PDA

View Full Version : Banished!



Pages : [1] 2

arosar
03-08-2005, 07:49 AM
Matthew of Gong Gone.

See blog: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

auriga
03-08-2005, 10:00 AM
Matthew of Gong Gone.

See blog: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

wow. that's quite a long ban!

Eric
03-08-2005, 10:11 AM
wow. that's quite a long ban!

He's lucky he hasn't lost everything in a defamation suit. He's too stupid to appreciate how lucky he is and how easy he's actually gotten off. Let's see if he'd say he'd like his children to have read the filth he wrote on his bb.

Alan Shore
03-08-2005, 12:49 PM
INTERNET = SERIOUS BUSINESS

:rolleyes:

themovingman
03-08-2005, 01:58 PM
wow. that's quite a long ban!

not really - only a half dozen or so tournaments.

Don't get me wrong - one or two of those may be treasured parts of usual playing schedule. But just think that a one-month ban is really a one weekend ban, except for Grades; COS & State champ.

not pleasant - I would hope not to transgress but I keep my head low and hopefully cause mild short-term aggravation - I gather from reading that issues have been building awhile and some people have been entertaining themselves by watching flame wars - not so much me as I pop in hear for info but several pages to wade thru.

All the best anyhow

arosar
03-08-2005, 02:01 PM
An loyal fan had these questions:

Who was the proposer of the motion to ban?
Who was the seconder of the motion to ban.
What was the wrding of the motion?

Bill?

AR

EDIT: Of course I meant a fan of the Closet Grandmaster - not Mr Sweeney's.

ursogr8
03-08-2005, 02:03 PM
Matthew of Gong Gone.

See blog: http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR
hi AR

I presume from your BLOG that you have been in contact with Matt.

Did he reveal the date of the offence? I have a PM from another poster that I would like to compare with. (Matt, if you are still dialling in...feel free to reveal the date if you wish).

starter

arosar
03-08-2005, 02:05 PM
Hey Bill...can I do a one-on-one interview with you. I publish on my blog. See Kerry Stead example for this type of thing.

I do the same for Matt too.

You know, I should tell, I have world wide readership already. Just check out my site meter.

AR

arosar
03-08-2005, 02:13 PM
Bill,

The first question I want to ask is: what were the precise reasons for the banning? The second question I want to ask you Bill is: do you have a personal vendetta against Mr Sweeney? And finally, other than Mr Sweeney taking legal action, does the NSWCA have an independent appeals process to which the matter can be referred?

THanks Bill. I actually have more questions. But let's start with those. I want to publish some exclusives and then maybe we can take it up in the ACF Bulletins.

AR

ursogr8
03-08-2005, 02:16 PM
An loyal fan had these questions:

Who was the proposer of the motion to ban?
Who was the seconder of the motion to ban.
What was the wrding of the motion?

Bill?

AR

EDIT: Of course I meant a fan of the Closet Grandmaster - not Mr Sweeney's.

Brighten up AR.
This Anon. who posts on your BLOG is like Chesslover....a composite of posters. :rolleyes: :P

starter

antichrist
03-08-2005, 05:40 PM
An loyal fan had these questions:

Who was the proposer of the motion to ban?
Who was the seconder of the motion to ban.
What was the wrding of the motion?

Bill?

AR

EDIT: Of course I meant a fan of the Closet Grandmaster - not Mr Sweeney's.

As Bill would say, if you wanted to know such things you should have stayed on the council - isn't that right Bill?

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 06:10 PM
An loyal fan had these questions:

Who was the proposer of the motion to ban?
Who was the seconder of the motion to ban.
What was the wrding of the motion?

Bill?That information is not for the general public. If NSWCA members wish to know the answer to that they can contact the Secretary to view the minutes.
I will however point out that I vacated the chair whilst the matter was discussed and I abstained from voting.

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 06:14 PM
Hey Bill...can I do a one-on-one interview with you. I publish on my blog. See Kerry Stead example for this type of thing.

I do the same for Matt too.

You know, I should tell, I have world wide readership already. Just check out my site meter.Over in another thread I told you that the action was instigated by another member yet you made it clear you did not believe me.
As such I have no intention of wasting my time discussing it with the likes of you.

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 06:27 PM
Bill,

The first question I want to ask is: what were the precise reasons for the banning?It was clear in the letter he was sent.

The second question I want to ask you Bill is: do you have a personal vendetta against Mr Sweeney?I dont believe his foul language is acceptable but I did not instigate the action against him. It was instigated by another council member.

And finally, other than Mr Sweeney taking legal action, does the NSWCA have an independent appeals process to which the matter can be referred?No. His avenues for appeal are spelt out in the NSWCA Constitution.
I notice however you apparently had no issue with the processes with regards the Council's suspension of Ilic.

I should point out that as per the constitution Matt was given the opportunity to respond in writing to the Council or he or a representative authorised by him in writing could attend the July 28th Council meeting. He to do neither.

antichrist
03-08-2005, 06:58 PM
It was clear in the letter he was sent.
I dont believe his foul language is acceptable but I did not instigate the action against him. It was instigated by another council member.
No. His avenues for appeal are spelt out in the NSWCA Constitution.
I notice however you apparently had no issue with the processes with regards the Council's suspension of Ilic.

I should point out that as per the constitution Matt was given the opportunity to respond in writing to the Council or he or a representative authorised by him in writing could attend the July 28th Council meeting. He to do neither.

Well if Matt did not care enough about it all to go and put his case, why should anyone else care?

arosar
03-08-2005, 08:03 PM
I notice however you apparently had no issue with the processes with regards the Council's suspension of Ilic.

Eh? Mr Ilic's case was different Bill. Let's not mislead the public Bill.

AR

arosar
03-08-2005, 08:09 PM
As such I have no intention of wasting my time discussing it with the likes of you.

Oh the "likes of me" now? This other Council member - he's not you're mate, is he?

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 08:56 PM
Oh the "likes of me" now?Yes. You have no problem casting aspersions as evidenced by your following comment. I wont waste my time on you.

This other Council member - he's not you're mate, is he?I wont dignify this with an answer.

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 09:00 PM
Eh? Mr Ilic's case was different Bill. Let's not mislead the public Bill.It is not misleading at all.
Both involve what the Council saw as unacceptable standards of conduct.
Both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.
Ilic at least bothered responding.
Matt chose to neither respond nor attend the Council meeting.

arosar
03-08-2005, 09:00 PM
Don't get upset Bill. We're just having a bit of chit-chat here you know mate. You get all defensive all of sudden. I tell you what mate - I reckon you've been a bit under the weather lately. Well, actually, dunno what it is - but you're under something. Not your usual loquacious self.

AR

arosar
03-08-2005, 09:02 PM
It is not misleading at all.

