PDA

View Full Version : New test board



paulb
05-01-2004, 03:13 PM
I have set up a new bulletin board at http://www.chessnetwork.com/forum

It is similar to this one (ie a phpBB) but lacks Jeo's special features such as game and position display. It is also not as fast.

The new board is a test board: please go and check it out and make any comments you'd like about performance etc. There may be some glitches because I'm no expert at this. Please let me know.

Why yet another board? My reasoning is as follows:

1. It is undesirable to have the ACF board hosted by the ACF, since inevitably posts raise the prospect of legal problems or are simply embarrassing to the ACF. It is well to shield the ACF from legal liability and embarrassment.

2. For similar reasons, there is no need to have an "ACF" Bulletin Board at all. Rather, what is needed is a BB for Australian chess.

3. I had hoped that ChessKit would provide such a forum, however there are various issues to be resolved here.

4. The major difficulty is that ChessKit is a "nice" board with well-monitored pposts and nothing nasty. I agree that there are difficulties combining this with the "free-for-all" culture of the old BB.

5. However, ChessKit has many excellent features.

6. So my proposal is to:
a) eliminate the old ACF board, thereby eliminating legal risk and embarrassment for the ACF
b) use the new bb at http://www.chessnetwork.com/forum for the typical rough-and-tumble aussie chess debates
c) provide easy cross-links to the ChessKit site for those who want to discuss games, theory, chess software etc. These are topics which (i) formed a relatively minor part of the old ACF board; (ii) are ideally suited to the culture, history and the technical capacities of the ChessKit site.

This way the ACF is saved from embarrassment; aussie players have an opportunity for robust debate; and aussie players get to enjoy the excelllent technical capacities of the ChessKit site.

Which leaves one question: how do I shield myself from legal liability if I allow others to post on my site? Answer: through an iindemnity agreement. Basically, anyone who posts on the new site agrees to take full legal and financial responsiibility for their posts - so that if *I* am sued for what they write, *they* pay all my expenses. In addition, I and other admins willl be careful to remove remarks which are potentiallyldangerous, just as with the old ACF board.

Garvinator
05-01-2004, 03:18 PM
will posters to this new board be able to lodge complaints if they feel aggrieved or offended by a post or person, or will it just be free for all with no ability to complain to a moderator.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 03:24 PM
Ok Paul, this seems like a reasonable idea.

Any chance the userlist of the old ACF BB can be setup on the new BB with their post counts without everyone re-registering and starting from scratch.

paulb
05-01-2004, 03:26 PM
Yes. It will be similar to the old ACF board.

One other points: Jeo informs me that it's not easy to add the special chess-game display functions of this site to the new board I set up, which had been suggested earlier.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Before someone suggests copying just the old ACf users list over is too difficult let me suggest the following.

Just copy the user list for the current Chesskit board.

paulb
05-01-2004, 03:29 PM
Any chance the userlist of the old ACF BB can be setup on the new BB with their post counts without everyone re-registering and starting from scratch.

Probably. Jeo did this with his board. I'm sure this could be done somehow though I might need assistance.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 03:39 PM
Although what you are intending to do seems a good comromise I would have liked to have seen some sort of consultation this time.

Instead of just putting up a test board it would have been in my opinion simply better to announce that you planned to do the following and implement it over the next few weeks.

1) set up a new phpbb baord similar to the CK board but without the fancy chess additions.
2) make sure all the old ACF bb'ers were preregistered on the new baord with their post counts/titles in pplace.
3) Open up the new board for actual use.
4) Liase with Jeo to see if the fen/pgn faetures of the CK board could be implemented on the new board.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 04:12 PM
Although what you are intending to do seems a good comromise I would have liked to have seen some sort of consultation this time.


You have GOT to be joking. There has been 4 days and several hundred posts worth of consultation already.

I support PaulB in this. It sounds very good. I would add that, if the two BBs are very closely linked, it could be nearly seemless to flit from one to the other, thus having the best of both worlds. The only "problem" if that is realy what it is, would be that the two post counts would not be linked. No big deal.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 04:18 PM
Although what you are intending to do seems a good comromise I would have liked to have seen some sort of consultation this time.


You have GOT to be joking. There has been 4 days and several hundred posts worth of consultation already.

I support PaulB in this. It sounds very good. I would add that, [i]if the two BBs are very closely linked. It would be nearly seemless to flit from one to the other, thus having the best of both worlds. The only "problem" if that is realy what it is, would be that the two post counts would not be linked. No big deal.

Matt,

If anyone should be considered joking its you.

You are simply being a moron yet again. :x

Paul B gave absolutely no indication he was even considering this.

Not on this board and not in private emails.

In fact all he has done over the past few days is tell people to "chill".

Its as if he learnt absolutely nothing from his lack of consultation in the first place.

You seem to have caught CL's disease and are sucking up to virtually anyone who you even slightly agree with.

I stand by my comments.

As for your "Nelson" persona.
You ever played poker Matt.
Ever had a Lord Nelson(3 aces).

One arm, One eye, One a.hole.

You may not have the first two but you sure are the third.

I'm beginning to regret giving Gandalf a hard time about suspending you. =;

paulb
05-01-2004, 04:24 PM
... I would have liked to have seen some sort of consultation this time.


Consultation can happen now: people can examine this suggestion and comment on it and actually know what they commenting on rather than speculating. (That is true of the ChessKit board, too, of course)..

Regarding the other points, I have consulted with Jeo about the chess features and I understand that these are difficult to implement - about a week's work.

Regarding post counts, they can be adjusted properly later.

I also agree with Matt's point about "4 days and several hundred posts worth of consultation already". I think it's pretty clear what the issues are, by this stage (there are several). And I think the above proposal addresses them - the issue now is, do other people think so too.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 04:34 PM
Why are you so prone to not consult before the fact.

As for 4 days worth of consultation. Thats not even close.

There has been 4 days worth of arguing.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

You should have put up a proposal and asked for comments, not create a new test board then ask for comments.

