did not have to read through the terms of use, I'll grant you that. However, even malls have conditions of entry. I would very much like you to refer to me these court proceedings you have alluded to, if you know what you're talking about.

ChessKit is indeed a private forum in that is not a commercial institution. Nothing is sold and no money is turned. You join by your own volition and continue to be a member with the knowledge that your membership is subject to the terms of use. At the moment our terms of use are the board default, a statement of legal requirements. Members agree not to post offensive, hateful, sexual or discriminatory content. Administrators are charged with upholding these terms.

The ACF did provide us with the right to host their Bulletin Board and its members. As such their board has been dissolved and we have taken its place. We are not legally subject to the ACF but will accomodate their will out of good will. You are bound by our terms of use, and have repeatedly contravened them. As such I am suspending your account for seven days, at which point I will reinstate you.

I really, really did not want to do this, especially to you. However your repeated attacks on our Webmaster, as well as your use of offensive language, has given me cause to take this action. May I never have to do this again.

Are you sserious?

You've suspended Matt for 7 days?? :o :shock:

I found a lot of reason to disagree with Matt in the old ACF BB, and even here, but I am all for freedom of expression even though I may disagree with the views stated.

I take your point however about swearing and using rude words, and I agree with that. As paul stated in his thread, the old ACF BB was as liberal as they come

For my info, can you please tell me how the penalties kick in for what the Adminsitrators think is a violation of the terms of the BB?

I think you stated that it was a warning, then a suspension and then a deletion?

Also what is to prevent someone who is suspended/deleted from logging on as a new poster to do the whole thing again? :?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:02 PM
Do you want me to pull out logs for how many times bonham has used moderation features on sweeney?

Also, If they do register again, we know exactly who they are, and how many usernames they have, Edit: and what those usernames are.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 03:02 PM
Bill, Paul was appointed by ACF as the human representative and coordinator of your internet presence. George gave the authorisation of the ACF to Paul to make this decision. Very clean, very legitemate. Stop trying to throw your weight around.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:03 PM
But Paul is making it on behalf of ACF, which George authorized.
Then it would appear George decison and PAul B's were flawed.

However you need to understabnd how things work.

PAul as the webamaster would no doubt ask Georeg if it was alright to change boards.

However if George was aware of the full implications of such a change I doubt he would have so readily agreed.

This whole debacle has been poorly managed by Paul.

He did not consult with any of the users of the ACF BB.

All he has done is generate a major bunfight between yourselves and the embers of the ACF BB.

That is in no ones interests.


I again call for Paul B to fully restore the ACF BB.

If this does not happen then as NSWCA President and NSW ACF delegate I will be referring the matter to the ACF Council raising a motion that directs Paul to restore the old BB.

I feel this farce has gone on long enough.

The old BB needs to be restored immediatey.

Then on that board then the members can vote if they want to switch to chess kit.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:07 PM
Do you want me to pull out logs for how many times bonham has used moderation features on sweeney?

Also, If they do register again, we know exactly who they are, and how many usernames they have, Edit: and what those usernames are.

that would not surprise me at all, the amount of times Kevin used the moderation features on Sweeney :D :)

But users on this posts can have multiple user id's? I only have this user id and that is it.

Also when you delete/ suspend one user id, are all the other user id's suspended/deleted automatically as it is the same user who is involved?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:07 PM
members of the ACF BB who disagree and complain?

Correctly, it would be you, sweeney, and who else?

At the moment, Arosar, peanbrain, chesslover have no problem with me, also I can extend that list with Barry Cox, Sutek, Kevin Bonham, PaulB, Chess Dad, and many other people I see on here regularly, that have not complained.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:08 PM
Do you want me to pull out logs for how many times bonham has used moderation features on sweeney?

Also, If they do register again, we know exactly who they are, and how many usernames they have, Edit: and what those usernames are.

that would not surprise me at all, the amount of times Kevin used the moderation features on Sweeney :D :)

But users on this posts can have multiple user id's? I only have this user id and that is it.

Also when you delete/ suspend one user id, are all the other user id's suspended/deleted automatically as it is the same user who is involved?

Not Automatically, but if we see a suspicous post, its very easy to check, infact its just one click of the button, on the same page.

ps. Kumble takes Langer's wicket.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:14 PM
All of them criticised you on the first day.

I expect that criticism will return after they see todays debacle

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:15 PM
We did not use moderation features to take any action. As clearly I said, I or Gandalf will not moderate here.
Thats simply semantics. You banned Matt therefore you moderated him.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:17 PM
We did not use moderation features to take any action. As clearly I said, I or Gandalf will not moderate here.
Thats simply semantics. You banned Matt therefore you moderated him.

I did not ban or suspend anyone. Get your facts straight.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:18 PM
You said we. My reply was to the we. My you was the royal you as in you and Gandalf.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:21 PM
You said we. My reply was to the we. My you was the royal you as in you and Gandalf.

You quoted my message, then used the word 'you'. That would be referring to me only.

Gandalf made the suspension, and no one except you disagrees with him.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:23 PM
The statistics are:

Sweeney has been edited or deleted by Kevin Bonham a total of 9 times. If this many offenses are not enough reason for an Admin to suspend a user, How many times must this happen before we can suspend him?

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:26 PM
Bill, Paul was appointed by ACF as the human representative and coordinator of your internet presence. George gave the authorisation of the ACF to Paul to make this decision. Very clean, very legitemate. Stop trying to throw your weight around.
You apparently have no clue how the ACF works.
The President can make decisions but they can be overturned by the ACF Council.
It would appear that no member of the old ACF BB was consulted about the change prior to the switch over.
That is simply just bad management.
Talk about an accident waiting to happen.

As for throwing my weight around you havent seen anything yet.

I have just sent off an email to George, Paul and Kevin demanding the old ACF BB be restored to functionailty.