Bill, Bill, Bill. Ilic's offence was there for all to see. It's not clear at all what Sweeney's are. When you sent him a letter alleging abuses - did you catalogue the exact abuses point by point?

Keep talking Bill.

AR

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 09:13 PM
Bill, Bill, Bill. Ilic's offence was there for all to see. It's not clear at all what Sweeney's are.I would suggest to you that many people would say that Matt's was there for all to see on UCJ.

When you sent him a letterDont misrepresent the situation. I sent him no letter. The letter was drafted by the Secretary on behalf of the Council

alleging abuses - did you catalogue the exact abuses point by point?He was well aware from the content of the letter why he was receivng it.
He chose not to respond nor attend the Council meeting.

ursogr8
03-08-2005, 09:16 PM
It is not misleading at all.
Both involve what the Council saw as unacceptable standards of conduct.
Both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.
Ilic at least bothered responding.
Matt chose to neither respond nor attend the Council meeting.

I think Amiel can be correct in this instance; and thus your linking together of the two episodes is misleading.
Amiel is correct if one of the episodes is absolutely indefensible, or has no visible defenders from the chess community at large; and the other episode is seen in a different light, by the general populus, from the first.
The fact that a small select group made the same judgement on the two episodes does not necessarily reflect the populus view on these episodes.

starter

ursogr8
03-08-2005, 09:22 PM
I would suggest to you that many people would say that Matt's was there for all to see on UCJ.

And if this was correct then you would not have AR asking for clarification, and the MODs on cc.com would not have re-instated him here.

starter

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2005, 09:26 PM
And if this was correct then you would not have AR asking for clarification,I didnt say everyone, I said many.

and the MODs on cc.com would not have re-instated him here.That is totally unrelated to his ban being lifted here. This bulletin board is moderated. UCJ was not.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2005, 11:49 PM
And if this was correct then you would not have AR asking for clarification, and the MODs on cc.com would not have re-instated him here.

It's possible the death of UCJ expedited STML's decision to reinstate Matt (note it was an admin decision not a mod one) but the death of UCJ was not a precondition for it to happen - he was talking about it anyway just before UCJ fell over. In fact, at the time Matt was reinstated we did not know UCJ was going to be dead for good, and thought it might reappear in a week or two. Only later did it become clear that ez-board's ability to repair the hacker damage fell way short of what they claimed.

Alan Shore
04-08-2005, 12:23 AM
So thus far, the majority thinks it to be ridiculous and that comments on internet BB's are about as far removed from chess tournament particpation as throwing eggs at someone's house on Halloween.

OH HE CALLED ME A NAME THATS IT YOUR NOT ALLOWED IN MY CLUB ANY MORE OR IM TELLING MUMMY ON YOU!

Or something quite similar.

Actually though, I'm interested in what Bill thinks and why he abstained. After all, Matt was mainly mouthing off at Bill, this has zilch to do with the rest of the Efrafan Council.

In fact, the best outcome of all (probably no chance) would be for Bill to overturn the ban, then Matt would be very grateful and you'd never have any problems again. But of course, these happy endings are seldom found outside fairytales now, are they?

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 12:40 AM
Actually though, I'm interested in what Bill thinks and why he abstained. After all, Matt was mainly mouthing off at Bill, this has zilch to do with the rest of the Efrafan Council.Quite simple. I abstained and vacated the chair because otherwise I could be accused of a conflict of interest.

In fact, the best outcome of all (probably no chance) would be for Bill to overturn the ban,I dont have the power to overturn a decision of the NSWCA Council.

Paul S
04-08-2005, 12:52 AM
The first time I heard/saw Matthew's "accusations" was just now on this BB (or more precisely on Amiel's Blog via this BB). So, as a matter of interest, where did they first appear? I've just had a look at Uber Chess Jehad and I doubt it was there as the last post was on (I think) 15/6/05.

Alan Shore
04-08-2005, 01:04 AM
Quite simple. I abstained and vacated the chair because otherwise I could be accused of a conflict of interest.

Yeah, but what do you think about the ban? Do you think it fair? Do you think the decision provided an accurate reflection of comments construed by Matt? Do you see my point about apples and oranges?

Garvinator
04-08-2005, 01:25 AM
The first time I heard/saw Matthew's "accusations" was just now on this BB (or more precisely on Amiel's Blog via this BB). So, as a matter of interest, where did they first appear? I've just had a look at Uber Chess Jehad and I doubt it was there as the last post was on (I think) 15/6/05.
ucj lost alot of information and posts in its latter days due to a server crash or something.

PHAT
04-08-2005, 01:54 AM
The entire UCJ site was finally restored. I simply archived it in a resticted area open to only me. I did this as a jesture of good will. Furthermore, it was done before any "show cause" letter was sent to me.

The first "show cause" gave me 3 days notice to respond. I objected. The second gave me 3 weeks. I chose to ingnore the offer to defend myself in front of the group who were both judge and victim.

Serious offences attract an imeadiate suspension, and the penality reflects the seriousness. eg fighting/threats gets 2 years. If an offence is less serious, then that player goes on playing until a hearing and an appropriate penalty is determined. What I do not understand is, if an offence is so serious that it attracts a ban until 2007, why did it take 3 months to apply the ban? Either an imediate ban should have been applied, or, my penalty is manifestly excessive.

The NSWCA council is a truly sick organisation in need of resection.

Eric
04-08-2005, 08:25 AM
I simply archived it in a resticted area open to only me.

The first "show cause" gave me 3 days notice to respond. I objected. The second gave me 3 weeks. I chose to ingnore the offer to defend myself in front of the group who were both judge and victim.

.

The material you had on your web-site was clearly defamatory. You both wrote and 'published' that material and are legally liable for its contents. You removed it because you were rightfullly scared.

You did not defend your position because you have no reasonable defence available to you. Legally, stupidity and ignorance of the law do not constitute denfence.

Finally, I'll leave it to others to decide who is 'sick' and 'healthy' arond here. I suspect I know which camp you'll fall under.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 09:25 AM
I didnt say everyone, I said many.
That is totally unrelated to his ban being lifted here. This bulletin board is moderated. UCJ was not.


It's possible the death of UCJ expedited STML's decision to reinstate Matt (note it was an admin decision not a mod one) but the death of UCJ was not a precondition for it to happen - he was talking about it anyway just before UCJ fell over. In fact, at the time Matt was reinstated we did not know UCJ was going to be dead for good, and thought it might reappear in a week or two. Only later did it become clear that ez-board's ability to repair the hacker damage fell way short of what they claimed.

However you guys want to spin it, the poster who is called Matt Sweeney was accepted back on this bb after
> an indefinite ban with no sunset clause
>> no indication from Matt that he would change his ways
>>> you guys reading whatever posts on UCJ are now deemed offensive by the NSWCA.