We all already what the features of phpbb boards were. We know the fen/pgn features are not standard.

We didnt need a test board put up at this stage.

You could have announced your plans and implemented it over the next couple of weeks.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 04:39 PM
Paul - yes this does address all the relevant issues in my view.

How great are the advantages of php compared with YaBB in terms of speed and other things? If they are not great (you said the new board is slower), is it an option to simply re-open the old board as it stood on Dec 31st but placed on a site outside ACF jurisdiction?

If there are great advantages in switching to a new format I'd be happy with that.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 04:48 PM
I said it before and I'll say it again.

You should have put up a proposal and asked for comments, not create a new test board then ask for comments.



Jeez.

'Tis better to light one candle than curse the darkness.

Paul has taken a step in t direction theat is approximately forward. I am willing to follow a doer into danger, who tells me to chill, than a catastrophiser who stands petrified of the unkown, telling me we'll all be ruined. Have some balls, Bill

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 05:06 PM
I said it before and I'll say it again.

You should have put up a proposal and asked for comments, not create a new test board then ask for comments.



Jeez.

'Tis better to light one candle than curse the darkness.

Paul has taken a step in t direction theat is approximately forward. I am willing to follow a doer into danger, who tells me to chill, than a catastrophiser who stands petrified of the unkown, telling me we'll all be ruined. Have some balls, Bill
As I said your an absolute moron.
It has nothing to do with as you put it standing terrified and lacking balls.

Its to do with the fact that once again Paul has failed to demonstrate he has the slightest understanding of the idea of consultation.

paulb
05-01-2004, 05:15 PM
Why are you so prone to not consult before the fact.

As for 4 days worth of consultation. Thats not even close.

There has been 4 days worth of arguing.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

You should have put up a proposal and asked for comments, not create a new test board then ask for comments.

We all already what the features of phpbb boards were. We know the fen/pgn features are not standard.

We didnt need a test board put up at this stage.

You could have announced your plans and implemented it over the next couple of weeks.

Must say I'm absolutely mystified by this. As far as I'm concerned, I am consulting: I'm saying here's a suggestion - and here's what it would look like - what do you think? I don't think waiting another couple of weeks helps anybody.

If the idea's no good, I'll kill the new board. I fail to see how this approach is not consultative: I dare think it's a paradigm of consultation. In particular, I'd like to know how quick the new board is for users. And that's something that can't be ascertained without them actually using it a bit. They can put up gibberish and test posts for all I care; I simply want to know whether it works OK (ie works OK on the slower NCN server). Prior discussion can't answer this question.

I didn't spend hours creating this board; I spent minutes. Incredibly enough, there's a button on my NCN website "control panel" that says "create PHP Bulletin Board" and I clicked on it. That's about it. I'm not heavily committed to it, though it seems like a pretty good idea to me.


How great are the advantages of php compared with YaBB (KB) That's a good question. I tried to set up YABB on NCN earlier and failed for reasons which are not clear to me, which is a chief reason why I used this board, which is at least operational. My understanding is that PHPbb is highly regarded, frequently updated and improved/enhanced. YABB is also good but the trend seems to be towards PHP. That's not a sophisticated answer, of course; Jeo may be better here.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 05:32 PM
Although what you are intending to do seems a good comromise I would have liked to have seen some sort of consultation this time.


You have GOT to be joking. There has been 4 days and several hundred posts worth of consultation already.

I support PaulB in this. It sounds very good. I would add that, if the two BBs are very closely linked, it could be nearly seemless to flit from one to the other, thus having the best of both worlds. The only "problem" if that is realy what it is, would be that the two post counts would not be linked. No big deal.

I personally would have liked the compromise that Kevin and Jeo had worked out after the suspension of matt - where Paul/ Kevin moderate the ACF sections and any suspensions of ACF memebers have the concurrence of Kevin/Paul.

That way there could be no probs with us continuing here in chesskit BB.

However paul's plan as usual does sound very eminently sensible to me. If the two BBs are closly linked we should have no probs, and as matt states can seemlessly fit in together

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 05:34 PM
Why are you so prone to not consult before the fact.

As for 4 days worth of consultation. Thats not even close.

There has been 4 days worth of arguing.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

You should have put up a proposal and asked for comments, not create a new test board then ask for comments.

We all already what the features of phpbb boards were. We know the fen/pgn features are not standard.

We didnt need a test board put up at this stage.

You could have announced your plans and implemented it over the next couple of weeks.

Must say I'm absolutely mystified by this. As far as I'm concerned, I am consulting: I'm saying here's a suggestion - and here's what it would look like - what do you think? I don't think waiting another couple of weeks helps anybody.

If the idea's no good, I'll kill the new board. I fail to see how this approach is not consultative: I dare think it's a paradigm of consultation. In particular, I'd like to know how quick the new board is for users. And that's something that can't be ascertained without them actually using it a bit. They can put up gibberish and test posts for all I care; I simply want to know whether it works OK (ie works OK on the slower NCN server). Prior discussion can't answer this question.

I didn't spend hours creating this board; I spent minutes. Incredibly enough, there's a button on my NCN website "control panel" that says "create PHP Bulletin Board" and I clicked on it. That's about it. I'm not heavily committed to it, though it seems like a pretty good idea to me.

You seem to have missed the part where I said this seems a good compromise.

So could you explain something then.

Is the plan to see if this test board is reasonably quick off the NCN server.

If it is acceptable then do you plan to delete this test board to clean out the rubbish generated whilst it was under test and create a new board with an imported userlist etc .

Do you then intend to investigate with Jeo getting fen and pgn tags to work on it.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 05:37 PM
Certainly if we do need to start afresh to run a BB not on the ACF site then php seems better to me - I've had experience moderating both types during the course of 2003 and php seems to be more flexible and to have more features.

I suspect that if it was possible and there was not a huge differences in features most people would prefer to just go back to the old BB with its more accurate (albeit Brazilian-blighted) post counts and continuity. However if it's not possible to host the old BB away on chessnetwork then what you're suggesting to do looks like the best idea to me.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 05:38 PM
You seem to have caught CL's disease and are sucking up to virtually anyone who you even slightly agree with.