If that doesnt produce any results, the next step will be an ACF Council vote.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:26 PM
Please note, before this "suspension", and after I said we will stop moderating, I or Gandalf have used moderation features 0 times on the ENTIRE board.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:28 PM
Bill, Paul was appointed by ACF as the human representative and coordinator of your internet presence. George gave the authorisation of the ACF to Paul to make this decision. Very clean, very legitemate. Stop trying to throw your weight around.
You apparently have no clue how the ACF works.
The President can make decisions but they can be overturned by the ACF Council.
It would appear that no member of the old ACF BB was consulted about the change prior to the switch over.
That is simply just bad management.
Talk about an accident waiting to happen.

As for throwing my weight around you havent seen anything yet.

I have just sent off an email to George, Paul and Kevin demanding the old ACF BB be restored to functionailty.

If that doesnt produce any results, the next step will be an ACF Council vote.

I remember you called me a "dictator" and "power hungry". How about you set up a poll to see what current members think, NOW, before going to the ACF council?

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:28 PM
Our standards are not in line with our standards.

It was our understanding any discipline would be done by Kevin and Paul not you or Gandalf.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:30 PM
Our standards are not in line with our standards.

It was our understanding any discipline would be done by Kevin and Paul not you or Gandalf.

That was what was happening, since Kevin is unable to ban or suspend, we have to do it for him. And 9 offences in 3 days is enough to get you suspended.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:31 PM
Unlike you or Gandalf I was elected by the NSWCA members. As such I get to make decisions I feel are in my members interests.

You just banned one of my members and fellow NSWCA Council members.

There are many times I disagree with Matt, but I will defend his right to speak.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:31 PM
You said we. My reply was to the we. My you was the royal you as in you and Gandalf.

You quoted my message, then used the word 'you'. That would be referring to me only.

Gandalf made the suspension, and no one except you disagrees with him.

Actually I disagree with him.
I would have thought if his language was too strong then it is up to the moderators, and he should at least get a formal warning. From where I stand I think he was banned because he had strongly disagreed on issues with chesskit.

I have no problem with Jeo (apart from his mix use of posts between a regular user as well as an administrator), however, I am concerned with Gandalf's heavy handed approach to matters and his apprearance of a trigger happy stance in future.

It is all very well to say let's wait another couple of months and see, but Bill is right, if we wait another couple of months then we may not even have the ability to move back to the old BB if things don't work out.

We need assurance and agreement on the exact terms of this hosting by chesskit now. Like Gandalf said - new rules governing this BB coming out next few weeks, what happens if they tell us we all need to talk and behave like 13 year olds on this BB in future? (And read between the lines of Gandalf's posts that is a real possibility!!) :(

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:32 PM
Our standards are not in line with our standards.

It was our understanding any discipline would be done by Kevin and Paul not you or Gandalf.

That was what was happening, since Kevin is unable to ban or suspend, we have to do it for him. And 9 offences in 3 days is enough to get you suspended.

No you dont have to do it for him at least not unilaterally.

If Kevin wants Matt banned then let him request you take that action.

Otherwise you are acting as moderators of our forums. Something YOU said you would no longer do.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:34 PM
Oh right..... I see..

so you are using your power as NSWCA president? Oh right.. I see, but I cannot use my power as Admin? Hmm? :?

So what if hes one your members?

Oh so your position as NSWCA president is to help your friends in situations like this, even though your friend is the one on the faulty side. Hmm? That sounds like "power hungry" to me..

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:37 PM
Our standards are not in line with our standards.

It was our understanding any discipline would be done by Kevin and Paul not you or Gandalf.

That was what was happening, since Kevin is unable to ban or suspend, we have to do it for him. And 9 offences in 3 days is enough to get you suspended.

No you dont have to do it for him at least not unilaterally.

If Kevin wants Matt banned then let him request you take that action.

Otherwise you are acting as moderators of our forums. Something YOU said you would no longer do.

Again you use the word YOU. Im assuming you are referring to Gandalf and I.

We did not use moderating features, we did not delete or edit posts. And 9 offences are sufficient to get ANYONE suspended.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:38 PM
Ha ha ha.

That post just shows how little you understand.

If you had even ever bothered to look at the old ACF BB you would find that I would be the one who gives it to MAtt the most of all the posters.

To describe him as you do as "one of my friends" is not based in fact.

As for NSW President and ACF Deelegate that means I get to represent NSW.

It is my opinion that the closing of the ACF BB was illconceived and ill considered.

Call it power hungry if you want.

I call it carrying out my function.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:39 PM
Again you are just using semantics.
Suspending a user is the ultimate moderation power.
You suspend them you remove their right to post. therefore they have been moderated.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:40 PM
Ha ha ha.

That post just shows how little you understand.

If you had even ever bothered to look at the old ACF BB you would find that I would be the one who gives it to MAtt the most of all the posters.

To describe him as you do as "one of my friends" is not based in fact.

As for NSW President and ACF Deelegate that means I get to represent NSW.

It is my opinion that the closing of the ACF BB was illconceived and ill considered.

Call it power hungry if you want.

I call it carrying out my function.

I do not see any reason to support anyone in the wrong, unless they are your friend, in which many cases people with power misuse their power for very often.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:41 PM
Again you are just using semantics.
Suspending a user is the ultimate moderation power.
You suspend them you remove their right to post. therefore they have been moderated.

On this board, Mod and Admin are different functions altogether.

However, if you want to say that he has been moderated, then do so. I really dont care. Since 9 offences from even you (or even me), will get that person banned or suspended.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:42 PM
You see him in the wrong.
I dont.
So Kevin moderated him nine times. So what.
He didnt see that his 9th offence desereved a ban. I would suggest he wouldnt have thought Matt's 10th offence would require a ban.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:42 PM
Please note, this is not 9 offences over a span of one year, its over a span of 3 days, which is completely unacceptable.

Please also note Kevin have made these moderations, not anyone else. Kevin was an admin on your old BB, the decisions for moderation were made by him.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:43 PM
Oh right..... I see..

so you are using your power as NSWCA president? Oh right.. I see, but I cannot use my power as Admin? Hmm? :?