KB was a mod at the time and did not immediately re-constitute a ban after the ADMIN relented.
Bill has become a mod and has not banned Matt.

So when Bill says there is little difference with the Ilic case, I contend that Amiel is correct to say that you are misleading the public. One case is open and shut, and the other has even the Mods on this boards accepting Matthew back into the fold.

starter

arosar
04-08-2005, 09:43 AM
So when Bill says there is little difference with the Ilic case, I contend that Amiel is correct to say that you are misleading the public.

Of course our mate Bill is misleading the public. The Ilic case was entirely different in all aspects. It was more clearcut than the Sweeney case. But, as we know, Mr Gletsos is a man of infinite contortions.

Will the NSWCA still rate the games played in the Common Man - an event organised by Sweeney?

AR

Dozy
04-08-2005, 10:17 AM
I did this as a jesture of good will.

A spelling mistake or a sublimated wish to laugh it off?

I know Matt the man and enjoy his company; Matt the poster is somebody else. Maybe the thing to do now is to wait out the suspension and perhaps find a less provocative way to try to change the establishment.

It might be all those Laksha lunches, Matt. This could be the time to switch to salads with lots of cucumbers to keep it c-o-o-o-l.

Eric
04-08-2005, 11:02 AM
Of course our mate Bill is misleading the public. The Ilic case was entirely different in all aspects. It was more clearcut than the Sweeney case. But, as we know, Mr Gletsos is a man of infinite contortions.

Will the NSWCA still rate the games played in the Common Man - an event organised by Sweeney?

AR
In many ways the Sweeney case is more clear cut than Ilic. Sweeney made a number of obscene, defamatory comments about a number of people. He could and can still be charged with defamation. If you believe his comments on his BB were acceptable and non-defamatory, I suggest you get some legal adivce for yourself.

arosar
04-08-2005, 11:08 AM
In many ways the Sweeney case is more clear cut than Ilic. Sweeney made a number of obscene, defamatory comments about a number of people. He could and can still be charged with defamation. If you believe his comments on his BB were acceptable and non-defamatory, I suggest you get some legal adivce for yourself.

In the Ilic case, people saw the whole thing happened. In the present case, we have nothing more than the NSWCA's assertions.

Don't misunderstand me mate. I'm not defending Sweeney's actions. If he gets himself done in, then he has only himself to blame. But exactly what did he say that warranted banning? And he defamed who - Gletsos? So this is what this is about: Gletsos vs Sweeney.

AR

Eric
04-08-2005, 11:18 AM
In the Ilic case, people saw the whole thing happened. In the present case, we have nothing more than the NSWCA's assertions.

Don't misunderstand me mate. I'm not defending Sweeney's actions. If he gets himself done in, then he has only himself to blame. But exactly what did he say that warranted banning? And he defamed who - Gletsos? So this is what this is about: Gletsos vs Sweeney.

AR

In terms of what Sweeney has asserted I don't want to go into specifics. Let me just say that from his bb alone there are sufficient grounds to argue he has brought the game into disrepute and defamed a number of people. I know he will argue otherwise and plead greater knowledge than I. Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not on the NSWCA nor am I friends with anyone on it.

antichrist
04-08-2005, 11:35 AM
However you guys want to spin it, the poster who is called Matt Sweeney was accepted back on this bb after
> an indefinite ban with no sunset clause
>> no indication from Matt that he would change his ways

A/C maybe something in private that we are not alerted to.

Starter:
>>> you guys reading whatever posts on UCJ are now deemed offensive by the NSWCA.

KB was a mod at the time and did not immediately re-constitute a ban after the ADMIN relented.

A/C Matt has mainly modified his posts and KB was probably given an assurance by admin that this modification would take place - and Matt has been subsequently warned by admin. on day 2 thereabouts.

Starter:
Bill has become a mod and has not banned Matt.

A/C I don't think Bill can act retrospectively - he would also be howled down if he did.

Starter:
So when Bill says there is little difference with the Ilic case, I contend that Amiel is correct to say that you are misleading the public. One case is open and shut, and the other has even the Mods on this boards accepting Matthew back into the fold.

starter

A/C
I think they are similiar as far as applying the rules are concerned. Only they broke the same rule in a different method.

As I have mentioned earlier, Matt made a lot of outrageous posts against Bill, Bill also conducts comps in Sydney (that teams event recently), Matt was still a member with the right to participate as he did, Bill has to be BIG and take it in his stride - is that fair? It is like a bashed and separated wife having to front up with her hubbie!

As far as witchhunting about who on the NSWCA did what I predicted ages ago that Matt could be expelled for that website.

Matt carried the personal grudge of being put off council for not turning up - not a nice thing to happen but no justification.

If meetings were on the southern side of Harbour Bridge he may have been a bit more inclined to turn up - still no justification but.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 12:32 PM
I think they are similiar as far as applying the rules are concerned. Only they broke the same rule in a different method.

As I have mentioned earlier, Matt made a lot of outrageous posts against Bill, Bill also conducts comps in Sydney (that teams event recently), Matt was still a member with the right to participate as he did, Bill has to be BIG and take it in his stride - is that fair? It is like a bashed and separated wife having to front up with her hubbie!

hi a/c

So your argument is
> Bill is a victim only
>> Actions in retaliation are just a defence, not subject to rules requiring non-bullying.
I think your argument stinks.


As far as witchhunting about who on the NSWCA did what I predicted ages ago that Matt could be expelled for that website.
Yes you did. Is the web-site the offence? Then why was he not (Mod) banned on being (Admin) re-admitted here?


Matt carried the personal grudge of being put off council for not turning up - not a nice thing to happen but no justification.
Does George turn-up for ACF meetings btw?


starter

ps Incidentally a/c; do you know the date of the alleged offence?

Eric
04-08-2005, 12:49 PM
Yes you did. Is the web-site the offence? Then why was he not (Mod) banned on being (Admin) re-admitted here?





It's not clear what you actually mean here. It appears that you wonder why he has been allowed admission to this bb considering certain behaviours that occurred prior to his 'unbanning'.

The answer is simple. This bb admits and bans whoever it sees fit. It is not a part of the ACF or the NSWCA. Also, Sweeney may have agreed to mend his ways regarding future postings here. At any rate this is a separate issue from what transpired throught the NSWCA Council.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 12:51 PM
The entire UCJ site was finally restored. I simply archived it in a resticted area open to only me. I did this as a jesture of good will.So you claim. By the time it was restored nearly a month after it was hacked you were more than likely scared of legal action.