That was completly uncalled for

I have not sucked up to anyone I even slightly agreed with. Where I have agreed I have stated so. Where I have appreciated their views and actions I have stated so. Just because the views of some of those I have appreciated and agreed with, do not coincide with your views does not make my opinons and appreciations any less valid

Just because you are having a bad day, dont take it out on me

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 05:40 PM
I'm not having a bad day at all.

paulb
05-01-2004, 05:43 PM
I personally would have liked the compromise that Kevin and Jeo had worked out after the suspension of matt - where Paul/ Kevin moderate the ACF sections and any suspensions of ACF memebers have the concurrence of Kevin/Paul.

I also think that's a nice arrangement in theory. In fact, it was more or less what I originally envisaged. But the depth of anger aroused in recent days (something which has startled me) makes me think an alternative might be needed, which is why I make this other suggestion (which of course borrows from ideas various people have been throwing around).

It's not clear to me that the Kevin/Jeo compromise is ultimately acceptable to either the old ACF posters or even to Jeo for that matter. I think it requires a level of discipline and detachment that might be unattainable - a point others have convinced me of.

My suggestion is more workable, I think, because it encourages ACF use of the chesskit forum in the fairly non-controversial areas of games, analysis, software etc - topics which are unlikely to lead to big verbal brawls, and which make good use of ChessKit's better technology - while allowing for the robust debate on the separate board.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 05:46 PM
Must say I'm absolutely mystified by this. As far as I'm concerned, I am consulting: I'm saying here's a suggestion - and here's what it would look like - what do you think? I don't think waiting another couple of weeks helps anybody.

If the idea's no good, I'll kill the new board. I fail to see how this approach is not consultative: I dare think it's a paradigm of consultation. In particular, I'd like to know how quick the new board is for users. And that's something that can't be ascertained without them actually using it a bit. They can put up gibberish and test posts for all I care; I simply want to know whether it works OK (ie works OK on the slower NCN server). Prior discussion can't answer this question.

I didn't spend hours creating this board; I spent minutes. Incredibly enough, there's a button on my NCN website "control panel" that says "create PHP Bulletin Board" and I clicked on it. That's about it. I'm not heavily committed to it, though it seems like a pretty good idea to me.



I would like to stay here with Jeo, now that he has to his great credit and common sense coem to the agreement with Kevin, that the chesskit admin will not moderate or suspend an ACF user.

However I do understand your concerns with the legal liability and embarrassment, and your plan does sound like a good idea.

By having the new board, people can see how it works and then comment with renewed perpective and experience of the board.

I think your plan to kill the old ACF BB, and migrate to the new one is good, although to be frank I would like us all here to be with Jeo.

paulb
05-01-2004, 05:53 PM
Is the plan to see if this test board is reasonably quick off the NCN server.

Yes. And any other comments etc.


If it is acceptable then do you plan to delete this test board to clean out the rubbish generated whilst it was under test and create a new board with an imported userlist etc .

Not necessarily delete the board but delete useless test comments - yes - and import userlist - yes, as soon as practicable (I don't know how to do that, may need assistance


Do you then intend to investigate with Jeo getting fen and pgn tags to work on it.


Re FEN/PGN I have already asked Jeo and he says that it is not possible at the moment, because (a) it would take about a week of work and (b) even then the code would have bugs that would have to be separately fixed and (c) understandably he doesn't have the time. (All of which is why I suggest we simply use ChessKit for Games, Analysis etc - because it offers these PGN/FEN capabilities - and use another site for our rough and tumble free speech.)

Of course, if we could get the FEN/PGN on the "free speech" site that would great, but not possible yet.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 05:56 PM
I also think that's a nice arrangement in theory. In fact, it was more or less what I originally envisaged. But the depth of anger aroused in recent days (something which has startled me) makes me think an alternative might be needed, which is why I make this other suggestion (which of course borrows from ideas various people have been throwing around).

It's not clear to me that the Kevin/Jeo compromise is ultimately acceptable to either the old ACF posters or even to Jeo for that matter. I think it requires a level of discipline and detachment that might be unattainable - a point others have convinced me of.

My suggestion is more workable, I think, because it encourages ACF use of the chesskit forum in the fairly non-controversial areas of games, analysis, software etc - topics which are unlikely to lead to big verbal brawls, and which make good use of ChessKit's better technology - while allowing for the robust debate on the separate board.

1.I think we should see if the arrangements that the Grand Poobah worked out with teh ChessKit admins is working before moving

2. From what Jeo stated to us, he seemed to be reconciled to the idea, and stated that so too would the other chesskit Admins

3. There was a lot of emotion around teh last 4 days, becuase first Jeo modertated our ACF posts and then gandalf in evident repudiation of the first compromise between the Grand Poobah and kartick suspended Matt.

he emotions were not helped by some of the more provacative comments and posts by both sides - us ACF posters and the chesskit people.

However I believe that we are all mature people, and if the compromise agreement about moderation and suspension is adhered to, all problems of this nature will be resolved

4. Given the propensity for most of our threads to go off topic, and some very vocal feelings being expressed, it would not surprise me if some posts in the analysis, software etc degenerate into "freewheeling" debates of the kind we have seen in the last 4 days.

Cant we please see if the compromise that the Grand Poobah has worked with kartick has worked, before we use the new board? Maybe give about 2-4 weeks, which will meet the "consultation" demands of Bill as well, so that we can review how well/bad the current arrangements are before we make the final decision to move?

paulb
05-01-2004, 05:56 PM
I would like us all here to be with Jeo.

That still might happen. I'm not opposing it; I just think the experience of the past few days renders it unlikely

PHAT
05-01-2004, 06:03 PM
[quote="Bill Gletsos"]Its to do with the fact that once again Paul has failed to demonstrate he has the slightest understanding of the idea of consultation.