So what if hes one your members?

Oh so your position as NSWCA president is to help your friends in situations like this, even though your friend is the one on the faulty side. Hmm? That sounds like "power hungry" to me..

WRONG. Anyone been on the old BB is well aware Bill is no friend of Matt. In fact, I congratulate Bill for standing up for his old foe given matt can not speak for himself. (Unlike that back-stabbing Chesslover).

Further, you can not exercise your powers as an administrator without proper process. The point is while you say Matt's earlier posts were moderated a few times, did he get a warning? I bet the answer is no. So on that count if PaulB and kevinB made the decision to ban Matt I don't think anyone would have grounds to appeal - but what Gandalf did and the way he did it was quite unacceptable.

Rincewind
04-01-2004, 03:44 PM
Oh right..... I see..

so you are using your power as NSWCA president? Oh right.. I see, but I cannot use my power as Admin? Hmm? :?

So what if hes one your members?

Oh so your position as NSWCA president is to help your friends in situations like this, even though your friend is the one on the faulty side. Hmm? That sounds like "power hungry" to me..

Describing Bill as one of Matt's friends belies a lot of the posts from the old BB (and a couple from this one too).

I must say I thinks Bill's proposal is a reasonable one. There has been a lot of friction between Gandalf and Jeo and various ACF BB regulars.

I think most of this friction was caused by the poor transition, communication, etc. Some however seems to be fundamental differences in the way this board works and the expectations of the existing ACF BB community.

Personally, I think the board is fine for me. However, I don't want to see anyone banned for behaviour which was not previously bannable. (Perhaps George does.) But I think restoring the old board until the ACF council has had a chance to discuss a sensible course of action.

PaulB, is it achievable?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:45 PM
So wait.... waiting for your OLD, moderater on the OLD BB, Kevin to make the moderations, 9 times, does not allow an admin to make a suspension?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:46 PM
The reason I said friend is, I do not see any other reason someone would stick up for that person completely in the wrong.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:47 PM
Please note, this is not 9 offences over a span of one year, its over a span of 3 days, which is completely unacceptable.

Please also note Kevin have made these moderations, not anyone else. Kevin was an admin on your old BB, the decisions for moderation were made by him.

I dont care if he made the offences over 3 days or even 3 minutes.

So Kevin moderated him. Big deal.
Kevin did not request he be banned.

Gandalf made that decision.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:47 PM
As I have said time and again, if you want the ACF BB to be restored talk to Paul. Till then, if you are going to make as many offences as Sweeney, 9 in total, all being moderated by Kevin, then expect to be suspended. This behavour is unacceptable anywhere.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:48 PM
Please note, this is not 9 offences over a span of one year, its over a span of 3 days, which is completely unacceptable.

Please also note Kevin have made these moderations, not anyone else. Kevin was an admin on your old BB, the decisions for moderation were made by him.

I dont care if he made the offences over 3 days or even 3 minutes.

So Kevin moderated him. Big deal.
Kevin did not request he be banned.

Gandalf made that decision.

Gandalf is an admin, if he makes a decision, then it goes. If you want, you can go and have a cry in the corner, or even better, set up a poll to see how many people actually want to move back to the old ACF BB.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:51 PM
As I have said time and again, if you want the ACF BB to be restored talk to Paul. Till then, if you are going to make as many offences as Sweeney, 9 in total, all being moderated by Kevin, then expect to be suspended. This behavour is unacceptable anywhere.
As far as I am aware Kevin has moderated me once for using a word here that was totally acceptable on the old board. I have not used it since he moderated it.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:52 PM
You are the people that elected him and Paul to moderate. It was a call from all of you. Edit: Not me or Gandalf, and not anyone to do with Chess Kit.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:52 PM
If you want, you can go and have a cry in the corner,
Ha you really dont know me if you think thats how I would respond.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:53 PM
As I have said time and again, if you want the ACF BB to be restored talk to Paul. Till then, if you are going to make as many offences as Sweeney, 9 in total, all being moderated by Kevin, then expect to be suspended. This behavour is unacceptable anywhere.

So am I correct to assume the new rule on this BB is that you'll be banned if your posts are moderated precisely 9 times?!

In that case we better have a list of words published, clearly stating what words are on the moderator's list. And also who can tell me how many times I've been moderated so far?! (My count is one for the use of a P word, and the bullC__p incident don't count as I had copied it from the administrator to ask a question).

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:53 PM
If you want, you can go and have a cry in the corner,
Ha you really dont know me if you think thats how I would respond.

What do you think you are doing now? All you are doing is having a cry on this BB.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:53 PM
You are the people that elected him and Paul to moderate. It was a call from all of you. Edit: Not me or Gandalf, and not anyone to do with Chess Kit.
Yes moderate and ban when they decide. Not you.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:55 PM
As I have said time and again, if you want the ACF BB to be restored talk to Paul. Till then, if you are going to make as many offences as Sweeney, 9 in total, all being moderated by Kevin, then expect to be suspended. This behavour is unacceptable anywhere.

So am I correct to assume the new rule on this BB is that you'll be banned if your posts are moderated precisely 9 times?!

In that case we better have a list of words published, clearly stating what words are on the moderator's list. And also who can tell me how many times I've been moderated so far?! (My count is one for the use of a P word, and the bullC__p incident don't count as I had copied it from the administrator to ask a question).

I think 1 or 2 offence a month will be tolerable. Again, I do not mind words in the intention of "bollocks", as stated in an announcement by Kevin.

arosar
04-01-2004, 03:56 PM
What is going on here? I thought we already sorted this all out!! F***ing ridiculous! (Note: OK, in this context I expect this to be permissible).

Now, somewhere in there Jeo said that I had no problem with him. True - he as a person is whom I have no probs with. However, I maintain my concern over the incompatibility of 'culture/expectations' between Chesskit and a thriving online community, notwithstanding our often heated internal disagreements.