The first "show cause" gave me 3 days notice to respond. I objected. The second gave me 3 weeks.The letter (snail mail) was mailed to you by the Secretary on the afternoon of 22nd June. It informed you that the matter would be discussed at the 30th June meeting. It also made it clear that if you wanted more time to prepare a response then you should let the council know by Monday June 27th and the matter would be deferred till the July 28th meeting.
You chose to send an email response at 11.41am on June 30th the day of the meeting. In it you stated that you only received the letter on the Monday 27th June. The question then is why it took you another 3 days to send an email to the council rather than respond sooner.
In light of your email of 30th June the Council informed you on Monday July 4th via email (and also mailed a letter) that the Council had deferred the matter until the July 28th Council meeting.

Serious offences attract an imeadiate suspension, and the penality reflects the seriousness. eg fighting/threats gets 2 years. If an offence is less serious, then that player goes on playing until a hearing and an appropriate penalty is determined. What I do not understand is, if an offence is so serious that it attracts a ban until 2007, why did it take 3 months to apply the ban? Either an imediate ban should have been applied, or, my penalty is manifestly excessive.The matter was originally raised at council at the March 31st Council meeting by a council member. Council members were directed to view the material for themselves at the UCJ site. At the April meeting it was determined that the Secretary draft you a letter asking you to show cause but before dispatching it to seek legal advice to determine if the Council could do so in accordance with the Constitution. The reply was received after the May meeting and the Council therefore proceeded with dispatching the letter on June 22nd. The council had noted that there was no let up in the behaviour from March thru to the demise of UCJ at the end of May.
The issue had also been raised by the NSWJCL with the NSWCA. The NSWJCL felt the language was unacceptable and prone to discouraging parents and juniors from playing chess.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 12:58 PM
It's not clear what you actually mean here. It appears that you wonder why he has been allowed admission to this bb considering certain behaviours that occurred prior to his 'unbanning'.

The answer is simple. This bb admits and bans whoever it sees fit. It is not a part of the ACF or the NSWCA. Also, Sweeney may have agreed to mend his ways regarding future postings here. At any rate this is a separate issue from what transpired throught the NSWCA Council.

Bill implied it was an open and shut case similar to Ilic.
AR objected and said that was misleading.
If the Sweeney alleged offence was so 'open and shut' then it invites the question of why it did not lead to a Mod banning here.
In fact the opposite happened....an indefinite ban, with no sunset clause, was lifted after 99% of postings on UCJ, save for a/c's benedictions. Hardly the stuff of evidence of a new offence.

There is not a shred of posted evidence to support that Sweeney agreed to change anything.

antichrist
04-08-2005, 01:03 PM
hi a/c

So your argument is
> Bill is a victim only

A/C
He may or may not have been, but whatever he did he did not break any rules of the association or of the land or of the BB. Not being nice on Council or on BB is not a punishible offence. I think we would have to agree that any bullying has ceased.

Starter
>> Actions in retaliation are just a defence, not subject to rules requiring non-bullying.

A/C
maybe so as in the case of the Palestinians, but actions in this country must be legal on grounds mentioned above.

Starter
I think your argument stinks.

A/C
I expected such response - it it common opinion that most if not all my arguments stink. But that is just me. I was abused last night on this BB, don't mention the war.

Starter
Yes you did. Is the web-site the offence? Then why was he not (Mod) banned on being (Admin) re-admitted here?

A/C
A separate issue. Yes he abused on UCJ this board's admins and mods profusely, and if I was such I would not have allowed him back in. That is their decision.

He also abused on UCJ Bill and probably the Association. It is also the Associations's decision as to whether they allowed him to continue his membership. The NSWCA were not so forgiving. Take into consideration my comments re bashed missus in previous post.

Starter
Does George turn-up for ACF meetings btw?
starter


A/C
I believe that do it by telephone (as a national organisation), I guess not but don't really know, and if rules were followed re procedure re notifying him of such meeting I guess it is in their power to expell him after so many breaches of "attendance". It also is their decision.

Merry Christmas

Bill's running dog (promotion up from carrier pigeon)

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 01:19 PM
A/C
A separate issue. Yes he abused on UCJ this board's admins and mods profusely, and if I was such I would not have allowed him back in. That is their decision.

So the count is
Thumbs down
a/c...1 vote
NSWCA (with Bill abstaining).....x votes
Eric....1 vote

Thumbs up
Mods...at least 5 active votes

Hardly an OPEN and SHUT as contended by Bill is it?

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Bill implied it was an open and shut case similar to Ilic.I implied no such thing. I said "Both involve what the Council saw as unacceptable standards of conduct. Both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken."

If the Sweeney alleged offence was so 'open and shut' then it invites the were question of why it did not lead to a Mod banning here.You dont seem to get it do you.
His bahaviour on UCJ was not relevant to here.
This board is moderated. Therefore the foul and obscene language he used on UCJ would be deleted here as has occurred in the past.

arosar
04-08-2005, 01:28 PM
Bill implied it was an open and shut case similar to Ilic.

That's right. To be honest, I even set off an email to Council demanding that they act accordingly against Ilic.

All we're doing here is asking Council to clarify their reasons for the banning. Anyone can say, oh he defamed this or that. Problem is, everyone gets so shit-scared about this defamation business that the whole story just gets shut down. We just wanna make sure that there was no nudge-nudge-wink-wink goings on.

Now, does this banning, btw, extend to organising tourns?

AR

arosar
04-08-2005, 01:31 PM
I implied no such thing.

Err...yes, you did! See post # 14.

In response to my questions, why in the bloody world did you bring up the Ilic case? It's got nothing to do with this.

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:33 PM
Will the NSWCA still rate the games played in the Common Man - an event organised by Sweeney?He is suspended from all activities of the NSWCA and the ACF. The Common man was not a NSWCA activity.
The players participated in it expecting that it would be rated. As such it will be.
Also the event was held prior to him being suspended.

arosar
04-08-2005, 01:35 PM
He is suspended from all activities of the NSWCA. The Common man was not a NSWCA activity.
The players participated in it expecting that it would be rated. As such it will be.

ROTFL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:38 PM
Err...yes, you did! See post # 14.There is no mention in post 14 of open and shut cases.


In response to my questions, why in the bloody world did you bring up the Ilic case? It's got nothing to do with this.You were complaining about process. I pointed out you had no problem with the process with regards Ilic.
My post #19 pointed out they both involve what the Council saw as unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

Alan Shore
04-08-2005, 01:39 PM
ROTFL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

AR

So... perhaps the question should not only be CG's 'Why do we need the ACF' but also 'Why do we need State chess organisations?'

antichrist
04-08-2005, 01:44 PM
..........
All we're doing here is asking Council to clarify their reasons for the banning. Anyone can say, oh he defamed this or that. Problem is, everyone gets so shit-scared about this defamation business that the whole story just gets shut down. We just wanna make sure that there was no nudge-nudge-wink-wink goings on. ........
AR

This issue is not so simple. The laws of defamo in NSW are about the tightest in the land.