Is the following your special understanding of "consultation":

"on Dec 30th, 2003, 11:01pm, Matthew Sweeney wrote:
Crikey! I thought the NSWCA Council functioned democratically. As a counciller, I have not been asked for my "vote" on this. I demand that we vote on this, and failing that, we (NSW) abstain."


Bill:
Tough luck.
You don't have to be asked.
I am the offical NSW ACF delegate. I am authorised by the NSWCA Council to act on these matters. ... The NSWCA Council was previously in favour of the by-law as it currently exists based. I have liased with them regarding this and they are in favour of the current by-law.

If I thought the NSWCA Council position differed from mine, I would request a vote, however I wont be wasting their time. "




Hmmm.

So it's OK for Bill Gletsos to "liase" and make presumptions, but not for PaulB?

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 06:04 PM
I also think that's a nice arrangement in theory. In fact, it was more or less what I originally envisaged. But the depth of anger aroused in recent days (something which has startled me) makes me think an alternative might be needed, which is why I make this other suggestion (which of course borrows from ideas various people have been throwing around).

It's not clear to me that the Kevin/Jeo compromise is ultimately acceptable to either the old ACF posters or even to Jeo for that matter. I think it requires a level of discipline and detachment that might be unattainable - a point others have convinced me of.

My suggestion is more workable, I think, because it encourages ACF use of the chesskit forum in the fairly non-controversial areas of games, analysis, software etc - topics which are unlikely to lead to big verbal brawls, and which make good use of ChessKit's better technology - while allowing for the robust debate on the separate board.

1.I think we should see if the arrangements that the Grand Poobah worked out with teh ChessKit admins is working before moving

2. From what Jeo stated to us, he seemed to be reconciled to the idea, and stated that so too would the other chesskit Admins

3. There was a lot of emotion around teh last 4 days, becuase first Jeo modertated our ACF posts and then gandalf in evident repudiation of the first compromise between the Grand Poobah and kartick suspended Matt.

he emotions were not helped by some of the more provacative comments and posts by both sides - us ACF posters and the chesskit people.

However I believe that we are all mature people, and if the compromise agreement about moderation and suspension is adhered to, all problems of this nature will be resolved

4. Given the propensity for most of our threads to go off topic, and some very vocal feelings being expressed, it would not surprise me if some posts in the analysis, software etc degenerate into "freewheeling" debates of the kind we have seen in the last 4 days.

Cant we please see if the compromise that the Grand Poobah has worked with kartick has worked, before we use the new board? Maybe give about 2-4 weeks, which will meet the "consultation" demands of Bill as well, so that we can review how well/bad the current arrangements are before we make the final decision to move?

I have to disagree.

Based on Paul's comments above I think his solution is the best.

I'll stop giving him a hard time and support it.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 06:07 PM
Its to do with the fact that once again Paul has failed to demonstrate he has the slightest understanding of the idea of consultation.

Is the following your special understanding of "consultation":

"on Dec 30th, 2003, 11:01pm, Matthew Sweeney wrote:
Crikey! I thought the NSWCA Council functioned democratically. As a counciller, I have not been asked for my "vote" on this. I demand that we vote on this, and failing that, we (NSW) abstain."


Bill:
Tough luck.
You don't have to be asked.
I am the offical NSW ACF delegate. I am authorised by the NSWCA Council to act on these matters. ... The NSWCA Council was previously in favour of the by-law as it currently exists based. I have liased with them regarding this and they are in favour of the current by-law.

If I thought the NSWCA Council position differed from mine, I would request a vote, however I wont be wasting their time. "




Hmmm.

So it's OK for Bill Gletsos to "liase" and make presumptions, but not for PaulB?

Yes you cretin it is.

For a number of reasons.

Firstly I am authorised to do it.
Secondly there is no indication that the NSWCA Council as a whole does not support my decsion regarding the vote on the schools championship.
Thirdly I did consult with the people that mattered, the NSWJCL.
Fourthly and more importantly the NSWCA Council has never criticised my decisions but supported them.

In Pauls case if the transition had gone smoothly then their would never have been an issue.

It didnt.

Many felt this was due to lack of consultation on Paul's part.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 06:15 PM
I would like us all here to be with Jeo.

That still might happen. I'm not opposing it; I just think the experience of the past few days renders it unlikely

the experiences of the past few days were caused by two main incidents

1. the initial hours where Jeo did his job as the moderator of the chesskit BB, locking threads/ deleting threads, as he would normally do if these things were posted on his BB. He did not know or understand the free wheeling culture of our old ACF BB, and teh extreme tolerence, patience and liberal attitudes that you and the Grand Poobah had.

2. The suspension of matt by Gandalf, after we all thought that teh moderation of ACF threads would be done by you and the Grand Poobah.

Now that teh chess kit admins have agreed to the well articulated comments by teh Grand Poobah, to leave the moderation to him and you, and only suspend ACF users when he or you agree, the level of excitement and vitriol should die down.

Why not see how this all works out before creating another board for us?

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 06:25 PM
I would like us all here to be with Jeo.

That still might happen. I'm not opposing it; I just think the experience of the past few days renders it unlikely

the experiences of the past few days were caused by two main incidents

1. the initial hours where Jeo did his job as the moderator of the chesskit BB, locking threads/ deleting threads, as he would normally do if these things were posted on his BB. He did not know or understand the free wheeling culture of our old ACF BB, and teh extreme tolerence, patience and liberal attitudes that you and the Grand Poobah had.

2. The suspension of matt by Gandalf, after we all thought that teh moderation of ACF threads would be done by you and the Grand Poobah.

Now that teh chess kit admins have agreed to the well articulated comments by teh Grand Poobah, to leave the moderation to him and you, and only suspend ACF users when he or you agree, the level of excitement and vitriol should die down.

Why not see how this all works out before creating another board for us?
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 06:41 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

paulb
05-01-2004, 06:56 PM
ON consultation,
Firstly I am authorised to do it.
Secondly there is no indication that the NSWCA Council as a whole does not support my decsion regarding the vote on the schools championship.
Thirdly I did consult with the people that mattered, the NSWJCL.
Fourthly and more importantly the NSWCA Council has never criticised my decisions but supported them.