Thus, I fully endorse my president's demand for the old ACF BB to be completely restored to 100% functionality. Secondarily, I also call for Mr Sweenety's posting abilities to be reactivated. Third, I demand that any moderating and admin of this section of the forum be deferred to Monsieurs Press and Bonham in addition to Paul B. Finally, I call upon my fellow BBers to support this call.

I'm actually starting to appreciate the technilcal supremacy of this board over the old one. I'm beginning to grow quite fund of that PGN/FEN thingy. However, the prevailing authoritarian attitude of both Jeo and Gandalf are proving very destructive of free expression, fee exchange and, most of all - fun!

I repeat: we did not impose ourselves on Chesskit; they did - without asking us.

AR

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:56 PM
You are the people that elected him and Paul to moderate. It was a call from all of you. Edit: Not me or Gandalf, and not anyone to do with Chess Kit.
Yes moderate and ban when they decide. Not you.

They can't ban. And I still have authority to ban if I wish. And I do not encourage anyone to ban or suspend unless they are extreme cases such as Sweeney's.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:57 PM
To be frank, I have no problems with kartick. I think that after the first couple of hours he has been fine, and I think that his work on the BB, and it's fine features should be acknowledged.

However I do nto agree with Gendaf's actions in suspending matt. I, like Bill, disagree with most of matt's posts but think that his freedom of expression should be honoured - as long as he does nto swear, cuss, use vulgar words, then he should be able to say what he wants.

I would have preferreed if kevin or paul banned or suspened matt, (or as Jeo pointed out he did not have the user rights) requested Kartick or Gandalf to suspend matt.

However the old BB was very liberal, and things that Matt said there would nto have been tolerated in most boards or moderated chat rooms

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 03:57 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:58 PM
What is going on here? I thought we already sorted this all out!! F***ing ridiculous! (Note: OK, in this context I expect this to be permissible).

Now, somewhere in there Jeo said that I had no problem with him. True - he as a person is whom I have no probs with. However, I maintain my concern over the incompatibility of 'culture/expectations' between Chesskit and a thriving online community, notwithstanding our often heated internal disagreements.

Thus, I fully endorse my president's demand for the old ACF BB to be completely restored to 100% functionality. Secondarily, I also call for Mr Sweenety's posting abilities to be reactivated. Third, I demand that any moderating and admin of this section of the forum be deferred to Monsieurs Press and Bonham in addition to Paul B. Finally, I call upon my fellow BBers to support this call.

I'm actually starting to appreciate the technilcal supremacy of this board over the old one. I'm beginning to grow quite fund of that PGN/FEN thingy. However, the prevailing authoritarian attitude of both Jeo and Gandalf are proving very destructive of free expression, fee exchange and, most of all - fun!

I repeat: we did not impose ourselves on Chesskit; they did - without asking us.

AR

The moderation features themselves were used by Kevin. Such exccess amount of offences will result in ban.

Look. I dont mind even if you have a couple of offences over a few weeks or a month, but 9 over 3 days is inexcusable.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:00 PM
However the old BB was very liberal, and things that Matt said there would nto have been tolerated in most boards or moderated chat rooms
As I think Kevin pointed out the ACF BB was no more liberal than a lot of other BB's on the net.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:00 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

I do not know since it has been moderated. Kevin used his powers 9 times on Sweeney, and Gandalf decided that this is bannable or atleast deserves a suspension.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:02 PM
They can't ban. And I still have authority to ban if I wish. And I do not encourage anyone to ban or suspend unless they are extreme cases such as Sweeney's.
And thats where most of the old ACF BB'ers would disagree with you. We dont see Matt's behaviour on this board as extreme.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:03 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

I do not know since it has been moderated. Kevin used his powers 9 times on Sweeney, and Gandalf decided that this is bannable or atleast deserves a suspension.
Then perhaps Gandalf will enlighten us.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 04:03 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

I don't think it was his lauguage - it was his OPINION and DISAGREEMENT with Gandalf that did it! :shock:

BTW - Gandalf was the good guy in lord of the rings - I don't know who this wannabe Gandalf is but his actions so far is discredits Gandalf's good name.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:04 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

I don't think it was his lauguage - it was his OPINION and DISAGREEMENT with Gandalf that did it! :shock:

BTW - Gandalf was the good guy in lord of the rings - I don't know who this wannabe Gandalf is but his actions so far is discredits Gandalf's good name.

Exactly peanbrain.
I saw it that Gandalf banned Matt because of Matt's opinion. Not any words in Matt's actual post.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:05 PM
Then why did Bonham moderate him 9 times? I have full logs with dates IP Addresses, and any other information that is needed, such as type of moderation.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:05 PM
The moderation features themselves were used by Kevin. Such exccess amount of offences will result in ban.

Look. I dont mind even if you have a couple of offences over a few weeks or a month, but 9 over 3 days is inexcusable.

I agree with Jeo in the sense that almsot all BB's and Chat rooms would suspend someone for having 9 offences in 3 days. Our old ACF BB was very tolerent of offences, and the moderators very very broadminded.

However whilst Jeo's decision to let paul and Kevin moderate the ACF sections of this board is a very good decision, and one that I applaud, I also think the decision to suspend/ ban accounts of ACF members should also lie with Kevin and paul

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:06 PM
So what word did Matt use in his post that caused Gandalf to ban him.

I saw nothing overtly offensive in his post.

I don't think it was his lauguage - it was his OPINION and DISAGREEMENT with Gandalf that did it! :shock:

BTW - Gandalf was the good guy in lord of the rings - I don't know who this wannabe Gandalf is but his actions so far is discredits Gandalf's good name.

Exactly peanbrain.
I saw it that Gandalf banned Matt because of Matt's opinion. Not any words in Matt's actual post.