As I understand it from previously being a secretary and editor during stormy times, the laws regarding this situation re reporting of Council's business come in two facets.

Firstly: The Assoc can report to it's members the situation and any action that it took. This can only take place in a private manner, e.g., correspondence or in minutes or at meetings, presumably with non-members not allowed sitting rights.

Secondly: The Assoc.'s reportage of any incident, expulsion etc. cannot take place in a public domain, for e.g., on this BB. That is defamo. No public interest defense.

Bill's running dog

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:51 PM
Now, does this banning, btw, extend to organising tourns?The Council has no power over non NSWCA events. As such we cannot stop him organising events if he chooses.
In the case of a player we cannot stop them participating in non NSWCA events and we could not reasonably refuse to rate such events if the organiser allowed a suspended player to participate as this would amount to effectively a secondary boycott.
In the case of rating events of which he is the organiser the NSWCA could decide to not rate them. This would be no different than when the ACF detemined it would not rate events from the MCC a few years back.

antichrist
04-08-2005, 01:53 PM
The Council has no power over non NSWCA events. As such we cannot stop him organising events if he chooses.
In the case of a player we cannot stop them participating in non NSWCA events and we could not reasonably refuse to rate such events if the organiser allowed a suspended player to participate as this would amount to effectively a secondary boycott.
In the case of rating events of which he is the organiser the NSWCA could decide to not rate them. This would be no different than when the ACF detemined it would not rate events from the MCC a few years back.

When I visited ACF site I noticed that you were the national ratings officer - does NSW have one also? Could you disagree with yourself?

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:55 PM
So the count is
Thumbs down
a/c...1 vote
NSWCA (with Bill abstaining).....x votes
Eric....1 vote

Thumbs up
Mods...at least 5 active votesAs KB noted the decision to let Matt back on here was taken by the Admin, not the mods.

Rincewind
04-08-2005, 01:56 PM
When I visited ACF site I noticed that you were the national ratings officer - does NSW have one also?

From the same website you can find the following...

NSW Ratings: Steve Carratt scarratt@bigpond.net.au

Not sure it is 100% up-to-date but Steve has been the NSW guy for a number of years and so I assume he still is.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 01:59 PM
When I visited ACF site I noticed that you were the national ratings officer - does NSW have one also? Could you disagree with yourself?The NSWCA Ratings Officer is Steve Carratt as the listed on the NSWCA website.
Of course what would or would not be rated by NSW is determined by the Council. The State Rating Officer is rresponsible for the submission to the ACF Ratings Officer.

arosar
04-08-2005, 02:13 PM
Hey Bill mate, could you share with us the actual letter you sent to Sweeney? Or is that a no-no? See, I got a bit of a nose for these things and I know there's a story there somewhere. I still wanna do interview with you mate. Think of me as the Financial Times not that bloody Daily Tele.

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 02:36 PM
Hey Bill mate, could you share with us the actual letter you sent to Sweeney? Or is that a no-no? I sent Sweeney no letter. As for the letter sent by the Council to him I wont be publishing it.

See, I got a bit of a nose for these things and I know there's a story there somewhere.More like a desire for gossip.

I still wanna do interview with you mate.Not interested. :hand:

Think of me as the Financial Times not that bloody Daily Tele.Actually I think of you more as the National Enquirer. ;)

antichrist
04-08-2005, 02:40 PM
As well you are not allowed to let that letter out for public publication, nor comment on the facts in a pubilc domain

PHAT
04-08-2005, 03:30 PM
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not on the NSWCA nor am I friends with anyone on it.

Noone with such a poverty expression could be a lawyer. You wouldn't make a lawyer's Ahole. And if you were, and you think that advising people to sue an ordinary man for defo is a safe move, you must have shares in Hearses R US. So, you can tounge out my toe jam it might make your breath smell better.

PHAT
04-08-2005, 03:34 PM
A/C
As I have mentioned earlier, Matt made a lot of outrageous posts against Bill, Bill also conducts comps in Sydney (that teams event recently), Matt was still a member with the right to participate as he did, Bill has to be BIG and take it in his stride - is that fair? It is like a bashed and separated wife having to front up with her hubbie!

It cuts both ways. Remember that.

antichrist
04-08-2005, 03:56 PM
It cuts both ways. Remember that.

FG7 wanted me to be shot at dawn.

The pro down the street reakons I underpaid and "overcharged" her - haha haha

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 03:58 PM
This issue is not so simple. The laws of defamo in NSW are about the tightest in the land.

As I understand it from previously being a secretary and editor during stormy times, the laws regarding this situation re reporting of Council's business come in two facets.

Firstly: The Assoc can report to it's members the situation and any action that it took. This can only take place in a private manner, e.g., correspondence or in minutes or at meetings, presumably with non-members not allowed sitting rights.

Secondly: The Assoc.'s reportage of any incident, expulsion etc. cannot take place in a public domain, for e.g., on this BB. That is defamo. No public interest defense.

Bill's running dog

Mr Bill's running dog

I think you are chasing the wrong hare my friend.
The Council's letter does not use the word defamation.

starter

antichrist
04-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Mr Bill's running dog

I think you are chasing the wrong hare my friend.
The Council's letter does not use the wrod defamation.

starter

Of course it would not. But it could mention the facts of the matter concerning bad behaviour, that is what cannot be published.

There is even a chance that we publicly discussing someone's expulsion here is also defamo to MS.

Must go important business has come up

Goughfather
04-08-2005, 04:05 PM
Yes, I am a lawyer.

All of a sudden I am much more confident about getting a job in the legal profession once I finish my LLB ...

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 04:06 PM
You dont seem to get it do you.
His bahaviour on UCJ was not relevant to here.
This board is moderated. Therefore the foul and obscene language he used on UCJ would be deleted here as has occurred in the past.

Step 1. MS is banned from cc.com
Step 2. After much coaxing the [B]strict[/I] Mod says effectively 'it is indefinite and likely to be permanent'. It is taking too much time to moderate MS's posts.
Step 3. MS creates UCJ and according to the NSWCA offends.
Step 4. The ADMIN unbans MS.
Step 5. The Mods roll over. Without evidence (of better behaviour) nor a promise from Sweeney, he is suddenly back.

Doesn't look like the ILIC certainty to me.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 04:11 PM
Doesn't look like the ILIC certainty to me.Thats your wording not mine.
I only equated them as both being the subject of unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

Garvinator
04-08-2005, 04:12 PM
Doesn't look like the ILIC certainty to me.
you certainly are being the patron of dubious causes here starter :rolleyes:
The similiarity refers to from my reading of the thread that the nswca council decides if the person is guilty and decides punishment if found guilty. That is the similiarity between the two cases.

