PDA

View Full Version : New BB scorecard after day one



Rincewind
01-01-2004, 10:03 PM
It's been an interesting day.

The ACF website gets remodelled and a few days later the BB is pulled from under us like the proverbial rug.

I like the PGN tag of the new BB and I actually prefer the phpBB interface to the YaBB one. I used to run a YaBB board on my old ISP web space some time back but went phpBB when I got a chance and I continue to run one on my Linux bridge/web server/mail server at home.

Anyway, the decision to move may not have been a sudden one, but it certainly would have appeared to have been to everyone except Jeo and PaulB. It would appear that Bill G wasn't aware of the change and he is involved in chess administration at the NSW state and national level. So I would say Transition Management was a fail. there should have been more warning of the impending change and explanation of the change, the whys and wherefores to ease the transition for the old ACF BB posters.

Regarding the moderation, I must say it has left a little to be desired so far. There is the need of moderation and PaulB has stepped in a couple of times in the past. However, there does seem to be an overly defensive posture adopted by the new moderator and assuming anyone is allowed to read this, I'm sure you will agree. ;)

However, it is early days yet and I'm willing to give a Pass Conceded on this one at this time. If the situation worsens I think many posters will vote ith their feet and what was a thriving online chess community may become the worse for it. My advice to the new moderator would be lighten up, chill out and stop moderating. Just because you can lock and delete threads, doesn't mean you should.

On the balance then the score card is tettering on the border line. Technically passing, Failing on managing the transition and pass conceded on the moderation. Let's see if we can put the transition behind us, lift the game on the moderation and push the community on to new heights in 2004!

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 10:06 PM
I did that, im not going to moderate these forums for a while. Obviously when I delete people dont see the posts I delete, so I will leave it for the other admins to deal with.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:07 PM
It's been an interesting day.

The ACF website gets remodelled and a few days later the BB is pulled from under us like the proverbial rug.

I like the PGN tag of the new BB and I actually prefer the phpBB interface to the YaBB one. I used to run a YaBB board on my old ISP web space some time back but went phpBB when I got a chance and I continue to run one on my Linux bridge/web server/mail server at home.

Anyway, the decision to move may not have been a sudden one, but it certainly would have appeared to have been to everyone except Jeo and PaulB. It would appear that Bill G wasn't aware of the change and he is involved in chess administration at the NSW state and national level. So I would say Transition Management was a fail. there should have been more warning of the impending change and explanation of the change, the whys and wherefores to ease the transition for the old ACF BB posters.

Regarding the moderation, I must say it has left a little to be desired so far. There is the need of moderation and PaulB has stepped in a couple of times in the past. However, there does seem to be an overly defensive posture adopted by the new moderator and assuming anyone is allowed to read this, I'm sure you will agree. ;)

However, it is early days yet and I'm willing to give a Pass Conceded on this one at this time. If the situation worsens I think many posters will vote ith their feet and what was a thriving online chess community may become the worse for it. My advice to the new moderator would be lighten up, chill out and stop moderating. Just because you can lock and delete threads, doesn't mean you should.

On the balance then the score card is tettering on the border line. Technically passing, Failing on managing the transition and pass conceded on the moderation. Let's see if we can put the transition behind us, lift the game on the moderation and push the community on to new heights in 2004!

I think Kevin expressed it best in another thread

Whilst this BB may have more functiosn that the old ACF BB, the hardlien policies by the moderator has spoiled it. I would say that on what has happened so far, it is a dismal fail

deleting a thread of 80 posts because the administrator does not like what is being said, is just disgraceful

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 10:28 PM
I think Kevin expressed it best in another thread

While I agree with the thrust of most of what Kevin says, I still think there is value in people expressing their own opinions in their own words.

Besides I couldn;t reply in that thread as it has been locked :o


Whilst this BB may have more functiosn that the old ACF BB, the hardlien policies by the moderator has spoiled it. I would say that on what has happened so far, it is a dismal fail

Yes, but it has only been thefirst day. I believe one can judge too harshly too quickly and most of the time it is better to err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to begin with and making a more informed decision later.

After all, we don't rate chess players on the strength of just one game.


deleting a thread of 80 posts because the administrator does not like what is being said, is just disgraceful

I agree it is heavy handed. Especially to what we've been used to. The same did happen to the Junior Selection thread on the old BB but that was more due to a concern of exposure of libel rather then censoring expression that was critical of the "establishment".

Anyway, to reiterate my sentiments, the new board has potential and I hope posters and moderators/admins alike can be sensible and perhaps we can realise them together.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:33 PM
I still think the old BB should be restored.

We can post here if we like.

We are however now aware of the attitude of the administrator and his policy on posts.

If we dont like it we dont have to post here because we will still be able to post on the old board.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:35 PM
I still think the old BB should be restored.

We can post here if we like.

We are however now aware of the attitude of the administrator and his policy on posts.

If we dont like it we dont have to post here because we will still be able to post on the old board.

yes I think that choice is good.

By having both the ACF BB and this, we can determine which we want to post in. Some of teh modertaor's comment has been along the lines of , if you dont like it done post here, whoich is not really an option if the old ACF BB is inoperational

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 10:39 PM
I still think the old BB should be restored.

We can post here if we like.

We are however now aware of the attitude of the administrator and his policy on posts.

If we dont like it we dont have to post here because we will still be able to post on the old board.

I think if the old board was fully functional then very few people would migrate over here. The idea was probably to simplify things from PaulB's point of view, two functional boards just doesn't make sense.

I still think: the transition was poorly handled; the moderation so far has been heavy handed at times; but, I'm willing to give it a go for a while to see if things improve.

If they don't then other options can be examined. Either restoing the old board or starting a new one to be administered by more liberal minded moderators. ;)

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:43 PM
THere is an old adage.
If it aint broke dont fix it.

The old board may have lacked some features but it wasnt "broke"

I still think Shaun Press was right when he suggested both boards co-exist for a period.

george
01-01-2004, 10:47 PM
Hi All,

Jeo and Paul our Webmaster have had discussions for some time with my encouragement on the subject of the Bulletin Board. The decision to stop one and restart this board was one for Paul to make as our Webmaster.

Certainly removing the possibility of the ACF being sued as hosts for slanderous comments made by third parties and potentially bankrupting the ACF was a major concern.

Jeo offered to host the BB with lots of features which I for one have not explored yet but I'm sure the Techno Heads (no offense Paul and Jeo) can see the possibilities.

Good luck to this new board and I'm sure both Posters and Moderator will find an acceptable way of dealing with each other.

George Howard
ACF President

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:47 PM
THere is an old adage.
If it aint broke dont fix it.

The old board may have lacked some features but it wasnt "broke"

I still think Shaun Press was right when he suggested both boards co-exist for a period.

for what it is worth, I agree with you Bill

However since Jeo has stated that he will no longer use his heavy handed modertaion as aptly shown today, maybe see if this is demonstated over the next week or so.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 10:48 PM
I actually think the benefits of the new BBs superior functions justify the move - now that we have full access to the old posts - provided that all the issues of culture clash and this being a private site can be worked through, crashed through or otherwise resolved.

On that note - a few words. On the old forum I only had secret moderator powers, which meant that every time I wanted to moderate something that deserved to be deleted, I had to log out, log back in as admin, and delete it - rather time consuming. This meant that I was online a lot but there was an effort barrier involved. On this one I can just whack delete or edit and it's gone in an instant, without me needing to log in and out.