As the post still remaines, he still used piss, purposefully with a dot to escape the cesnsoring function, so there you go, that adds up to your total of 10. And there are probably other posts elsewhere, who knows.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Then why did Bonham moderate him 9 times? I have full logs with dates IP Addresses, and any other information that is needed, such as type of moderation.
So what.
Kevin moderated him.
He did not request he be banned.

arosar
04-01-2004, 04:07 PM
Who is Gandalf? And I know Karthik already introduced himself but I forgot - so who is he again?

AR

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 04:09 PM
Then why did Bonham moderate him 9 times? I have full logs with dates IP Addresses, and any other information that is needed, such as type of moderation.

Well I was moderated for a P word as you for a B word. Having been moderated 9 times is not sufficient reason to ban him.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:09 PM
He is the other admin.

I have lifted Sweeney's suspension. If I see anymore offences from him for the remainder of the month, I will have to ban him myself.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:10 PM
Having been moderated 9 times is not sufficient reason to ban him.

Yes it is. It is sufficient to suspend him, Ive given him a chance.

Lets see how he responds.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:12 PM
Lets be totally clear here.

What do you consider an offence by him.

Provided he does not swear I would assume that expressing his opinion about this BB and its admin policies is not a bannable offence.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:13 PM
Having been moderated 9 times is not sufficient reason to ban him.

Yes it is. It is sufficient to suspend him,
Thats only yours and Gandalf's opinion.
It clearly wasnt Kevins.
Its not mine nor others.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:13 PM
Who is Gandalf? And I know Karthik already introduced himself but I forgot - so who is he again?

AR

he is an admin as well - with the same admin power as Jeo

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:13 PM
An offence is where a moderation tool is used on a post.

I STILL have not moderated anyone. I dont see the requirement to.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:14 PM
Who is Gandalf? And I know Karthik already introduced himself but I forgot - so who is he again?

AR

he is an admin as well - with the same admin power as Jeo

Not the same.

arosar
04-01-2004, 04:14 PM
I meant their real names!

AR

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:15 PM
Having been moderated 9 times is not sufficient reason to ban him.

Yes it is. It is sufficient to suspend him,
Thats only yours and Gandalf's opinion.
It clearly wasnt Kevins.
Its not mine nor others.

Hes an admin. If his reasoning tells him that he needs to suspend someone for 9 offences, then that is what goes. He did not even completely ban him, and it was after a great number of offences, in such short time.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:15 PM
In fact I wouldnt be surprised if Matt was moderated for quoting a word I used well before he or I were aware that the word was unacceptable and would be moderated.

After all dip.... is fairly mild as words go.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:16 PM
I meant their real names!

AR

You can ask him by PM, or he may reply to this post when he is online.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:16 PM
I sure wish the Grand Poohba would turn up.

How dare he be out having a life.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:17 PM
In fact I wouldnt be surprised if Matt was moderated for quoting a word I used well before he or I were aware that the word was unacceptable and would be moderated.

After all dip.... is fairly mild as words go.

Time and again, you elected Kevin to moderate, and he has made the edits or deletes.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 04:19 PM
Anyway, welcome back Matt. =D>

We look forward to your first post-ban post ... with baited breath. As long as you don't swear, I am sure even Gandalf will afford your rights to express your views and opinions in this free country! \:D/

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:19 PM
So whats your point.

We arent complaining about Kevin.

We are complaining about Gandalf suspending Matt.

We are complaining about your so called 9 moderations in a short period of time and your out.

Neither of those issues have anything to do with Kevin.

Stop trying to imply they do.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:21 PM
This issue is over, get back to the cricket.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:21 PM
Anyway, welcome back Matt. =D>

We look forward to your first post-ban post ... with baited breath. As long as you don't swear, I am sure even Gandalf will afford your rights to express your views and opinions in this free country! \:D/

I wish there was a flying pig emoticon. :-({|=
It would be handy right about now. ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:22 PM
Have fun AR.

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 04:31 PM
OK, this is long, and I suggest those who this concerns read it slowly and carefully. :)

I was not consulted about whether Matt was to be suspended.

I have no problem, personally, with simply deleting Matt's offensive posts as they occur, unless he persists in making dozens of offensive posts per day, in which case he should be warned, then suspended, then banned. Generally it takes me not much longer to delete his rubbish than it does for me to read it. However as I am not online 24/7, the cost of having Matt unsuspended is that sometimes his offensive comments will remain up for a little while before, as Paul puts it, the trash is taken out. If the staff of Chesskit are not willing to put up with this situation then the experiment has failed and we should revert to the old ACF BB immediately.

Most of the edits I have made re Matt were removing single words. That is to be expected as he tests the boundaries of what will be allowed, which have still not been made fully explicit, although I'm working on it. I don't even know for sure whether Matt has read my Announcements post setting out the standards for swearing. The old ACF board was very liberal - mainly through Paul being too busy and my secret admin status being too cumbersome to enforce the standards we both would have liked. This one will be less liberal, but Matt being moderated for stuff he would (in all bar two cases) have got away with on the old board is no reason to suspend him.

In at least three cases Matt made posts consisting entirely of unacceptable material and I deleted those. One of those consisted of a single word.

Some of the edits were not Matt's fault. In one instance he was responding to something said by chesslover, and I just wanted to cut the discussion altogether so I pruned out what he had written or quoted.

Also in one case Bill used a word that I considered marginally unacceptable and then a number of posters who quoted that word had their posts moderated. Some of Matt's post moderations would have fallen in this category.

I do not consider Matt is anywhere near the stage of warranting suspending. Again, the Chesskit staff have to consider whether they want the crowd from the old ACF Bulletin Board here. If they do, they must realise that the strict standards in terms of suspending or deleting people that they prefer are not generally likely to be accepted by the regulars from the old ACF BB.

Jeo already agreed to not moderate these sections of the board in response to criticism of his heavy-handedness, which was much appreciated, but it appears that Gandalf's standards may be not much less heavy-handed.