The alleged behaviours are not similiar and I dont think any member of the nswca council have claimed it to be.

Are you deliberately trying to troll here ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 04:15 PM
you certainly are being the patron of dubious causes here starter :rolleyes:
The similiarity refers to from my reading of the thread that the nswca council decides if the person is guilty and decides punishment if found guilty. That is the similiarity between the two cases.Exactly Garvin.

The alleged behaviours are not similiar and I dont think any member of the nswca council have claimed it to be.

Are you deliberately trying to troll here ;)It looks that way to me.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 04:16 PM
So you claim. By the time it was restored nearly a month after it was hacked you were more than likely scared of legal action.
The letter (snail mail) was mailed to you by the Secretary on the afternoon of 22nd June. It informed you that the matter would be discussed at the 30th June meeting. It also made it clear that if you wanted more time to prepare a response then you should let the council know by Monday June 27th and the matter would be deferred till the July 28th meeting.
You chose to send an email response at 11.41am on June 30th the day of the meeting. In it you stated that you only received the letter on the Monday 27th June. The question then is why it took you another 3 days to send an email to the council rather than respond sooner.

In light of your email of 30th June the Council informed you on Monday July 4th via email (and also mailed a letter) that the Council had deferred the matter until the July 28th Council meeting.
The matter was originally raised at council at the March 31st Council meeting by a council member. Council members were directed to view the material for themselves at the UCJ site. At the April meeting it was determined that the Secretary draft you a letter asking you to show cause but before dispatching it to seek legal advice to determine if the Council could do so in accordance with the Constitution. The reply was received after the May meeting and the Council therefore proceeded with dispatching the letter on June 22nd. The council had noted that there was no let up in the behaviour from March thru to the demise of UCJ at the end of May.
The issue had also been raised by the NSWJCL with the NSWCA. The NSWJCL felt the language was unacceptable and prone to discouraging parents and juniors from playing chess.
So the Council discusses it on the 31st of March, and gets around to sending a letter on the 22nd of June. Then Sweeney spends a whole 3 days thinking about a matter that is going to eject him from the association, and you cuff him around the ears with
> The question then is why it took you another 3 days to send an email to the council rather than respond sooner.

I can't believe you wrote that Bill.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 04:19 PM
Are you deliberately trying to troll here ;)

Not at all gg''

If you go back and read the thread you will find it was AR who immediately saw the misleading analogy.

starter

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 04:21 PM
So the Council discusses it on the 31st of March, and gets around to sending a letter on the 22nd of June. Then Sweeney spends a whole 3 days thinking about a matter that is going to eject him from the association, and you cuff him around the ears with
> The question then is why it took you another 3 days to send an email to the council rather than respond sooner.

I can't believe you wrote that Bill.The letter made it clear that the Council would defer the matter to the July 28th meeting if he so desired. It doesnt seem like it would take 3 days for him to take up that option.

Garvinator
04-08-2005, 04:21 PM
Not at all gg''

If you go back and read the thread you will find it was AR who immediately saw the misleading analogy.

starter
and we all know that ar trolls regularly :lol:

arosar
04-08-2005, 04:23 PM
I only equated them as both being the subject of unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

You certainly have a talent for serpentine contortions Bill. Except, that is, to bend over.

You only mentioned Ilic because, insofar as my initial remark was concerned, you were attempting to paint an inconsistency. In any case, this is just a side point.

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2005, 04:27 PM
You only mentioned Ilic because, insofar as my initial remark was concerned, you were attempting to paint an inconsistency.Yes, your inconsistency.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 04:34 PM
The letter made it clear that the Council would defer the matter to the July 28th meeting if he so desired. It doesnt seem like it would take 3 days for him to take up that option.

It would take me a few days to digest
>>
Standard of Conduct
The actions and behaviour of players, DOPs, sponsors, and other individuals and entities participating in or otherwise connected with tournaments, events, or other activities sponsored by the NSWCA Inc and/or its affiliates shall in general, be in accordance with the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship, which the NSWCA Inc and its affiliates, sponsors, and members have a right to expect from such participants, as illustrated by the examples below.
The following list does not purport to be a complete itemization of all actions and behaviour that are considered unethical:
Repeated or gross violation of chess proprieties or tournament regulations;
Accusations of unethical conduct at a NSWCA Inc sanctioned event, unless made in private to the DOP or other official;
Playing in a NSWCA Inc game or tournament when under suspension;
Betting on the results of any NSWCA Inc sponsored game or tournament;
Repeated or gross anti-social behaviour at the site of a NSWCA Inc sponsored game or tournament;
Non-payment of any justified sums owed to the NSWCA Inc or any of its affiliates;
Influencing or attempting to influence an entrant to withdraw from any event sponsored by the NSWCA Inc or any of its affiliates;
Any actions which bring disrepute on the game of chess.
Procedures
Any member, sponsor, affiliate, or official of the NSWCA Inc may initiate procedures under this Code of Ethics. In the case of each alleged violation, the following steps shall occur:
A factual enquiry shall be made by the Disciplinary Committee as appointed by the Council of the NSWCA Inc, assisted as necessary by members of the Council;
Appropriate sanctions, if any, shall be imposed by the Disciplinary Committee (excepting that, in the case of suspensions and expulsions, Article 7 of the NSWCA Inc Constitution is to be applied);
Such sanctions shall be deemed final, unless appealed to the Council by the person or persons against whom sanctions have been imposed or upon the initiative of a member of the Council;
Upon appeal, a review of the facts and the appropriateness of the sanctions shall be undertaken by the full Council;
The sanctions shall be either continued, modified, or revoked.

As in, I would have to trawl through my UCJ posts to see which one was outside the NSW Code of Ethics.

As such, 3 days may not have been an unreasonable time, as I first remarked.

arosar
04-08-2005, 04:44 PM
Yes, your inconsistency.

As I said, I supported the action against Ilic. I sent you mob a note. That was clearcut. This instance is entirely different.

Your analogy is a canard.

AR

Eric
04-08-2005, 05:05 PM
Noone with such a poverty expression could be a lawyer. You wouldn't make a lawyer's Ahole. And if you were, and you think that advising people to sue an ordinary man for defo is a safe move, you must have shares in Hearses R US. So, you can tounge out my toe jam it might make your breath smell better.

You removed the offending material from your bb because you were scared you'd lose your shirt. Even you are not stupid enough to keep it there or re-post it. Would you really like your children to read that material?

As for your other comments :whistle:

Alan Shore
04-08-2005, 07:49 PM
You removed the offending material from your bb because you were scared you'd lose your shirt. Even you are not stupid enough to keep it there or re-post it. Would you really like your children to read that material?