For this reason, you may notice slightly more active moderation of some of the more mindless abuse than before.

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 10:51 PM
THere is an old adage.
If it aint broke dont fix it.

The old board may have lacked some features but it wasnt "broke"

I still think Shaun Press was right when he suggested both boards co-exist for a period.

that's true, from our point of view it was not broke. But it appears (on the strength of Jeo's posts, anyhow) that Paul and he have been thinking about it for a while so there must have been some perceived benefit behind the move.

Having both boards open for posting for a transition period would be a transitional option. However, I think it works better if the cut-over is as quick as possible (probably less than 1 week).

However, I assumed (incorrectly, it appears) you were advocating restoring the old BB in perpetuity - which I don't think will work. We should have just one or the other.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 10:57 PM
THere is an old adage.
If it aint broke dont fix it.

The old board may have lacked some features but it wasnt "broke"

I still think Shaun Press was right when he suggested both boards co-exist for a period.

that's true, from our point of view it was not broke. But it appears (on the strength of Jeo's posts, anyhow) that Paul and he have been thinking about it for a while so there must have been some perceived benefit behind the move.

Having both boards open for posting for a transition period would be a transitional option. However, I think it works better if the cut-over is as quick as possible (probably less than 1 week).

However, I assumed (incorrectly, it appears) you were advocating restoring the old BB in perpetuity - which I don't think will work. We should have just one or the other.
I pretty much started the thread asking for the old board to be restored not long after Shaun put up his proposal for both boards to be up for a transitional period and after a demonstration of the moderation policy of delete, threaten and ban in action.

chesslover
01-01-2004, 10:58 PM
On that note - a few words. On the old forum I only had secret moderator powers, which meant that every time I wanted to moderate something that deserved to be deleted, I had to log out, log back in as admin, and delete it - rather time consuming. This meant that I was online a lot but there was an effort barrier involved. On this one I can just whack delete or edit and it's gone in an instant, without me needing to log in and out.

For this reason, you may notice slightly more active moderation of some of the more mindless abuse than before.

You were a secret moderator in the old board? How coem we never knew about this? What is the difference between a secret moderator, and a not so secret modertator? now that the secret is out, can you still be a secret moderator? Will there need to be an investigation on how the secret got out?

:D :D :D :D

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 10:59 PM
For this reason, you may notice slightly more active moderation of some of the more mindless abuse than before.

I had half a mind to test you out on this by replying with a post consisting of a single expletive. Fortunately, the left-hemisphere cut in while I was reaching for the mouse with my left hand. ;)

I'll have to watch that unruly right-hemisphere in the future.

Rincewind
01-01-2004, 11:03 PM
I pretty much started the thread asking for the old board to be restored not long after Shaun put up his proposal for both boards to be up for a transitional period and after a demonstration of the moderation policy of delete, threaten and ban in action.

Yeah, I was at the beach this afternoon and then watching the cricket. Only just catching up with all the "controversy". As I said, it appears my assumption was incorrect and we have been arguing cross-purposes.

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2004, 11:40 PM
You were a secret moderator in the old board? How coem we never knew about this?

Does that mean "why weren't you told?" or "why didn't you know?"

Why weren't you told? - Matt and I got on very badly on the old pre-YABB ACF BBs, a problem which was made much worse if not largely caused by those BBs being so difficult to moderate. When the new forum was started I actually hadn't been on speaking terms with Matt for close to a year and we had no idea how the relationship between Matt and I would pan out on the new one, especially if he knew I was a mod. However Paul couldn't do all the moderation alone as he's often quite busy. So our solution was that I would have access to Paul's account to moderate stuff where absolutely necessary. I think I used this power about 15-20 times all year. All complaints to
noonereallygivesarats@tumbolia.org. =;

Why didn't you know? Because you weren't trying hard enough. A massive hint was dropped when I moderated something at 3:35am or so, and the post read "Last edit at 3:35am by Forum Admin". Anyone paying close attention would have thought "What the hell would Paul B be doing up at 3:35 am when he actually has a life?" and twigged to what was happening. But no one did. [-X

(Hey, we must stay here if we can, look at all these cool new smileys.)


What is the difference between a secret moderator, and a not so secret modertator? now that the secret is out, can you still be a secret moderator?

No, I have now come out of that closet. :P


Will there need to be an investigation on how the secret got out?

No. I leaked it when I showed up on this one.

Bill Gletsos
01-01-2004, 11:51 PM
I pretty much started the thread asking for the old board to be restored not long after Shaun put up his proposal for both boards to be up for a transitional period and after a demonstration of the moderation policy of delete, threaten and ban in action.

Yeah, I was at the beach this afternoon and then watching the cricket. Only just catching up with all the "controversy". As I said, it appears my assumption was incorrect and we have been arguing cross-purposes.
Where is your note.
Who gave you permission to have a life. :D

chesslover
01-01-2004, 11:51 PM
You were a secret moderator in the old board? How coem we never knew about this?

Does that mean "why weren't you told?" or "why didn't you know?"

Why weren't you told? - Matt and I got on very badly on the old pre-YABB ACF BBs, a problem which was made much worse if not largely caused by those BBs being so difficult to moderate. When the new forum was started I actually hadn't been on speaking terms with Matt for close to a year and we had no idea how the relationship between Matt and I would pan out on the new one, especially if he knew I was a mod. However Paul couldn't do all the moderation alone as he's often quite busy. So our solution was that I would have access to Paul's account to moderate stuff where absolutely necessary. I think I used this power about 15-20 times all year. All complaints to
noonereallygivesarats@tumbolia.org. =;

Why didn't you know? Because you weren't trying hard enough. A massive hint was dropped when I moderated something at 3:35am or so, and the post read "Last edit at 3:35am by Forum Admin". Anyone paying close attention would have thought "What the hell would Paul B be doing up at 3:35 am when he actually has a life?" and twigged to what was happening. But no one did. [-X

(Hey, we must stay here if we can, look at all these cool new smileys.)


What is the difference between a secret moderator, and a not so secret modertator? now that the secret is out, can you still be a secret moderator?

No, I have now come out of that closet. :P


Will there need to be an investigation on how the secret got out?

No. I leaked it when I showed up on this one.

At the risk of being attacked by Matt again, I am very glad that you and paul are the modertaors here.The only other person i would trust tobe an impartial, fair, reasonable, just modertaor alongside you and Paul would be Bill.

As for you not being on speaking terms with Matt, do not worry. I think you can count on a hand the number of people who are on speaking terms with Matt :-({|=

But now that the dictator Jeo, has listened to People Power (or BB poster power ), and has volunteraily ceded the moderator power to you and Paul, I look forward like others to a more benign modertaorship.

PS - pls feel free to delete any of Matt's posts for any reasons that you see fit. Use Jeo's brief reign as modertor here as an example on how to handle Matt =P~

skip to my lou
01-01-2004, 11:55 PM
rofl..... :D

I really didn't get a good start did I? :( ](*,)

PHAT
01-01-2004, 11:59 PM
rofl..... :D

I really didn't get a good start did I? :( ](*,)

But you found a queen sac for a draw in a lost position. Not too shabby.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 12:01 AM
rofl..... :D

I really didn't get a good start did I? :( ](*,)

to err is human, to forgive divine

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 12:04 AM
Where is your note.
Who gave you permission to have a life. :D

I figured if Rogers, Johansen and co.,can have a day off, then so can I. \:D/

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 12:09 AM
Where is your note.
Who gave you permission to have a life. :D

I figured if Rogers, Johansen and co.,can have a day off, then so can I. \:D/
When your a GM or IM you can have the day off. 8)
Until then its work, work, work. ](*,)

chesslover
02-01-2004, 12:09 AM
Where is your note.
Who gave you permission to have a life. :D

I figured if Rogers, Johansen and co.,can have a day off, then so can I. \:D/

tomoorow is the big match with Steve waugh

you going to watch?