I request the following:

* Absolutely all moderation in the ACF-relevant sections of the board is done by Paul and I (or other people with experience from the old board) only. All Chesskit people to stay out of moderating these sections until agreement on standards can be evolved.

* All decisions about banning or suspending significant posters are taken in full consultation with Paul and I, gaining the agreement of at least one of us or preferably both, and waiting up to a day for a reply from us if needed.

Once again, Jeo and Gandalf, the ball is in your court. This "you agreed to come here so now you have to accept our standards" kind of line isn't on. The point is that many of the posters here, while not too unhappy about having stuff deleted, will not accept harsh standards when it comes to suspending or banning. I repeat the point I made earlier: presumably you want the ACF BB people here for some reason - but if you are going to enforce standards they don't accept, they will leave.

Furthermore, this really shouldn't have happened at all. The first fracas should have been a lesson in the need to consult before imposing standards on people from the ACF BB but much the same thing has still happened again. Hopefully we can fix up this one - but let it be the last.

If there is another instance of conflict breaking out between the regulars from the old board, and the staff on this one, and Paul and I are not fully consulted about its resolution before action is taken, I shall consider the experiment to be a permanent failure.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 04:39 PM
Kevin,

After someone who wistnessed the News Day debvacle informed me they would not be posting ehre, I informed them that the moderation issues had been sorted out and that they should consider posting here.

If they witness todays debacle I suspect no positive words from me will entice them back.

I believe the old ACF Board should be restored immediately and Shaun's idea of running both boards put into effect.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:39 PM
OK, this is long, and I suggest those who this concerns read it slowly and carefully. :)

I was not consulted about whether Matt was to be suspended.

I have no problem, personally, with simply deleting Matt's offensive posts as they occur, unless he persists in making dozens of offensive posts per day, in which case he should be warned, then suspended, then banned. Generally it takes me not much longer to delete his rubbish than it does for me to read it. However as I am not online 24/7, the cost of having Matt unsuspended is that sometimes his offensive comments will remain up for a little while before, as Paul puts it, the trash is taken out. If the staff of Chesskit are not willing to put up with this situation then the experiment has failed and we should revert to the old ACF BB immediately.

Most of the edits I have made re Matt were removing single words. That is to be expected as he tests the boundaries of what will be allowed, which have still not been made fully explicit, although I'm working on it. I don't even know for sure whether Matt has read my Announcements post setting out the standards for swearing. The old ACF board was very liberal - mainly through Paul being too busy and my secret admin status being too cumbersome to enforce the standards we both would have liked. This one will be less liberal, but Matt being moderated for stuff he would (in all bar two cases) have got away with on the old board is no reason to suspend him.

In at least three cases Matt made posts consisting entirely of unacceptable material and I deleted those. One of those consisted of a single word.

Some of the edits were not Matt's fault. In one instance he was responding to something said by chesslover, and I just wanted to cut the discussion altogether so I pruned out what he had written or quoted.

Also in one case Bill used a word that I considered marginally unacceptable and then a number of posters who quoted that word had their posts moderated. Some of Matt's post moderations would have fallen in this category.

I do not consider Matt is anywhere near the stage of warranting suspending. Again, the Chesskit staff have to consider whether they want the crowd from the old ACF Bulletin Board here. If they do, they must realise that the strict standards in terms of suspending or deleting people that they prefer are not generally likely to be accepted by the regulars from the old ACF BB.

Jeo already agreed to not moderate these sections of the board in response to criticism of his heavy-handedness, which was much appreciated, but it appears that Gandalf's standards may be not much less heavy-handed.

I request the following:

* Absolutely all moderation in the ACF-relevant sections of the board is done by Paul and I (or other people with experience from the old board) only. All Chesskit people to stay out of moderating these sections until agreement on standards can be evolved.

* All decisions about banning or suspending significant posters are taken in full consultation with Paul and I, gaining the agreement of at least one of us or preferably both, and waiting up to a day for a reply from us if needed.

Once again, Jeo and Gandalf, the ball is in your court. This "you agreed to come here so now you have to accept our standards" kind of line isn't on. The point is that many of the posters here, while not too unhappy about having stuff deleted, will not accept harsh standards when it comes to suspending or banning. I repeat the point I made earlier: presumably you want the ACF BB people here for some reason - but if you are going to enforce standards they don't accept, they will leave.

Furthermore, this really shouldn't have happened at all. The first fracas should have been a lesson in the need to consult before imposing standards on people from the ACF BB but much the same thing has still happened again. Hopefully we can fix up this one - but let it be the last.

If there is another instance of conflict breaking out between the regulars from the old board, and the staff on this one, and Paul and I are not fully consulted about its resolution before action is taken, I shall consider the experiment to be a permanent failure.

I agree with what you posted.

Like I have stated in this thread, even though I do not agree with matt's views, or his vulgar crude words he uses sometimes, I too did not think that he deserved to be suspended,

From what I saw, he seemed to have been suspended, for his views which were objectionable to gfandalf, rather than a another use of crude language.

Another point that I did not consider, but which you pointed out, is that simply counting up moderation offences and then suspending someone is not the way to go - for some posts were in responses to other posts, quoting others. or relatively insignificant swear words. If there is a 3 moderations and you are out for a day polkicy, that is not correct, without an assessment or analysis of the reasons and severity of the moderations.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:48 PM
I too earlier in this thread, stated that what should happen is that only you and Paul should moderate the ACF sections of this board, and that any suspensions and deletions of ACF users should only happen, ONLY after you or Paul requests that action.

Jeo to his credit had agreed to that, but obviouly gandalf still has not agreed to that.

By the way is there any other chesskit administrators around that we need to knwo about, so that we dont go over this again for a third time?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:59 PM
heh, actually two more. Who you have completely scared away.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 05:02 PM
chesslover - would you stop sucking up to the usual suspects please?