As for your other comments :whistle:

Believe me, children are exposed to far, far worse on the internet than a few naughty words from Matt if you've ever visited a gaming forum.

PHAT
04-08-2005, 08:08 PM
You removed the offending material from your bb because you were scared you'd lose your shirt. Even you are not stupid enough to keep it there or re-post it. Would you really like your children to read that material?

As for your other comments :whistle:


My children have read some of it - I don't know how much, I don't care. They are made of sterner stuff than you. Further this, I love my children and my wife very very much and if some extremely foolish person was to proceed to threaten their economic future, well ...

BTW, you post here anonamously because you must truly be a gutless maggot. Maybe you realy are a lawyer - wrecking lives with impunity, knowing that your cronies and peers will never let you get done over like you do others over. I invite you to do the community a favor and drop dead. But hang on, you are not a lawyer. I guess you must simply be just a gutless maggot, so drop dead anyway.

antichrist
04-08-2005, 08:20 PM
It is a big shame that Eric is not here to continue tonight's entertainment - maybe someone else will step into the ring to take up the challenge, I am only a spectator tonight. But I don't mind a few rounds with AR, I like trash.

ursogr8
04-08-2005, 09:29 PM
History proves time and time again that a council will back up a major office bearer.




Quite simple. I abstained and vacated the chair because otherwise I could be accused of a conflict of interest.
I dont have the power to overturn a decision of the NSWCA Council.

You, did the right thing.

peanbrain
04-08-2005, 10:11 PM
You, did the right thing.
hey starter, haven't you got enough stupid politics down mexico already? why don't you mind your own business or go and work on your silly competitive index or something?? :whistle:

Paul S
04-08-2005, 11:11 PM
OK, judging by recent posts it is obvious that what appeared on Amiel's Blog (which is essentially what Matthew posted earlier today in the thread "What We Have in NSW") was not what Matt got banned for (as I had originally assumed).

I am surprised that whatever it was that Matt posted on UCJ happened before 31st March and that it has taken 4 months for the NSWCA to ban him.

What I would like to know is what was in the content of Matt's posts that made the NSWCA Council decide to ban him until 2007? I mean, was the ban justified or is it too severe (eg would a ban for the rest of 2005 have been fairer etc)?

peanbrain
04-08-2005, 11:49 PM
I am no mate of matt but I also agree ban him till 2007 is way too severe. I doubt many people even read his BB at the time, and those that believe they were defamed can sue him in their private capacity. Using NSWCA to ban him from participation is unreasonable.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2005, 03:13 AM
Step 1. MS is banned from cc.com
Step 2. After much coaxing the [B]strict[/I] Mod says effectively 'it is indefinite and likely to be permanent'. It is taking too much time to moderate MS's posts.

I assume this refers to me. Would you like to show me exactly what I said rather than your paraphrase of it? You may (or may not) be correct that I said that but if so that was my view based on what I knew of STML's intentions at the time. Also, it may not have been the view of all the other mods.


Step 4. The ADMIN unbans MS.
Step 5. The Mods roll over. Without evidence (of better behaviour) nor a promise from Sweeney, he is suddenly back.

The only reason for the stronger stance re language and vulgarity on this board cf. the old ACF ones (where we policed only the really extreme cases of such things) is that STML insisted on it. It's true that Matt was banned indefinitely for posting while banned rather than for more language/vulgarity issues, but without those he would not have been suspended in the first place. So in terms of letting Matt back on and how to treat him once he comes back, I am naturally going to take directions from the site owner. The other thing Matt did which contributed to his bannings was picking pointless fights with the site owner - again, ditto.

I really cannot see where you are coming from in trying to draw a link between moderation policy re Matthew Sweeney on the privately owned cc.org and NSWCA action against Matthew Sweeney over material posted on his privately owned UCJ. It is the most far-fetched beatup I have seen from you yet, especially as it seems to rely heavily on the Gletsos connection which is a total joke as (i) Bill became a mod here after Matt was reinstated (ii) Bill absteined from the NSWCA's processes vs Matthew. Furthermore we - and I'll include STML in this - decide what to do about people on this board based on what they do on this board, not what they do elsewhere. I am unsure whether to ask you to show some respect for our ability to separate the issues or to assert that you lack such ability yourself. Perhaps both? :hand:

antichrist
05-08-2005, 03:28 AM
When Matt returned I attributed it to Admin wanting a lively board and that is why he was let back in.

Admin is the puppet master.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2005, 04:47 AM
Question for the man who likes asking the questions:

AR, what were your reasons for encouraging people to discuss this issue here rather than in the comments section of your blog?

arosar
05-08-2005, 07:13 AM
AR, what were your reasons for encouraging people to discuss this issue here rather than in the comments section of your blog?

For convenience. The stupid comments section isn't very user friendly.

AR

antichrist
05-08-2005, 08:33 AM
I am no mate of matt but I also agree ban him till 2007 is way too severe. I doubt many people even read his BB at the time, and those that believe they were defamed can sue him in their private capacity. Using NSWCA to ban him from participation is unreasonable.

You are obviously no mate of Matt's, otherwise you would not be advising people to sue him rather than banning him for ONLY two years. I cannot remember their constitution, maybe that is their limit and they may do it again afterwards.

ursogr8
05-08-2005, 11:39 AM
I assume this refers to me. Would you like to show me exactly what I said rather than your paraphrase of it? You may (or may not) be correct that I said that but if so that was my view based on what I knew of STML's intentions at the time.

KB

Because you don't seem to be contesting it, I can't see the point of tracking down the evidence.
It was initially a SHOUT...and unless SEARCH works there then it is a most unfriendly place for you to have placed it.
Subsequently Bill quoted it a number of times because some of us gave it a forensic look at.



Also, it may not have been the view of all the other mods.
True.
It only takes one MOD to ban.

However, an UNBAN only has transitory term effect if each and every MOD singularly does not reBAN.




The only reason for the stronger stance re language and vulgarity on this board cf. the old ACF ones (where we policed only the really extreme cases of such things) is that STML insisted on it. It's true that Matt was banned indefinitely for posting while banned rather than for more language/vulgarity issues, but without those he would not have been suspended in the first place. So in terms of letting Matt back on and how to treat him once he comes back, I am naturally going to take directions from the site owner. The other thing Matt did which contributed to his bannings was picking pointless fights with the site owner - again, ditto.

His spats with ADMIN are not germaine.
The key to his banning (as I understood your rationale) was that you were fed-up with moderating him in volume terms. Did the evidence of UCJ convince you he had changed and should be re-admitted and you would not be involved much in moderating him?