I hear that it is a sell out (?) so that means we in Sydney get to watch the whole test live?

A good day to get a sickie if so :)

Rincewind
02-01-2004, 12:13 AM
tomoorow is the big match with Steve waugh

you going to watch?

I hear that it is a sell out (?) so that means we in Sydney get to watch the whole test live?

A good day to get a sickie if so :)

Jeo already pointed out on another thread, it actually starts today (in around 10 hours time).

First three days are sell outs so no problem with TV coverage to Sydney.

I'm working tomorrow so I'll have to following with cricinfo, ninemsn live audio feed and/or ABC local radio.

Not planning to do too much away from the TV this weekend though. 8)

arosar
02-01-2004, 01:55 PM
Let's give this bas.tard a chance. But if I don't feel the old culture in here - that's it.

AR

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 02:11 PM
I am behaving exactly the same as I would on the old board.

It sure looks like matt is also.

Just act as you normally would have AR.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 02:40 PM
Let's give this bas.tard a chance. But if I don't feel the old culture in here - that's it.

AR

Whats it? This is uncalled for, and please understand that if you dont post here, I dont lose anything. If you use this board, its to your benefit.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 03:17 PM
Just ignore AR.
He's probably still pissed off after you temporarily banned him yesterday.

He'll get over it eventually.

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 03:18 PM
ok.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 06:24 PM
Just ignore AR.
He's probably still pissed off after you temporarily banned him yesterday.

He'll get over it eventually.

This has got to be either slander or a breach of confidentiality. You are not fit to hold any position on the BB. Disgraceful. And hypercritical concidering the shrill protests you handed out yesterday. You own AR an appology.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 06:27 PM
Just ignore AR.
He's probably still pissed off after you temporarily banned him yesterday.

He'll get over it eventually.

This has got to be either slander or a breach of confidentiality. You are not fit to hold any position on the BB. Disgraceful. And hypercritical concidering the shrill protests you handed out yesterday. You own AR an appology.
Dont be a complete an utter moron.
Then again thats a stupid suggestion because I know youu cannot help being either sinvce its in your nature, except when you are being outright crude rude and vulgar.

Of course being wrong is your forte.

Firstly I hold no position on this BB other than a that of a poster.

Secondly you should check the facts before you make false accusations(then again thats never been your style).

For your information you [deleted], AR publically announced on this BB that he had been temporarily banned. Therefore it was common Knowledge.

Yes I gave Jeo a hard time but that was sorted out and things have been working fine today. Given that I dont believe AR needed to start off today in that manner.

As for being a disgrace that fits you exactly.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 06:37 PM
Just ignore AR.
He's probably still pissed off after you temporarily banned him yesterday.

He'll get over it eventually.

This has got to be either slander or a breach of confidentiality. You are not fit to hold any position on the BB. Disgraceful. And hypercritical concidering the shrill protests you handed out yesterday. You own AR an appology.

... when you are being outright crude rude and vulgar.

For your information you [deleted], AR publically announced on this BB that he had been temporarily banned.



OK, I withdraw.

PHAT
02-01-2004, 06:48 PM
Mr Moderator(s)

Can you please explain to me what a [delted] is and how Bill Gletsos is allowed to use the term if it is what I think it is?

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 07:04 PM
What do you mean how is he allowed to use it?

skip to my lou
02-01-2004, 07:09 PM
It would have before, but apparently the members from the old board are happy with slinging words such as [deleted] around at each other, so I wont intervene.

arosar
02-01-2004, 08:13 PM
Wonderful! I'm actually laughing at this. :D

Btw, Jeo is fine with me. I just got cranky that the first time he dealt with me directly was in a very combative manner rather than easing me into his expectations.

AR

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:25 PM
Let's give this bas.tard a chance. But if I don't feel the old culture in here - that's it.

AR

Whats it? This is uncalled for, and please understand that if you dont post here, I dont lose anything. If you use this board, its to your benefit.

Exactly

arosar is behaving like a spoilt petulant child

For your info, Arosar in the old ACF BB was so rude and offensive that even kind Paul who has a very liberal attitude to moderating was shocked and offended and had to delete one of his posts in utter disgust and horror. Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:31 PM
Dont be a complete an utter moron.
Then again thats a stupid suggestion because I know youu cannot help being either sinvce its in your nature, except when you are being outright crude rude and vulgar.

Of course being wrong is your forte.

Firstly I hold no position on this BB other than a that of a poster.

Secondly you should check the facts before you make false accusations(then again thats never been your style).

For your information you dipshit, AR publically announced on this BB that he had been temporarily banned. Therefore it was common Knowledge.

Yes I gave Jeo a hard time but that was sorted out and things have been working fine today. Given that I dont believe AR needed to start off today in that manner.

As for being a disgrace that fits you exactly.

You are as usual 100% correct in your analysis and opinion.

Arosar himself stated that he was banned, so there was nothing wrong in you stating that. Also as you so aptly and factually pointed out, you hold no official position in this BB, unlike the Tasmanian Grand Poobah Kevin :P

Matt just does not check his facts, as has been proven so many times in the old ACF BB< and this is another example of this.

As you stated you quite rightfully had some serious issues with the moderation of teh ACF board yesterday, which was shared by almost all of the ACF BB posters, and this has been addressed by a lot of common sense and good will and maturity by all parties concerned.

Given that I endorse your statement that there was no need for arosar to be so provacative.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 08:34 PM
Does the definition of [deleted] make the word unacceptable for this BB?

dont be a complete and utter moron

You know very well that in the old BB that word was very acceptable and no concerns were raised by any one person.

Plus if there was one word that aptly describes you that is that word, altough I would add a disgraceful lying moranic before that word :x

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 08:43 PM
This has got to be either slander or a breach of confidentiality.

Probably neither. Mere abuse and already in public domain respectively.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 08:53 PM
On the old forum s*** and all its derivatives were banned and you had to use dots and so on to get around it. On this one it isn't on the banned list but it is safe to assume that I will delete it - and I won't always replace it with "deleted" either, I may simply nuke the whole post.

Matt - if you have a complaint about something that needs moderating it should be sent to me by PM. I accept no responsibility for failing to see or respond to any complaint not reported in this manner.

I'll be discussing extending the banned words list with Jeo ASAP. And by the way, everyone's favourite 8-letter word is out. :P :P :P

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 08:55 PM
For your info, Arosar in the old ACF BB was so rude and offensive that even kind Paul who has a very liberal attitude to moderating was shocked and offended and had to delete one of his posts in utter disgust and horror. Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

No, that delete was one of mine. You did us no favours by repeating the deleted material several times thus defeating the point of deleting it. :P

chesslover
02-01-2004, 09:01 PM
For your info, Arosar in the old ACF BB was so rude and offensive that even kind Paul who has a very liberal attitude to moderating was shocked and offended and had to delete one of his posts in utter disgust and horror. Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

No, that delete was one of mine. You did us no favours by repeating the deleted material several times thus defeating the point of deleting it. :P

Now that you have outed yourself as one of the 2 secret moderators, your secret identity of policing BB "crimes" is now known.