You hedged your bets after Gandalf's unwise decison to suspend matt, and now you jump in with your tripe after you see the tide changed. I didn't see you defending matt's right to express his OPINIONS when he was banned and now you making songs and dances about it?! [-X

I don't think you have any idea what democracy is even if it fell off the sky and crushed your skull.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:05 PM
Kevin,

After someone who wistnessed the News Day debvacle informed me they would not be posting ehre, I informed them that the moderation issues had been sorted out and that they should consider posting here.

If they witness todays debacle I suspect no positive words from me will entice them back.

I believe the old ACF Board should be restored immediately and Shaun's idea of running both boards put into effect.

I think that the only impediment to the success of this new BB is the moderating policy of the administrators here.

The new BB is very good, much much faster, and has so many new features.

I think that if the 2 requests that Kevin has put forth (moderation on the ACF sections by only paul and kevin/ any suspension or deletion after consultation with Paul and Kevin) are agreed to by the chesskit admins there should be no problems to us staying here.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:05 PM
I seriously dont know where all this is going.

You all act like we live off you.

I suggest to Paul that you remove the maniacs (Bill and Sweeney) from my board by ressurecting the old board.

Gandalf and I will not moderate at all the ACF members or the ACF sections, however ACF is responsible for its content, and Chess Kit will take no legal responsibility of the content on the forums which paul and kevin are moderating.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 05:08 PM
I suggest to Paul that you remove the maniacs (Bill and Sweeney) from my board by ressurecting the old board.

Sounds like a very good suggestion to me. That way no vote is necessary and those that want to use the old BB - can.

As we say in business - sounds like a win/win solution!! :-''

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:08 PM
chesslover - would you stop sucking up to the usual suspects please?

You hedged your bets after Gandalf's unwise decison to suspend matt, and now you jump in with your tripe after you see the tide changed. I didn't see you defending matt's right to express his OPINIONS when he was banned and now you making songs and dances about it?! [-X

I don't think you have any idea what democracy is even if it fell off the sky and crushed your skull.

if you looked at my posts, you would see that whilst I agreed with the crackdown on Matt's vulgar swearwords, I disagreed with the ban on Matt.

Indeed I also well before Kevin posted, and following the actions of Gandalf, asked that the ACF sections be moderated by Paul/Kevin, and that all suspensions/deletions occur after a request by Kevin/ Paul.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:09 PM
If you consider losing such facilities on the chess kit board, for not being able to swear, you are a hopeless business man or woman.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 05:11 PM
I suggest to Paul that you remove the maniacs (Bill and Sweeney) from my board by ressurecting the old board.
Ha ha.
I thought you were against personal abuse.
Guess not.

If you had a clue you would know I rarely swear on the BB except in response to Matt.

However a significant number of posters who were regular posters on the old BB have yet to post here and others have not posted since the News years day debacle.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:12 PM
I repeat "Gandalf and I will not moderate at all the ACF members or the ACF sections, however ACF is responsible for its content, and Chess Kit will take no legal responsibility of the content on the forums which paul and kevin are moderating."

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:14 PM
I seriously dont know where all this is going.

You all act like we live off you.

I suggest to Paul that you remove the maniacs (Bill and Sweeney) from my board by ressurecting the old board.

Gandalf and I will not moderate at all the ACF members or the ACF sections, however ACF is responsible for its content, and Chess Kit will take no legal responsibility of the content on the forums which paul and kevin are moderating.

Whilst Matt may indeed be a maniac (of the vulgar crass kind :P ), Bill most certainly is not.

In all my dealings with Bill, both on the BB and off, he has been very fair and forthright in his opinions. He calls it as he sees it, and is not intimidated by anyone. Many many times in the old ACF board, it has been Bill that has stood up to people who have abused and intimated others by irrational illogical posts.

Bill is most certainly not a maniac, and is a well respected and well admired person in the australian chess community. He has as the ACF ratings officer, revolutionlised and made professional the australian ratings systems, and as our leader of teh NSWCA has made the organisation the succesful and progressive entity that it is today. Such was the very high esteem, regards and affection that we in NSW had, that we voted Bill to the highest elected office that NSW chess can

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:17 PM
I did not comment on Bills ability to run NSWCA or his abilities in anything related to chess or NSWCA.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:17 PM
This is now your forum, and whatever goes on it, ACF is responsible for it, just as the old forum.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 05:24 PM
Personally I dont really have an issue with swearing, my only real problem with this board is the high and mighty moderating policies in place and the holier than thou attitude of the admins.

If someone espouses an idea that is intelligent then no one would object if someone said so, however it is hypocritical to allow that and deny the opposite situation when someone says something stupid and if you say its stupid you are abusing that person.

This is just just crass political correctness.

As far as I am concerned If someone acts like an idiot then they deserve to be called one.


You offered the Paul the use of this board.

You should have been aware of what you were letting yourselves in for and Paul should have realised that your moderating policies would cause issues.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 05:26 PM
This is now your forum, and whatever goes on it, ACF is responsible for it, just as the old forum.
Was not the same thing said/implied 3 days ago.

That lasted 3 days.

Can we expect this arrangement to last longer and not suddenly change in another 3 or 33 days.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:27 PM
You can post here forever, providing ACF is responsible for the forums paul and kevin moderate.

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 05:28 PM
I do not know since it has been moderated. Kevin used his powers 9 times on Sweeney, and Gandalf decided that this is bannable or atleast deserves a suspension.

Firstly, he shouldn't have taken that decision without at least determining what kind of stuff has been banned. Sometimes in moderating you get sick of a particular crude topic being discussed so you delete all the discussion of it including posts that were themselves 100% innocent. Otherwise what's left doesn't make any sense. That shouldn't be held against a poster. Some of Matt's 9 posts that were moderated were in that class - absolutely innocent.

For the record, what I remember removing of Matt's so far:

* Two attempts to tell a dirty joke he had made up (though it contained no actual crude words). After I deleted the first he posted a revised watered-down version which was much subtler but I was able to still see the crude meaning in it so I deleted it.