In Pauls case if the transition had gone smoothly then their would never have been an issue.

It didnt.

Many felt this was due to lack of consultation on Paul's part.

A few remarks:
Firstly ... I am also authorised to do it, of course. The ACF webmaster has authority in such matters, both in general, and by ACF President George Howard's particular direction in this case.

However, I'll grant the rest of what you say. Obviously I don't want a set up that leaves everyone unhappy. Obviously the reaction on the first day surprised me.

I agree it wasn't handled in an ideal way. I certainly should have schooled Jeo more carefully in the differences of culture and censorship expectation; I should have made an announcement about the move and made it clearer that it was a trial.

In defence, I plead New Year's Eve festivities and Jeo's extraordinary enthusiasm. New Year's Eve left me subdued on New Year's Day, while Jeo was steadily proceeding. That's not his fault. Also, I did not anticipate the amount of postiing on the board on the first day; I thought most people would be cruising off their hangovers.

I am not now, and was not then, immune to the considered opinions of the BB posters. But I think the first day was not conducive to considered opinions as opposed to emotional reactions. Nor the third day. And I think the benefits of the ChessKit site are considerable. That explains, for example, why I haven't immediately caved in to early demands that the old BB be restored. I think people should give it a bit of a go, and see what they think when the dust settles. We'll now have a week of "familiar" moderation which should give people a chance to savour the benefits of the ChessKit BB. In this respect, I heartily agree with ChessLover's remarks.

I also take seriously the criticisms of people like Bill Gletsos, along the lines of an unsustainable clash of cultures; and the concerns of the ACF over legal action and other embarrassments; this is why I propose my recent proposal.

I'm not dogmatic about the outcome.

peanbrain
05-01-2004, 06:59 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

Wait a minute here ...

If not for Bill arguing strongly for you yesterdays you'd still be off this forum right now looking at your own nuts buddy (and that is if you know where to find yours)! #-o

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:01 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

Hey dipstick, pay attention for a second.

CL is suggestiing there should be only one board. This one.

I am suggesting two.

In fact I suggested we create a phpbb board on the ACF site yesterday.


starter,
Just a quick point.

I would think we could switch to this new style of BB but host it on the ACF web site. This board is based on the phpBB software while the old board was based on Yabb software.

Now in its standard form I assume phpbb does not support the fen/pgn style tags but surely a way could be found for this to be implemented.

Now I notice you are supporting Paul's idea of a seperate phpbb board on the Chessnetwork web site.


I support PaulB in this. It sounds very good. I would add that, if the two BBs are very closely linked, it could be nearly seemless to flit from one to the other, thus having the best of both worlds. The only "problem" if that is realy what it is, would be that the two post counts would not be linked. No big deal.

So have I.


Based on Paul's comments above I think his solution is the best.

I'll stop giving him a hard time and support it.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:03 PM
ON consultation,
Firstly I am authorised to do it.
Secondly there is no indication that the NSWCA Council as a whole does not support my decsion regarding the vote on the schools championship.
Thirdly I did consult with the people that mattered, the NSWJCL.
Fourthly and more importantly the NSWCA Council has never criticised my decisions but supported them.

In Pauls case if the transition had gone smoothly then their would never have been an issue.

It didnt.

Many felt this was due to lack of consultation on Paul's part.

A few remarks:
Firstly ... I am also authorised to do it, of course. The ACF webmaster has authority in such matters, both in general, and by ACF President George Howard's particular direction in this case.

However, I'll grant the rest of what you say. Obviously I don't want a set up that leaves everyone unhappy. Obviously the reaction on the first day surprised me.

I agree it wasn't handled in an ideal way. I certainly should have schooled Jeo more carefully in the differences of culture and censorship expectation; I should have made an announcement about the move and made it clearer that it was a trial.

In defence, I plead New Year's Eve festivities and Jeo's extraordinary enthusiasm. New Year's Eve left me subdued on New Year's Day, while Jeo was steadily proceeding. That's not his fault. Also, I did not anticipate the amount of postiing on the board on the first day; I thought most people would be cruising off their hangovers.

I am not now, and was not then, immune to the considered opinions of the BB posters. But I think the first day was not conducive to considered opinions as opposed to emotional reactions. Nor the third day. And I think the benefits of the ChessKit site are considerable. That explains, for example, why I haven't immediately caved in to early demands that the old BB be restored. I think people should give it a bit of a go, and see what they think when the dust settles. We'll now have a week of "familiar" moderation which should give people a chance to savour the benefits of the ChessKit BB. In this respect, I heartily agree with ChessLover's remarks.

I also take seriously the criticisms of people like Bill Gletsos, along the lines of an unsustainable clash of cultures; and the concerns of the ACF over legal action and other embarrassments; this is why I propose my recent proposal.

I'm not dogmatic about the outcome.

I appreciate all that Paul.
That is why I said:


Based on Paul's comments above I think his solution is the best.

I'll stop giving him a hard time and support it.

chesslover
05-01-2004, 07:04 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Anything and everything is possible, but is it probable?

I would state that after the first few hours and matt's suspension, calmness has returned, and the compromise worked out by the Grand Poobah and Jeo is an eminently sensible aagreement - which the Chesskit admins will all stand by as well.

Given that why move on the offchance that it will blow up, or another problem arises?

Why not think that the glass is half full, and stay here - if need be Paul has stated that he can create a new board quickly

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:07 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

Wait a minute here ...

If not for Bill arguing strongly for you yesterdays you'd still be off this forum right now looking at your own nuts buddy (and that is if you know where to find yours)! #-o
peanbrain,

As you would noticed on the old board Matt always argues based on whats expedient not whats logical.

If suggesting the ACF should act like a dictator and ban something then he will take that view where as if aruing it should be democratic to enhance his argument he will take that view.

Consistency isnt one of his strong points.