Now that the "secret" moderator's identity has been revelaed as Kevin, will he be as effective? Could Superman have gfought crime successfully if people knew that he was Clark Kent? Batman if people knew he was Bruce wayne? Spiderman if villians knew that he was Peter parker? Hulk if people knew he was Bruce Banner?

The archenemies of the superhero's must be pondering these new developments :D

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 09:13 PM
Mr Moderator(s)

Can you please explain to me what a [delted] is and how Bill Gletsos is allowed to use the term if it is what I think it is?

Dont play games and act innocent you know exactly the word I used started with the prefix dip because you asked about it.

I replied.

It appears someone(probably Kevin) deleted both your post and my reply.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 09:20 PM
Could Superman have gfought crime successfully if people knew that he was Clark Kent?

A rather good analogy actually, because Clark had to go to a telephone box every time he wanted to use his powers.

Bill - yes I manually deleted the word you and Matt were arguing over and a couple of posts about it were removed as well.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 09:43 PM
I dont have a problem with you deleting them.

It just seemed strange for Matt to be asking what [deleted] was when he clearly knew what I had originally typed.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 10:01 PM
Yes. I suspect he was being facetious there. The banned part of the word in question is now in the banned words list.

chesslover
02-01-2004, 10:08 PM
Yes. I suspect he was being facetious there. The banned part of the word in question is now in the banned words list.

and so is that vile word matt used to describe me, whenever I agreed with Bill? :D

matt is fast running out of words to use in this BB I guess!! :D

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 10:35 PM
and so is that vile word matt used to describe me, whenever I agreed with Bill? :D

Ah yes, we have seen the last of it in its former glory. :D He can still hyphenate it, but it won't be quite the same, and it probably won't live very long either.

By the way, don't tell me you didn't know he'd do it. I reckon you looked for opportunities to praise Bill just to provoke Matt into it. :D Bill is indeed a very praiseworthy person in the Aussie chess community, but even he must have been blushing sometimes. :oops:


matt is fast running out of words to use in this BB I guess!! :D

I would not underestimate his ability to produce mimetic evolution like that. :D

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 10:38 PM
It would have before, but apparently the members from the old board are happy with slinging words such as [deleted] around at each other, so I wont intervene.
Actually this argument between Matt and me was rather tame compared to some. ;)

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 10:43 PM
This has got to be either slander or a breach of confidentiality.

Probably neither. Mere abuse and already in public domain respectively.
Actually Kevin, since Matt is referring to my post about AR, I dont believe there was any abuse by me towards AR in my post.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 11:01 PM
Actually Kevin, since Matt is referring to my post about AR, I dont believe there was any abuse by me towards AR in my post.

"Mere abuse" is a technical term in defo law. It means comment that may be viewed as critical but does not contain a real possibility of harm. Matt and I both use it a lot.

Bill Gletsos
02-01-2004, 11:06 PM
Isnt it more the case that Matt claims it is slanderous and you point out its just "mere abuse". :D

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2004, 11:14 PM
Sometimes it's happened the other way round. Almost always whichever one of us says it's "mere abuse" has been right.

arosar
03-01-2004, 11:27 AM
Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

What was it that I said again CL?

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 11:44 AM
That almost sounds like ploy AR in the hope CL will repeat it.

Garvinator
03-01-2004, 01:16 PM
That almost sounds like ploy AR in the hope CL will repeat it.
that is a common tactic that ar uses, he tried on the old bb too [-o<

chesslover
03-01-2004, 05:54 PM
Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

What was it that I said again CL?

AR

[deleted]

I DARE you to repeat that again in this new BB, where vulgarity, crudity and offensive and disgusting words that you have used will soon be history - a reason that in my mind is a nother good thing about the movement of the ACF board to chess kit.

I am so glad that Jeo banned you for a day, but wish it had been far longer. At least now I hope that you think twice before engaging in rude, offesnive, disgusting, vile insults

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 10:56 PM
[deleted]

Must you really start of with this rubbish. [-X

I had hoped that the new year would see you stop acting like a complete moron and cretin. :-''

Guess that was too much too expect. ](*,)

PHAT
03-01-2004, 11:02 PM
But I didn't start it. It is CL who wants everyone to remember such stuff.

Bill Gletsos
03-01-2004, 11:07 PM
But I didn't start it. It is CL who wants everyone to remember such stuff.
Perhaps, but I dont think you should encourage it. :|

Kevin Bonham
03-01-2004, 11:18 PM
But I didn't start it. It is CL who wants everyone to remember such stuff.

Correct, and it's defeating the point of moderating such references in the first place, which is not specifically to prevent crude insults but rather to keep needlessly crude references off the board altogether. The hypothetical parent who cares about what their child's reading wouldn't care less whether their child was exposed to AR insulting CL or CL rehashing AR insulting CL.

CL, if you want to keep bringing up what AR said again and again and again, I'll just delete it again and again and again.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 04:04 AM
And I will suspend your account.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:18 AM
Haha, you guys thought I was strict.

Anyhow, this is Gandalf. Good luck Matt, Arosar and peanbrain.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 04:58 AM
Haha, yes, I like to take our terms of use seriously. Remember, chess is for great minds, and the development of great minds. Such banter is simply intolerable. This may sound like elitism, which it is. Chess players have a standard to uphold.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 08:20 AM
Haha, you guys thought I was strict.

Anyhow, this is Gandalf. Good luck Matt, Arosar and peanbrain.

What was THAT?! a threat?! :evil:

I can't recall having used any foul language on this and the old BB. Unlike the other two. So I suggest you check your facts before you dish out such rubbish. [-X

Rincewind
04-01-2004, 10:04 AM
Haha, yes, I like to take our terms of use seriously. Remember, chess is for great minds, and the development of great minds. Such banter is simply intolerable. This may sound like elitism, which it is. Chess players have a standard to uphold.

I agree with you, mindless insulting demeans the insulter far more than the insultee. But I believe we must watch what is censored. lest we appear to be defensive and not accepting of criticism.

Personally I wouldn't care less. Anyone who lets their children access the internet without the strictest supervision is going to potentially expose them to greater vulgarity than words can ever convey.

Also I'm a libertarian and support freedom of speech. So I support the insulter's right to demean themselves. ;)

But I also understand this is not a public space and that providers do have a right to moderate the discussions that take place. So state the terms and conditions and stick to tem. It is an onerous job, moderating a individualistic bunch such are chess players by nature. :D

PHAT
04-01-2004, 10:07 AM
Remember, chess is for great minds, and the development of great minds. Such banter is simply intolerable. This may sound like elitism, which it is. Chess players have a standard to uphold.


Pompous prig and a a snob as well.

1. Chess is for EVERYONE, mate. It is people like you who are holding back the growth of chess by attempting to create an elitist attitude.

2. Intolerable is a relative term. For you to impose your will on a pre-exiting community is profoundly unwise, tosser. The communty existed before your site, Sunshine. This community is like a refugee here since the ACF closed its BB doors. This community might be driven off else where. Then you and Jeo stew in your own juice.