* Matt uses an 8-letter word beginning with s to describe posters who he believes are being too praising of other posters. I banned that word and Matt came up with an alternative which also had sexual connotations. I deleted his post.

* At least once Matt tried to get round the swearing censor using dots, so I deleted that.

* Matt and CL got in a debate about accusations by AR against CL on the old BB. I edited a number of quotes or posts - some of them completely innocent - out of that.

* Matt quoted Bill's use of a now-banned word. I edited Matt's quoting of it out of his posts - again, completely innocent.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:30 PM
Dude, this is your forum now, and ACF is responsible for it. No more explanations of what is being done is needed.

If there is a lawsuit for defamation or something, on the forums that paul and you moderate, it will be against the ACF, not me or chess kit.

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2004, 05:41 PM
Gandalf and I will not moderate at all the ACF members or the ACF sections, however ACF is responsible for its content, and Chess Kit will take no legal responsibility of the content on the forums which paul and kevin are moderating.

That's fine by me, but it may need to be cleared properly by ACF, or at least agreed by Paul. Until the ACF has formally agreed to be legal publisher of part of the forum, it is still your legal responsibility - so if you don't want that, consider whether you want the whole thing wound up altogether.

I want an explicit agreement on suspension issues as well, as requested in my post - no suspensions or bannings of posters from the old ACF BB without one of Paul or I agreeing. Also I want Matthew Sweeney reinstated immediately. If he gets too far out of line, we will deal with him.

I'm going out to have dinner now - when I get back I am going to go through this debate and remove some of the trash (including parts of Matt's initial post which appears to have provoked all this.)

It would be nice if no-one on any side would do or post anything ill-considered in the time I am out, but somehow I doubt it. :(

ursogr8
04-01-2004, 05:42 PM
If you consider losing such facilities on the chess kit board, for not being able to swear, you are a hopeless business man or woman.

This is but a strawman Jeo, and proves nothing.
The rebelling posters are not fighting for the right to swear.
They are in fact fighting for the right to be sensibly moderated.
You could not do it originally, and have the good sense to try a different tack. Well done.

The other G***uy has an attitude problem and has the power. Only time will tell if he can learn from failure. And his time is running out.

Now ggrayggray, where and how do I vote.

starter

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:43 PM
This is now your forum, and whatever goes on it, ACF is responsible for it, just as the old forum.
Was not the same thing said/implied 3 days ago.

That lasted 3 days.

Can we expect this arrangement to last longer and not suddenly change in another 3 or 33 days.

I think that Jeo is a man of honour and listens to reason.

When we all migrated here, Jeo did what he normally does on all forums in chesskit and moderated our discussions. As paul and Kevin have pointed out, their moderation policy has been typically liberal, and they had let go of many things that other admins/ modertaors woudl not.

When Jeo was challenged by ACF posters about the deletion of posts, thread locking etc he had after careful consideration and listening to the viewpoints of people like you, Kevin and paul, decided to leave the moderation of teh ACF sectiosn to Paul and Kevin.

Since then others, including myself, had attacked Jeo for what he did whe had moderator power. Whilst like all BB participants he has a right to speak his mind and post, he has never deleted or locked threads since he volunterilly gave up that moderator power to Kevin and paul.

As for Gandalf that is another matter. My understanding is that Gandalf banned Matt for 7 days because matt had 9 offences in 3 days. I also felt (maybe wrongly?) that Matt was also banned because gandalf did not agree with matt being critical of him.

Anyway now that Jeo and gandalf (?) have agreed to kevin's very reasonable requests to allow him and Paul to modertate the ACF sections, and to consult them before banning and deleting ACF posters, this issue seems to be resolved, in a mutually acceptable compromise

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:45 PM
Gandalf and I will not moderate at all the ACF members or the ACF sections, however ACF is responsible for its content, and Chess Kit will take no legal responsibility of the content on the forums which paul and kevin are moderating.

That's fine by me, but it may need to be cleared properly by ACF, or at least agreed by Paul. Until the ACF has formally agreed to be legal publisher of part of the forum, it is still your legal responsibility - so if you don't want that, consider whether you want the whole thing wound up altogether.

I want an explicit agreement on suspension issues as well, as requested in my post - no suspensions or bannings of posters from the old ACF BB without one of Paul or I agreeing. Also I want Matthew Sweeney reinstated immediately. If he gets too far out of line, we will deal with him.

I'm going out to have dinner now - when I get back I am going to go through this debate and remove some of the trash (including parts of Matt's initial post which appears to have provoked all this.)

It would be nice if no-one on any side would do or post anything ill-considered in the time I am out, but somehow I doubt it. :(

Matts suspension has been lifted.

ACF will be responsible totally for the forums you are moderating, I have no part in them what so ever. If they are not willing to be responsible, then I will delete all the ACF forums, and chess kit forum will go back to normal. I cannot be held responsible for something I am not allowed to moderate.

Garvinator
04-01-2004, 05:47 PM
[quote="Kevin Bonham"][quote] I cannot be held responsible for something I am not allowed to moderate.

I think that is fair enough.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:48 PM
I want an explicit agreement on suspension issues as well, as requested in my post - no suspensions or bannings of posters from the old ACF BB without one of Paul or I agreeing. Also I want Matthew Sweeney reinstated immediately. If he gets too far out of line, we will deal with him.



Kevin, Jeo did state that he had reinstated Matt after listening to your concerns, which by the way you articulated very well in a calm, logical and reasonable way.

I await the return of the lord of the crap, with great interest. Hopefully he will be more subdued and rational in his posts from now on, and not be rude and offensive to others :D :D

By the way did you see the sign at the cricket, saying the lord of the spin will return on Feb 10? I thought that was very witty

Garvinator
04-01-2004, 05:49 PM
[quote="Jeo"]Now ggrayggray, where and how do I vote.starter

i think the thread is called- should we stay or should we go i think?