Neither it appears is appreciation. I note he has not made a mention anywhere of my standing up and arguing for him when he was unable to do so due to be suspended.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:09 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Anything and everything is possible, but is it probable?

I would state that after the first few hours and matt's suspension, calmness has returned, and the compromise worked out by the Grand Poobah and Jeo is an eminently sensible aagreement - which the Chesskit admins will all stand by as well.

Given that why move on the offchance that it will blow up, or another problem arises?

Why not think that the glass is half full, and stay here - if need be Paul has stated that he can create a new board quickly
chesslover yours is not the only opinion nor is mine.

Paul has explained his views and I'm happy with them.

Give it a rest for now. =;

chesslover
05-01-2004, 07:10 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

I agree. let give them a second chance, and in turn also let them give us a second chance

arosar
05-01-2004, 07:16 PM
Boys . . . boys, are we set yet?

So I landed in Adelaide this morn and I am in the hostel now with some chess players.

I really like Adelaide. Not quite as spectacular as Sydney, certainly not as many good looking chicks around but it is a very nice city. And dang, these streets just go on and on and on. The venue for the tourn is very nice too. Hec, this morn I rocked up to the Vice Chancellor's office and asked where the chess was. The lady just looked up at me blankly as she didn't know that one was on!!

Anyway, I just been from Stephen Solomon's lecture. He won against Levi. Solo reckoned he'd just about refuted the Portuguese. A brilliant game wherein he prepared better than his opponent.

Have we sorted out our problem yet?

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:21 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

I agree. let give them a second chance, and in turn also let them give us a second chance
You really dont have a clue do you.

Matt is supporting Paul B's decision to create a second BB on the Chessnetwork web site.

paulb
05-01-2004, 07:30 PM
Actually the new (second) bb is not on the ACF site but at www.chessnetwork.com/forum

The idea is to shield the ACF from legal problems/embarrassment[/quote]

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:34 PM
Thats your site isnt it.

To avoid confusion I have gone back and changed my references to ACF web site to the chessnetwork web site.

paulb
05-01-2004, 07:40 PM
yes, but only because I don't have other options. ChessKit says ACF should be legally liable for postings on ChessKit, which is fair enough. I'm trying to find a way of sheltering the ACF ffrom such liability by moving off-site and cutting "official" links with the ACF - ACF won't be responsible for content, the posters will (see top post)

chesslover
05-01-2004, 08:06 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

I agree. let give them a second chance, and in turn also let them give us a second chance
You really dont have a clue do you.

Matt is supporting Paul B's decision to create a second BB on the Chessnetwork web site.

I DO have a clue.

matt psoted the above in response to your quote on my proposal to stay in this old BB and see whether the agreement that Kevin and Jeo works out develops before we move to a new board.

But for your info, after listening to Paul's point about the legal liability problems (which I to be truthful was aware of but did not include in coming to my decision to stay here, and have ONE board) is a very persuasive point

is there any way we can post here in this new BB, and have the ACF not be legally liable and at the same time have paul and the Grand Poobah as our moderators?

If not, then on reflection I must admit that my earlier decision to have one BB was wrong.

It was wrong on the basis that I did not consider the legal liability to the ACF, not wrong on the basis that Jeo and the chesskit admin will renege on the agreement that Jeo amde with Kevin/ Paul

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 08:08 PM
the experiences of the past few days were caused by two main incidents

Yes, and after Matt's suspension was resolved I was hoping that that would be the end of it - but Jeo's rather stricken reaction to what was going on hours after that was a cause for concern. It's not surprising given some of the flak he's copped (apparently some of it was much worse than I realised but got deleted before I saw it.) All the same, I feel a bit nervous about being on a site where based on a few days of bickering and someone opening a poll about whether we should stay, Jeo then declared as of 10pm on a Sunday night that feedback over the next hour would determine whether we continued or not.

Jeo is obviously very bright and talented, and went into this with many good intentions, but there have been a couple of extra things that has made establishing trust between him and our old BB crowd difficult in my view. Firstly, most of us still don't even know who he is - even I don't, though I did find out who Gandalf is by accident. I suggested there was a need for the admins on this site to introduce themselves to us on full name terms and that was ignored. (Equally I suggested that the regulars from our crowd use the welcome thread to introduce themselves and that was ignored too). Secondly they're not always easy people to communicate with. Even when I cut my verbose chatter down from 15-line paras to 8 liners and 10-letter words to 5 or 6, I'd still find myself having to make points three or four times before they were heard.

I find it amusing that people talk about a "compromise" between Jeo and I when all that basically happened was I said "look, you're going to have to do this or this has got buckley's of working" and he eventually accepted it. Like Paul, I have my doubts whether it is workable in the long term - at the least, further flare-ups are likely. What I ironed out with Jeo seemed to me to be just the minimum possible conditions for keeping this afloat at all and stopping most of the old BB regulars from giving up right away.

As for moderation, if it goes the way Paul is going I imagine Paul's new board will be about as liberal as the old one, or maybe just slightly less so, but I haven't discussed that with him yet.

paulb
05-01-2004, 09:09 PM
ChessLover asked whether there was a way to remain entirely on this board but allow the ACF to escape any legal liability for dodgy posts.

My legal understanding is that the answer is no.

Roughly the law works like this. Publishers are liable for what they publish in matters of defamation etc, even if they do not specifically write the material.

Eg Murdoch is liable even for letters to the editor by non-employees.

The situation with websites has not been tested as much, but the "publisher" would be one or several of the ISP, the organisation (eg ACF, ChessKit) and the webmaster/moderator. This is not clear but there are certainly grounds for believing ACF and/or ChessKit may be liable for an "ACF Bulletin Board" on the ChessKit site or the ACF site.

That's why I suggest cutting the official connection with the ACF. NO official connection is needed in order for players to have a bulletin board.

And that's why I suggest a clause in the new BB conditions which says that posters agree to indemnify ISP, webmaster etc for all costs of legal actions caused by the poster's posts.

What that means is that say Joe Blow defames Bill Smith on the new board. Smith sues me as webmaster/publisher and wins. But I then claim against Joe Blow to pay my costs.