3. Chess players have no more or less of a standard to uphold than any other group. Furthermore, if you want to talk standards, you might give some thought to the way CHESSKIT bated the trap with honey and then. with the quarry in your maw, dain to lord it over us. SHAME ON YOU

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 10:35 AM
Well said Matt. =D>
All this stuff about standards etc is quite frankly load of you know what.
Look around buddy - if you are under some illusion that chess is some elite sport then I suggest you spend your energy talking to the govt funding bodies and do something good for the sport than preaching to us.
Tosser!! :-#

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 11:36 AM
Matt,

Yes Gandalf's attitude is cause for concern.

Remember I said the following the other day after Jeo retreated from his moderation practice.



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.

What happens when Gandalf decides to lay down the law as he sees it a la the Judge Dredd syndrome.

We should ensure that the old board can be resurrected at a moments notice, otherwise we may find we have accepted a piece sac in getting on this board and are slowly going to be mated in around 30 moves (days?).

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 11:45 AM
It is interesting to note that after 4 days we are still talking about potential moderation issues.

All those who thought this was over after the first day look like they were :-'' in the wind.

PHAT
04-01-2004, 11:54 AM
Bill, you may be right you maybe wrong but what you have said is not to be dismissed. We will see. I think we should keep bashing up these immoderators until we find that either its a marrage worthgy of divorce or just a rocky honeymoon.

For kids to get in to this forum they need to be 13 or older. Under that and their parents have to fax an approval letter. So we might assume that 13 and overs are deemed perfectly able to cope with what we do/say here. Let's be honest about it, highschool students are not neive little petals. The primary school set needs a permition note. Therefore, it is the parents' calll on their kids access and exposure, not the responsabiltiy of CHESSKIT's to censor normal everyday banter.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 12:07 PM
And I will suspend your account.

I find it amazing that an administrator/moderator would post this.

It is nothing short of antagonistic in a situation that did not warrant it and in my opinion was totally unnecessary.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 12:20 PM
Bill, you may be right you maybe wrong but what you have said is not to be dismissed. We will see.
One thing you learn from chess is to anticipate your opponents move and not to underestimate anything no matter how appealing it may seem at the time. Its important to consider all the options. The more unlikely a move is the more shock value it has when it is played.

Also remember the adage "the threat is greater than the execution".

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 12:26 PM
As I said, Gandalf and I will not moderate the ACF transferred forums.

What you people dont seem to realise is, Bonham is working harder on the moderating than I or Gandalf ever would have.

You guys keep saying you will "give us a chance" etc. Whats that about? Seriously, if you want to leave, and if you do leave, im not going to lose anything. Nothing at all. And as I can see already, many people are using the FEN/PGN features, which Im sure everyone likes, since you dont have to put it in a PGN, or play it out on a real board.

Paul and Kevin are mods of the transferred BB's. They will be responsible for what is on those forums.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 12:31 PM
And I will suspend your account.

I find it amazing that an administrator/moderator would post this.

It is nothing short of antagonistic in a situation that did not warrant it and in my opinion was totally unnecessary.

Bill - you're not wrong. Just as a futher proof, I've noticed someone from chesskit has already accessed my account and changed my profiles.

Under my profile I had listed my interests as "Chess, BB and porn", but someone had changed it to read "chess, BB and making fool of myself". I must admit the porn bit was a bit cheeky, but surely it is not against any BB rules nor is it a dirty word. I don't believe chesskit as the host of this BB has any right in going to my profile and change it. This is just a sign of things to come. I am totally pissed off about this and the thought of big brother watching makes me sick. :x

I say it is time chesskit come clean once and for all and declare whether they will accept the old BB community or if they insist on imposing their own rules, thus allowing us to make the decision if we want to have nothing to do with chesskit.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 12:36 PM
Well obviously someone has had access to your account. No admin would attempt that, and there are logs of all admin/moderation activity, and your account was changed yesterday at 2:17pm by you. Not safe guarding your own account, and blaming others for your mistakes is foolish.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 12:39 PM
As I said, Gandalf and I will not moderate the ACF transferred forums.

What you people dont seem to realise is, Bonham is working harder on the moderating than I or Gandalf ever would have.

You guys keep saying you will "give us a chance" etc. Whats that about? Seriously, if you want to leave, and if you do leave, im not going to lose anything. Nothing at all. And as I can see already, many people are using the FEN/PGN features, which Im sure everyone likes, since you dont have to put it in a PGN, or play it out on a real board.

Paul and Kevin are mods of the transferred BB's. They will be responsible for what is on those forums.

In that case, would you and Gandalf stop THREATENING people with account suspensions??!! [-(

That's all you guys keep on talking about .... like I've said, get a life.

Kehya
04-01-2004, 12:43 PM
Peanbrain, Sweeney and Gletsos

You guys are damn idiots.

How about you stop threatening to leave, and actually LEAVE.

Everyone hates you in real life, and everyone hates you here. Nobody cares for you, and you dont seem to understand that.

Arrogant fools. Chess Kit is by far the best chess site I have seen for the average player. If you three leave, im sure everyone else will be happy.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 12:51 PM
Right, it seems you don't understand. What I said was this:

If you choose to behave in a manner that the Administrators deem inappropriate (since all decisions are indeed AT OUR SOLE DISCRETION) then I will not hesitate to execute any power I see fit in response. In using this board you agree to its terms of use. I don't CARE what the rules were at the old BB, this is a different place specifically designed to serve the needs of ALL ages. In relation to your problem this means that references to pornography are forbidden. There are no two ways about it.

I for one am sick of you assuming that you are in some way a blessing to this board. Jeo and I (especially Jeo) work day and night to keep this forum up and running, and he hasn't had a good night's sleep in months because he spends all his time trying to make this place better to use. If you leave nobody is worse for it, but if he leave then Australian Chess loses one of its most valuable supporters.

We are not PAID to deal with you. We are not rewarded by anything but our own satisfaction at doing something good for Chess in our own realm. We have only one incentive in keeping you around, and that is to enrich the community here. Should you prove to be more trouble than benefit you'll be warned, suspended and banned in that order.

Lastly, you will find it clearly expressed that the administrators, moderators, and indeed anyone else appointed by ChessKit has authority to edit, delete, or otherwise manipulate any of the board's content (including posts and profiles) at will, without notice. We will of course only do so when the action is appropriate, and YOUR guidelines are the terms of service. I will admit that at the moment our terms are still rather ambiguous, and I will be glad to flesh them out next week when I return to Australia. Those terms will be retroactive, so if you think our actions this week are unjustified wait for the new conditions. If you still have a problem, send us an email and we will address it.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 12:52 PM
Peanbrain, Sweeney and Gletsos

You guys are damn idiots.

How about you stop threatening to leave, and actually LEAVE.

Everyone hates you in real life, and everyone hates you here. Nobody cares for you, and you dont seem to understand that.

Arrogant fools. Chess Kit is by far the best chess site I have seen for the average player. If you three leave, im sure everyone else will be happy.

We not the ones making the threats. I'll be happy to return to our old BB as soon as its posting functions can be restored. Don't forget we didn't ask to come here in the first place.

you the sort of fool not realising freedom of speech is the very core of our civilization ..... I don't hate you but I pity your ignorance. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Hey Kehya stop being a moron and think for a change.

The transition here was forced upon us.

We had no say.

Since Paul B has seen fit to shut down the old ACF BB we have no choice at the moment other than to post here.