Note that I'm still potentially "liable" but I have a type of "insurance" in this situation.

It's complicated, for sure, but provides some protection and puts *ultimate* responsibility with the people who make the posts.

I'd combine this with a cautious approach to potentially defamatory posts. Most of the abusive posts on the previous BB weren't defamatory.

peanbrain
05-01-2004, 09:18 PM
Look, the solution is actually quite simple:

ACF spend $2k setting up a company in the Virgin Island. This new company with no money then owns the BB, and if any idiot decides to sue they can. :twisted:

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 09:30 PM
And that's why I suggest a clause in the new BB conditions which says that posters agree to indemnify ISP, webmaster etc for all costs of legal actions caused by the poster's posts.

What that means is that say Joe Blow defames Bill Smith on the new board. Smith sues me as webmaster/publisher and wins. But I then claim against Joe Blow to pay my costs.

This is correct. The only issues with these arrangements are:

(*) The legal arrangement is irrelevant to Smith suing the site. He can still win money off you irrespective of what you have agreed with Blow.

(*) It is then a matter as to whether you can make your legal agreement with Blow stick. If you can, that's fine. However Blow may be unable to pay up (in which case you bankrupt Blow but don't get all your own money back). Still, it should be an effective deterrent to Blow posting defamatory material.

(*) More concerning is what happens if you get sued for a defamatory post by an anonymous poster whose name you can't trace. Then you've got no one to sue because you can't prove who did it.

The latter can be got around by linking all accounts to real-name verification, which slows down registration a fair bit.

I recently talked to some people involved in setting up the bulletin board for a new youth radio station run by a Uni-aligned broadcaster here. The legal advice they got was that if moderation was both cautious and sufficient (in terms of one or more mods being likely to be online reasonably soon at any time) it would be very unlikely a webmaster or site host would by sued successfully for defo.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Because I and a number of others believe that the chance it blows again or there is some other problem due to culture clash is quite possible.

Risk-averse, pessamistic, nutless.

Wait a minute here ...

If not for Bill arguing strongly for you yesterdays you'd still be off this forum right now looking at your own nuts buddy (and that is if you know where to find yours)! #-o
peanbrain,

As you would noticed on the old board Matt always argues based on whats expedient not whats logical.

If suggesting the ACF should act like a dictator and ban something then he will take that view where as if aruing it should be democratic to enhance his argument he will take that view.

Consistency isnt one of his strong points.

Neither it appears is appreciation. I note he has not made a mention anywhere of my standing up and arguing for him when he was unable to do so due to be suspended.

Actually I congradulated all of you for a job well done. Check my first post back.


Hello all :D

It has been a rather odd and unproductive yet interesting day of my holidays today. There is little left for me to say, as nerely everything has been said. So justy a few observations and statements from me.

1. I have been reading the whole broo-haha off and on today and have seen remarkable progress. Very good work from all of you.

2. Today we proved to our selves that there IS a real BB chess community and that we ALL care about it.

3. I bear no grudge for my recent sin-binning. I am an obvious target but I don't mind at all - we all make our own bed and have to lie in it.

4. Jeo and Gandalf have taken a terrible beating. They have more than my sympathy, they have my empathy too. I hope that they do not pack it in. The proposals now in place was a result of what was a full on turf war.

5. I voted in the pole to leave here, but let it be known, that I wish to changhe that vote to stay until we see if the proposals work out. If they do, it is a win-win. If it does not work out, it will be a draw.

6. The new BB seams to be a techological improvement over the old one.

7. I hate Shaun Press for finding/remembering and posting the "First they took the Jews" quote. I was trying to remember all arvo, where I had read it so I could post it. It is a beauty.

8. I cannot think of one now, but I am sure it will surface later.

Cop you later

:D

shaun
05-01-2004, 10:03 PM
Yes, and after Matt's suspension was resolved I was hoping that that would be the end of it - but Jeo's rather stricken reaction to what was going on hours after that was a cause for concern. It's not surprising given some of the flak he's copped (apparently some of it was much worse than I realised but got deleted before I saw it.)
but most of it wasn't as bad as Jeos reaction made it out to be, but it also got deleted.


Jeo is obviously very bright and talented, and went into this with many good intentions, but there have been a couple of extra things that has made establishing trust between him and our old BB crowd difficult in my view. Firstly, most of us still don't even know who he is
As I have stated previously, I have met Jeo, and a lot of what I said, and more importantly, how I said it, was based on my knowledge of Jeos age, and what I assumed was his motivation. At first I started off with gentle hints (which were ignored), and then moved to a more strident tone (which was also ignored).


I find it amusing that people talk about a "compromise" between Jeo and I when all that basically happened was I said "look, you're going to have to do this or this has got buckley's of working" and he eventually accepted it.
I thought that this was the obvious problem right from the start. I had suggested to Paul that he ask Jeo to get off his high horse and realise that this arrangement wasn't a one way street. Whether Paul did I have no idea, but the end result seems to be the same.
I think that Paul identified the real problem in another post where he said he didn't discuss with Jeo the nature of the old board. Now that all parties are aware of what they have let themselves in for, I do not think there will be any serious problems in the future. This is because I'm assuming that Jeo is more aware of freedom of expresion issues on a reasonably high volume BB, and that he will make his admin mates aware of it as well. I can't see him throwing his toys out of the cot, as Bill fears he will.

paulb
05-01-2004, 11:05 PM
Please see the latest announcement. Basically Jeo is handing full control to me and Kevin so everything should be hunky dory.

Now can we please get down to the usual business of abusing each other. I'm stuffed.

peanbrain
05-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Now can we please get down to the usual business of abusing each other. I'm stuffed.

Sure, you get that coward firegoat back here and I'll start! :twisted:

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 12:05 AM
Now can we please get down to the usual business of abusing each other. I'm stuffed.

Sure, you get that coward firegoat back here and I'll start! :twisted:

paulb has fullfilled your wish and fg7 is back.

peanbrain
06-01-2004, 12:10 AM
Actually I congradulated all of you for a job well done. Check my first post back.