If the admins of Chess Kit offered to host our BB they should have made sure they knew what they were going to get.

As for who hates us and who doesnt I'm sure all of the old ACF BB's couldnt care less.

I know for certain, I couldnt care list what a dipstick like you thinks about me and I'm fairly certain Matt and peanbrain feel the same way.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 12:55 PM
We not the ones making the threats. I'll be happy to return to our old BB as soon as its posting functions can be restored. Don't forget we didn't ask to come here in the first place.

you the sort of fool not realising freedom of speech is the very core of our civilization ..... I don't hate you but I pity your ignorance. :rolleyes:

I think you will find this board was previously full of juveniles with no life experience.

They certainly come across that way.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 12:57 PM
Well obviously someone has had access to your account. No admin would attempt that, and there are logs of all admin/moderation activity, and your account was changed yesterday at 2:17pm by you. Not safe guarding your own account, and blaming others for your mistakes is foolish.

Reading the reply from Gandalf suggests he did change my profile then. Looks like you are the fool having humble pie for lunch?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 12:58 PM
Well obviously someone has had access to your account. No admin would attempt that, and there are logs of all admin/moderation activity, and your account was changed yesterday at 2:17pm by you. Not safe guarding your own account, and blaming others for your mistakes is foolish.

Reading the reply from Gandalf suggests he did change my profile then. Looks like you are the fool having humble pie for lunch?

He didn't make the change, you did.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 12:59 PM
I think you will find this board was previously full of juveniles with no life experience.

They certainly come across that way.Did you come here before? It seems not, since we actually had a very wide span of people, though not nearly the post volume.

One of the problems was the international viewership. It is very difficult for people of other languages to post in a forum of English speakers about Chess, and Jeo and I simply didn't have the means to translate effectively for a while.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 01:01 PM
I for one am sick of you assuming that you are in some way a blessing to this board. Jeo and I (especially Jeo) work day and night to keep this forum up and running, and he hasn't had a good night's sleep in months because he spends all his time trying to make this place better to use. If you leave nobody is worse for it, but if he leave then Australian Chess loses one of its most valuable supporters.
We dont see ourselves as a blessing or otherwise to this baord.

What we see is that it was forced upon us with no consultation.

All we have seen from you and Jeo have been threats and intimidation.

I'm sure if Paul B were to restore functionality to the old ACF Board then you would find virtually none of the old ACF BB'ers posting here.

Unfortunately with the old ACF BB disabled we have no choice at the moment to post here.

So for the time being it appears that we are stuck with you and you with us.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:01 PM
Reading the reply from Gandalf suggests he did change my profile then. Looks like you are the fool having humble pie for lunch?Actually, no, I made no change to any accounts. I have had all my time chewed up by REAL problems worthy of attention. When I have nothing else to do, maybe then I'll go through profiles. At the moment there are more important problems to deal with.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:09 PM
I for one am sick of you assuming that you are in some way a blessing to this board. Jeo and I (especially Jeo) work day and night to keep this forum up and running, and he hasn't had a good night's sleep in months because he spends all his time trying to make this place better to use. If you leave nobody is worse for it, but if he leave then Australian Chess loses one of its most valuable supporters.
We dont see ourselves as a blessing or otherwise to this baord.

What we see is that it was forced upon us with no consultation.

All we have seen from you and Jeo have been threats and intimidation.

I'm sure if Paul B were to restore functionality to the old ACF Board then you would find virtually none of the old ACF BB'ers posting here.

Unfortunately with the old ACF BB disabled we have no choice at the moment to post here.

So for the time being it appears that we are stuck with you and you with us.

I am nobody to control what is on the ACF site. If you leave, I wouldn't be mourning about it either. Infact, I will see it as a great relief.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:13 PM
Jeo, I've had a mind to close this thread for a while now. It has plenty of posts heralding problems, but offers no useful solutions, alternatives, or even useful suggestions. This thread is seven pages of complaint with no move to address the problems at hand...

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 01:15 PM
Actually until Gandalf saw fit to make his post and re-ignite the moderation debate, I had seen things working quite well.

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 01:17 PM
So to stop complaints you close a thread.

That isnt good policy.

It reeks of someone attempting to stifle others opinions.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:17 PM
dont bother

Bill Gletsos
04-01-2004, 01:18 PM
I think you guys need to have a long and serious take to Paul B and Kevin about this.

I'll shut up for the moment until they make a post on here regarding this.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:19 PM
The only people still complaining includes you, sweeney, and peanprain.

3 or 4 people opposing out of 300?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:20 PM
I think you guys need to have a long and serious take to Paul B and Kevin about this.

I'll shut up for the moment until they make a post on here regarding this.

What the hell?

I said me and Gandalf aren't moderating here, but as a consequence, Paul and Kevin are responsible for whatever goes on in here.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:23 PM
Bill, if you have complaints, then fine. Everyone is entitled to complain if they don't like something. However, what I'm not happy about is the trend of threads perpetuating themselves with nothing but complaints. Nobody has even ATTEMPTED to find a workable resolution. Anyway, it's not important. You are quite free to continue.

That is, until I have legal confirmation of the new terms of service. That should be done by the end of the month if not sooner. From that point every contribution to the board will be binding.

Jeo and I have discussed this, and agree that we will not moderate the forum. You must have realised that neither of us have executed any moderator powers as requested. This does NOT mean that we will not be posting. We will not be silent but speak, and speak loudly we will. You can say whatever you "damn well please", and so can we.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 01:29 PM
The only people still complaining includes you, sweeney, and peanprain.

3 or 4 people opposing out of 300?

Out of the 300 or so you've quoted, did you take a good look at how many are actually ACTIVE?!

As an example - I have four accounts here (because I keep forgetting my password!!), so according to your figures does that mean there are now minimum of 6 accounts expressed concerns about how things are run here??

BTW - I have not changed my profile and that is a fact. Considering you have transferred my password from our old BB I am not surprised someone having access to the chesskit system can go into my profile and pretend they are me!!

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 01:33 PM
You must have realised that neither of us have executed any moderator powers as requested. This does NOT mean that we will not be posting. We will not be silent but speak, and speak loudly we will. You can say whatever you "damn well please", and so can we.

You should go back to your own posts and read them again.

Your views on this BB is as valid as the next person, but what we object to is your frequent use of threats to ban/suspend accounts contained in your earlier posts.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:33 PM
On a side note, we have lost members of the old Chesskit to accomodate you. At the moment, I would much rather have them back than keep this kind of bother.

Also, I recall a time when Jeo was given crap for not removing offensive material, attacks on other members et cetera. HOW, exactly, are we supposed to effectively control your politics if every administrative measure is disputed for pages on end?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:34 PM
I had no access to passwords, infact even the program that converts can not decrypt, and thats why I struggled to cross encrypt.

Here is my password as it appears on the database:

Gandalf edit: not a wise addition. (They're random characters, if you must know)

It uses MD5 encrypt function, so good luck doing whatever with it.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:35 PM
You must have realised that neither of us have executed any moderator powers as requested. This does NOT mean that we will not be posting. We will not be silent but speak, and speak loudly we will. You can say whatever you "damn well please", and so can we.

You should go back to your own posts and read them again.

Your views on this BB is as valid as the next person, but what we object to is your frequent use of threats to ban/suspend accounts contained in your earlier posts.

So you get free speech, and you can attack people, but we cannot?