Hello all :D


1. I have been reading the whole broo-haha off and on today and have seen remarkable progress. Very good work from all of you.

2. Today we proved to our selves that there IS a real BB chess community and that we ALL care about it.


:D

Matt - you call THAT a thank you?! :-k

Bill and others spent the whole afternoon post after post demanding your reinstatement, and all you did was to write 4 lines of pat on the back for the BB chess community??

Mate like I said - you be still scratching your nuts right now if not for Bill so I'll suggest you think twice before you attack him in future. [-X

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 12:10 AM
Naah, the ressentiment-driven untermensch poked his head in and ran away back to play with his band and "studies"

Sorry about the big words there, but throwing Nietzsche at firegoat is always fun.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 12:52 AM
Matt - you call THAT a thank you?! :-k

Bill and others spent the whole afternoon post after post demanding your reinstatement, and all you did was to write 4 lines of pat on the back for the BB chess community??

Mate like I said - you be still scratching your nuts right now if not for Bill so I'll suggest you think twice before you attack him in future. [-X

Dude, You are missing the point. It would not have been any different had you or FG7 CL or arosar et al. was booted. Exactly the same reaction would have occured. It was not about love of Matthew Sweeney, it was about standards, free speech, undertakings et cetera. Yes I am thankfull that I am back in but really, it was not about me personally, was it. It was about us as a community of individuals who need to protect eachother lest we be picked off one by one.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 01:38 AM
CL is a valued and regular member of the pack whose posts don't generally cause us problems and whose posting character I would have been proud to defend had we needed to save him.

A number of us weren't so proud of saving you, but felt that even the 5% of your posts that have any actual merit still justified the effort. Even omega-wolf can be useful to the pack sometimes. You're a very sorry specimen, but it wouldn't be quite the same without you.

firegoat ... hmmm, as a moderator I suppose I would have still done something, just in case it happened to someone who mattered. Whether others would have, I'm not so sure. As a poster I would have been happy to see Gandalf cast him into the mines of Moria for a month or three - he could do with a bit of discipline, that boy. :shock:

PHAT
06-01-2004, 08:57 AM
A number of us weren't so proud of saving you, but felt that even the 5% of your posts that have any actual merit still justified the effort. Even omega-wolf can be useful to the pack sometimes. You're a very sorry specimen, but it wouldn't be quite the same without you.

So which one out of you and Bill is the bi.tch?

chesslover
06-01-2004, 06:49 PM
And that's why I suggest a clause in the new BB conditions which says that posters agree to indemnify ISP, webmaster etc for all costs of legal actions caused by the poster's posts.

What that means is that say Joe Blow defames Bill Smith on the new board. Smith sues me as webmaster/publisher and wins. But I then claim against Joe Blow to pay my costs.

This is correct. The only issues with these arrangements are:

(*) The legal arrangement is irrelevant to Smith suing the site. He can still win money off you irrespective of what you have agreed with Blow.

(*) It is then a matter as to whether you can make your legal agreement with Blow stick. If you can, that's fine. However Blow may be unable to pay up (in which case you bankrupt Blow but don't get all your own money back). Still, it should be an effective deterrent to Blow posting defamatory material.

(*) More concerning is what happens if you get sued for a defamatory post by an anonymous poster whose name you can't trace. Then you've got no one to sue because you can't prove who did it.

The latter can be got around by linking all accounts to real-name verification, which slows down registration a fair bit.

I recently talked to some people involved in setting up the bulletin board for a new youth radio station run by a Uni-aligned broadcaster here. The legal advice they got was that if moderation was both cautious and sufficient (in terms of one or more mods being likely to be online reasonably soon at any time) it would be very unlikely a webmaster or site host would by sued successfully for defo.

How do the big chat/BBs like Yahoo get around this? There is nothing to stop a person from loging in to yahoo, and posting that Mr ABC is a tax cheat etc etc.

Given the very litigatious climate of USA, and the millions of users in Yahoo, I would have thought this would have happened and Yahoo sued if there was any merits.

chesslover
06-01-2004, 06:57 PM
A number of us weren't so proud of saving you, but felt that even the 5% of your posts that have any actual merit still justified the effort. Even omega-wolf can be useful to the pack sometimes. You're a very sorry specimen, but it wouldn't be quite the same without you.

So which one out of you and Bill is the bi.tch?

You are just being stupid with that post :x

You are indeed a verry sorry specimen, and should have thanked Bill, peabrain and Kevin for saving you from being banned, despite their low regard for you and your posts in general

PHAT
06-01-2004, 10:49 PM
So which one out of you and Bill is the bi.tch?

You are just being stupid with that post :x

You are indeed a verry sorry specimen, and should have thanked Bill, peabrain and Kevin for saving you from being banned, despite their low regard for you and your posts in general

Go and look up wolf-pack social structure, then you will understand my question.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 11:28 PM
How do the big chat/BBs like Yahoo get around this? There is nothing to stop a person from loging in to yahoo, and posting that Mr ABC is a tax cheat etc etc.

Given the very litigatious climate of USA, and the millions of users in Yahoo, I would have thought this would have happened and Yahoo sued if there was any merits.

I'm no expert but I think it's far more likely that in the case of Yahoogroups and so on, the administrator of the group would be taking the fall, if anyone other than the poster did. It would be quite similar to someone using an email account to send a defamatory email - very difficult to hold the webpage responsible, since they've probably done all in their power to stop it from happening.

And while the USA is very litigous, their defo laws are actually a fair bit softer than ours.

ursogr8
23-01-2004, 10:53 AM
Please see the latest announcement. Basically Jeo is handing full control to me and Kevin so everything should be hunky dory.

Now can we please get down to the usual business of abusing each other. I'm stuffed.

hi Paul B

I presume you are unstuffed now, and have had time to measure the change.
Can you advise the size of the change in the traffic through the old ACF web-site, and whether this has affected the revenue provided by the advertisers on that site?


starter