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Your views on this BB is as valid as the next person, but what we object to is your frequent use of threats to ban/suspend accounts contained in your earlier posts.As I said, if you post anything which Jeo or myself deem unacceptable we will take action. You may or may not like this, but it is fact and it will happen. I say this again, we have decided on a grace period. When this period ends you will know. At that point I will execute any, all or none of the policies I have mentioned, again at my own discretion. Your complaints will only influence my judgement if the administrative team concur, in which case I may reconsider various actions. For the last time, if I decide that a user deserves to be reprimanded then that is what will happen.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 01:40 PM
You must have realised that neither of us have executed any moderator powers as requested. This does NOT mean that we will not be posting. We will not be silent but speak, and speak loudly we will. You can say whatever you "damn well please", and so can we.

You should go back to your own posts and read them again.

Your views on this BB is as valid as the next person, but what we object to is your frequent use of threats to ban/suspend accounts contained in your earlier posts.

So you get free speech, and you can attack people, but we cannot?

Nobody said you can't and in fact show us any posts that said so.
It is not free speech when someone diagree with your views gets served with threat of account suspension or banned for good.

In fact, you have closed and deleted a thread for this very reason. So tell me what in your view consitutes "free speech"?

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:42 PM
I said im not moderating this forum, and no action by Gandalf or I have been taken for days. That means, we are not moderating here for now.

So, doesn't matter if a threat is an attack, or if it is free speech, whatever it is, both were accepted on the old board, and thats what you want.

So, I will ban you when I feel like it.

See? Thats a threat, and thats my attack or free speech, whichever way you want to take it, I really dont care.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 01:44 PM
Free speech has its limits. What you have been doing is not "disagreeing with Jeo's views", you have been overtly attacking him for his style of administration, simply because it is more RIGID than what you are accustomed to. This is not acceptable. If you were differing with Jeo's views, then he would have just argued with you. What you (collective) did was malicious and in no way helpful with the transition.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 01:55 PM
So, I will ban you when I feel like it.

See? Thats a threat, and thats my attack or free speech, whichever way you want to take it, I really dont care.

So this is helpful to the BB transition?!

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 01:57 PM
You guys attacking other people at the start was helpful to the BB transition?

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:00 PM
If it makes you realise that you're just p-----g off the admins, then yes. At least then MAYBE you'll shut up and let us do our work. To think it's taken three pages...I expected more from you.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 02:09 PM
You guys attacking other people at the start was helpful to the BB transition?

I don't see our disagreement earlier with your moderation methods is an attack on you. We simply had different views about what should be acceptable on this BB and what not. It was good that at the end you agreed to change your views and leave things the way they were. This is not to say you were wrong, but fair to say there was a major clash of culture.

Since then we've had no problems with each other and things were working smoothly until your buddy decided to threaten banning/suspent users for no good reason, and now we back to square one.

If you want to take every disagreement personally and treat them as an attack on you then I suggest you need to get a good dose of real world.[/quote]a) We made no such agreement. Jeo said he would leave moderation duties to your familiar moderators for the time being. This is not something that will last forever, because we can NOT allow you to continue in this fashion forever. We MUST recreate the tame atmosphere in which the forum conducted itself last year, otherwise our younger members will remain silent, defeating the purpose of this site. To put it bluntly, I am willing and able to sacrifice you in order to keep mentoring young chess players.

b) I am not Jeo's "buddy", I am an administrator of this forum and it is I who handles policy. If you have a complaint about our enforcement then you talk to me. I will hear you out, and I will do what I can to remedy the problem. However, I will not deal with someone who can not communicate in a civil and rational manner. So far I am unconvinced that you have this ability. Change my mind and I'm all ears.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:13 PM
Even now I shudder in utter repulsion when I think of his disgusting post :x

What was it that I said again CL?

AR

[deleted]

I DARE you to repeat that again in this new BB, where vulgarity, crudity and offensive and disgusting words that you have used will soon be history - a reason that in my mind is a nother good thing about the movement of the ACF board to chess kit.

I am so glad that Jeo banned you for a day, but wish it had been far longer. At least now I hope that you think twice before engaging in rude, offesnive, disgusting, vile insults

WHY on earth was this part of the message deleted? Is there something in this BB, that is affecting the moderators here?

I did not say anything of what arosar did in the deleted part of the post.

All I stated was that arosar asked me to do something to someone. Now how on earth can that be rude or vulgar?

I did not repeat the exact words that arosar said as even a broad minded liberal like Kevin was swiftly moved to delete it

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:15 PM
[deleted]

Must you really start of with this rubbish. [-X

I had hoped that the new year would see you stop acting like a complete moron and cretin. :-''

Guess that was too much too expect. ](*,)

As usual, superb analysis of the situation.

I myself have very low expectations of matt's behaviour and language, but sometimes even then he manages to disgust me with his lies and moronic postings

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:16 PM
You guys attacking other people at the start was helpful to the BB transition?

I don't see our disagreement earlier with your moderation methods is an attack on you. We simply had different views about what should be acceptable on this BB and what not. It was good that at the end you agreed to change your views and leave things the way they were. This is not to say you were wrong, but fair to say there was a major clash of culture.

Since then we've had no problems with each other and things were working smoothly until your buddy decided to threaten banning/suspent users for no good reason, and now we back to square one.

If you want to take every disagreement personally and treat them as an attack on you then I suggest you need to get a good dose of real world.

Peabrain, but.... He threatened you, which is either an attack, or free speech, depends on your view.

So its ok for everyone else to attack whoever they want, but the admins can not attack you with threats?

I dont see you're reasoning in why I am not allowed to delete personal attacks, yet us admins are not allowed to make attacks or threats?

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:22 PM
And I will suspend your account.

I find it amazing that an administrator/moderator would post this.

It is nothing short of antagonistic in a situation that did not warrant it and in my opinion was totally unnecessary.

I find myself in total concurrence with you here as well

I do nto think that it is appropriate for an admin to post threats in this BB, about deleting and suspending accounts. It is not really needed, and does not engender good relationships and goodwill

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:23 PM
Jeo, you've forgotten one thing. When they attack each other it is out of malice. When we threaten action it is for a reason. I can securely say that until the fora were merged I knew none of you and could not have possibly carried a grudge. If I appear to dislike one or more of you, or have threatened to take action against you, it is because you have in some way given me cause to.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:23 PM
Oh, so an admin is not a member of the BB? You should be able to attack, and admins shall not? Shall I create a new account and threaten using that?

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:27 PM
ChessLover, don't get me wrong. We have never threatened to completely eliminate accounts (delete them). The most severe action we will take, and only in the most extreme circumstances, will be to ban members. The ban may be lifted if the admins are convinced that they are no longer required.

A suspension of account will be in order if a user chooses to perpetually poison the board with arguments. These will usually last between one hour to one week, depending on the severity of the situation. A suspension is basically what will be used when we need to stop a particular argument.

I said that I would suspend the account if the person chooses to continue posting the same argument unendingly, causing the moderators to waste time deleting material over and over again.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:34 PM
Your views on this BB is as valid as the next person, but what we object to is your frequent use of threats to ban/suspend accounts contained in your earlier posts.As I said, if you post anything which Jeo or myself deem unacceptable we will take action. You may or may not like this, but it is fact and it will happen. I say this again, we have decided on a grace period. When this period ends you will know. At that point I will execute any, all or none of the policies I have mentioned, again at my own discretion. Your complaints will only influence my judgement if the administrative team concur, in which case I may reconsider various actions. For the last time, if I decide that a user deserves to be reprimanded then that is what will happen.

gandalg

I am getting quite confused here :? :?

My understanding was that the ACF's Australian chess, non chess, tournaments and game were to be modertated by paul and Kevin - with Jeo and you modertaing the rest of this board.

Is that still the situation?

From what you have stated, you seem to indicate a period of "grace", and have also threatened to suspend accounts and lock threads in this section of the BB. I thought that Kartick stated that this section of the BB would nbot be moderated by him?

In realtion to you and Kartick having a personal opinion, and posting here, yes of course I agree with that. Freeedom of speech cuts both ways, and indeed I find teh cricket posts that I have with kartick quite enjoyable. In the old BB as well, paul posted as well, and even though I did not agree with some of his posts, I found his views well articulated and interesting

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 02:41 PM
Oh, so an admin is not a member of the BB? You should be able to attack, and admins shall not? Shall I create a new account and threaten using that?

Yes, that will be more appropriate. And if I recall correctly Chesslover did suggest this to you earlier.

The reason is simple, if I threaten matt with account suspension no one would take it seriously, but if the admin makes such threat than it must be taken seriously by all parties. The reason is simple, you as administrators once made such threat (with good reasons of course) must then enforce it. For example, if someone breached the rules governing this BB and you as administrators in your official capacity must act on it. However, if you cause confusions by dishing out threats to users both as a user and the administrator then how do we know when to take you seriously?

The same goes for the decision to close or delete a thread. You as administrators should not threaten to close or delete a thread because your views were challenged or actions questioned. Remember - criticisms over the last few days are almost always in reference to the office in charge of this BB - not the person. So let me say again it is unfortunate you and your buddy gandalf take these discussions so personally.

[old]Jeo[/old]
04-01-2004, 02:47 PM
you're a bitch and i'll ban you.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 02:47 PM
Just after my post above, I see in the other thread Gandalf stated that he is going to suspend matt's account for 7 days. Is this a threat or is it an attack??

See what I mean about causing confusion when your posts as administrators can not differentiate from you as a member??!!

Shocking development is all I can say.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:49 PM
It was a threat which was executed. I dont know, I dont think anyone will miss Sweeney's bullc--p anyway.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:50 PM
You really don't get it do you? I haven't taken anything personally, since the only thing you've really done against me is make a fool of yourself.

Jeo is not threatening you as a user. He is quite serious when he says he will ban you. If you have given the admin mind to take this action then you really should rethink your motives...

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 02:54 PM
It was a threat which was executed. I dont know, I dont think anyone will miss Sweeney's bullc--p anyway.

now is "bullc--p" acceptable word on this BB? Can any one use that word on this BB or can it be used by administrators only? In the earlier post I said I was "pixxed off" with big brother and it was deleted in a flash ....

Gandalf edit: Debateable words modified in quote and post.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:57 PM
Im not moderating in the forum. So, I dont know, ask bonham. Im just another poster here.

Gandalf
04-01-2004, 02:58 PM
I'm talking to Jeo now about the wordlist. I think it's on the line, but to be safe I'm taking it out. Please refrain from using debateable words, both of you.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:01 PM
You really don't get it do you? I haven't taken anything personally, since the only thing you've really done against me is make a fool of yourself.

Jeo is not threatening you as a user. He is quite serious when he says he will ban you. If you have given the admin mind to take this action then you really should rethink your motives...

Actually there you go mouthing off without checking your facts again. Did you actually read any of the posts before you respond with your rubbish? I have no idea how you can go on and on without even bothering to read your own posts? =P~

I have no problem with Jeo and he did not threaten to ban me. The whole thing started after your (YES - you GANDALF) post threatening to ban Chesslover.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:02 PM
It was a threat which was executed. I dont know, I dont think anyone will miss Sweeney's bullc--p anyway.

while i personally do not agree with the banning of Matt for 7 days, you are right about the impact of his posts on others. :D :D :D

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:11 PM
It was a threat which was executed. I dont know, I dont think anyone will miss Sweeney's bullc--p anyway.

while i personally do not agree with the banning of Matt for 7 days, you are right about the impact of his posts on others. :D :D :D

CL - what is it they say about man in glasshouse?? #-o

You may want to refer to page 5 on this thread and see Gandalf has already served you a warning of possible ban - this means he can shut you out the way he did matt.

Where is Kevin B and Paul B when you need them? [-o<

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:13 PM
I do not think chesslover will be banned. His posts are very reasonable, and he is in no way offensive to anyone. Infact, I think and hope that chesslover will be an excellent contribution to this board.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 03:18 PM
I do not think chesslover will be banned. His posts are very reasonable, and he is in no way offensive to anyone. Infact, I think and hope that chesslover will be an excellent contribution to this board.

So is Gandalf going to formally withdraw his warning to Chesslover on page 5?? or was that a threat, or an attack, or whatever?!

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:19 PM
I dont know what it was. Maybe you can PM and ask him.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 03:22 PM
I do not think chesslover will be banned. His posts are very reasonable, and he is in no way offensive to anyone. Infact, I think and hope that chesslover will be an excellent contribution to this board.

Thank you for your kind words Jeo.

It is good to see that there is another cricket fanatic in this BB who can join me and barry on the cricket threads :D

This friday the one day triseries starts, so it will most certainbly be interesting :D

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 03:24 PM
Sure will!

arosar
04-01-2004, 04:02 PM
But I also understand this is not a public space and that providers do have a right to moderate the discussions that take place.

Yes, this is my view too. I have no probs with 'strict' moderation. This is their board after all. What I have a prob with is that they moved us without warning and now there is a clash of civilisations.

AR

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:03 PM
Arosar, not really, since Sweeney is the only one that needed moderation.

Note: All other discussions have not needed to be moderated, and are quite interesting to read.

arosar
04-01-2004, 04:18 PM
Look man . . . tell your mate Gandalf not to be a pr.ick OK. We don't want to have a huge fight with well-meaning IT people who provide us with a fantastic service (and your board is technically superior - I love it). It's just that this whole migration to CK has been a complete catastrophe OK. Now you've apologised I know - but what good is that? You've basically disrupted our online lives mate. We were a world unto ourselves, by ourselves and for ourselves. You just usurped us.

Please man - for your sakes - you DO NOT want a fight!

AR

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 04:19 PM
We are not fighting. The offer was mine, it was pauls decision.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 05:30 PM
We are not fighting. The offer was mine, it was pauls decision.

and to be fair....Jeo has been very reasonable after the "culture clash"in the first couple of hours when we all migrated here. Since then he has kept his word, and has not moderated anyone or any topics in the ACF sections of this BB, and has left it up to Kevin and Paul. Also karthivk has copped a lot of unfair flak, even after he had agreed to this moderation by Paul/Kevin,and has done nothing to delete or amend posts or threads since then

Now if only Gandalf would agree to do teh same, things will be just peachy...

Also I think that Paul's decision to move here was right, from a technical point of view this chesskit BB is far superior, and Jeo and other chesskit admins deserve congrats for that.

The only impediment like Kevin pointed out was the moderation policy, and that too after Gandalf's suspension of Matt, seems to be resolved.

Thus as far as I can see, the issue is respolved and a brand new start waits...

Let us on both sides forget, forgive and move on...

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 05:32 PM
Here here. :)