I really cannot see where you are coming from in trying to draw a link between moderation policy re Matthew Sweeney on the privately owned cc.org and NSWCA action against Matthew Sweeney over material posted on his privately owned UCJ.

The thread of this has been that Bill intimated it was Open-and-Shut like ILIC. Amiel said that was misleading. I am indicating that it is misleading given that the re-admission here obviously judged the content on UCJ in a different light to the NSWCA judgement of what is on UCJ. Obviously ADMIN and all MODS thought light of the UCJ content otherwise they would not have re-admitted MS without evidence that he had changed in some way.


It is the most far-fetched beatup I have seen from you yet, especially as it seems to rely heavily on the Gletsos connection which is a total joke as (i) Bill became a mod here after Matt was reinstated (ii) Bill absteined from the NSWCA's processes vs Matthew.
Well, yes, there is beat-up in it.
But then, we lack the "show cause" letter, we lack the rules infringed allegation, we lack the mover and seconders names, we lack the wording of the motion, and we lack clarity on the offence where the word defamation appears here on the (bb) as an allegation but the letter from the NSWCA does not.
I don't rely though on the Bill connection as a MOD.


Furthermore we - and I'll include STML in this - decide what to do about people on this board based on what they do on this board, not what they do elsewhere.
So what changed to re-admit?


I am unsure whether to ask you to show some respect
I always try to keep my insolence cloaked in humour (or metrics), but I do respect volunteers


for our ability to separate the issues or to assert that you lack such ability yourself. Perhaps both?

I am well accused over the past 3 years of grabbing evidence from wherever convenient, to make a case.
Thank you for engaging.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 11:51 AM
KB

Because you don't seem to be contesting it, I can't see the point of tracking down the evidence.
It was initially a SHOUT...and unless SEARCH works there then it is a most unfriendly place for you to have placed it.
Subsequently Bill quoted it a number of times because some of us gave it a forensic look at.If I did say it was I actually quoting KB or was I just doing what you continually do and simply theorising.
However to back up your claim can you point to a post to back this up or is this just another example of you paraphrasing again.

The thread of this has been that Bill intimated it was Open-and-Shut like ILIC.Comprehension seems to be your problem. I never stated nor implied it was open and shut. I only equated them as both being the subject of unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

antichrist
05-08-2005, 11:54 AM
If Matto if slung off at (my mate) Startio and (my sometimes mate) ARIO, like he had at Gletso and Bono, I doubt this thread would have such a long end-game and post-mortem.

antichrist
05-08-2005, 11:56 AM
Is paraphrasing, in this case, like parashuting only without the "G" (grab) string?

arosar
05-08-2005, 12:11 PM
I only equated them as both being the subject of unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

And yet another ROFTL :lol: :lol: :lol: moment.

Thanks for the entertainment Bill.

AR

EGOR
05-08-2005, 01:48 PM
Quite an entertaining read.
It seems to me that Matt's ban is to harsh, but it probably because he did not reply to or appear before the council at the July meeting.

antichrist
05-08-2005, 02:47 PM
Quite an entertaining read.
It seems to me that Matt's ban is to harsh, but it probably because he did not reply to or appear before the council at the July meeting.

Egor, did you read the relevant posts to know if the ban is harsh?

ursogr8
05-08-2005, 03:32 PM
If I did say it was I actually quoting KB or was I just doing what you continually do and simply theorising.
However to back up your claim can you point to a post to back this up or is this just another example of you paraphrasing again.
KB does not deny saying it; he gave it a 'maybe I did'.
And yes, you were quoting KB.

Your sentence does not contain a question mark at the end, so I do not feel obliged to answer. With most posters I would take the question mark 'as read', but as fg7 learned to his travail you cannot be second-guessed on this intent.



Comprehension seems to be your problem. I never stated nor implied it was open and shut. I only equated them as both being the subject of unacceptable standards of conduct and both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken.

Then you should admit to a very poor analogy because your post was so misleading as to warrant a censure from AR.

starter

ursogr8
05-08-2005, 03:42 PM
If Matto if slung off at (my mate) Startio and (my sometimes mate) ARIO, like he had at Gletso and Bono, I doubt this thread would have such a long end-game and post-mortem.


I resent that implication a/c.
In fact I defended gg'' 's banning from the Coffee Lounge, to the point where ADMIN put me on IGNORE. And I defended the GURU's titles until the other side found themselves in hot water and the thread(s) were locked.
This is by no means my longest defence.

Thinking back, I don't recall having to defend you. :confused: :hmm:

starter

Garvinator
05-08-2005, 04:18 PM
I resent that implication a/c.
In fact I defended gg'' 's banning from the Coffee Lounge, to the point where ADMIN put me on IGNORE. And I defended the GURU's titles until the other side found themselves in hot water and the thread(s) were locked.
This is by no means my longest defence.

Thinking back, I don't recall having to defend you. :confused: :hmm:

starter
ok now i have had a gutful of you :evil: :evil: and want a proper apology for either being forgetful or for being deliberately mischievious.

I WAS NEVER BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE- HOW OFTEN MUST I SAY IT :evil: :evil: :evil:

I asked to be removed as i didnt support the concept of having an unmoderated forum and my wishes were complied with. As soon as I said I wanted back in to the coffee lounge and my explaination as to why, my access was restored.

PLEASE NEVER REFER TO ME BEING BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE AS IT IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE. :evil: :evil:

arosar
05-08-2005, 04:50 PM
ok now i have had a gutful of you :evil: :evil: and want a proper apology for either being forgetful or for being deliberately mischievious.

I WAS NEVER BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE- HOW OFTEN MUST I SAY IT :evil: :evil: :evil:

I asked to be removed as i didnt support the concept of having an unmoderated forum and my wishes were complied with. As soon as I said I wanted back in to the coffee lounge and my explaination as to why, my access was restored.

PLEASE NEVER REFER TO ME BEING BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE AS IT IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE. :evil: :evil:

Eh...? Geez, relax mate.

AR

eclectic
05-08-2005, 05:06 PM
is this a hint that :evil: is the closest we'll see to gg using an avatar?

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
05-08-2005, 05:07 PM
is this a hint that :evil: is the closest we'll see to gg using an avatar?

;)

eclectic
glad to see that I am off your ignore list :whistle: and yes it is the closest to an avator ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 05:11 PM
KB does not deny saying it; he gave it a 'maybe I did'.All that means is he doesnt recall. In which case 'maybe he didnt'.

And yes, you were quoting KB.So you claim.

Your sentence does not contain a question mark at the end, so I do not feel obliged to answer. With most posters I would take the question mark 'as read', but as fg7 learned to his travail you cannot be second-guessed on this intent.Ok then point to a post to back up your claim.

Then you should admit to a very poor analogy because your post was so misleading as to warrant a censure from AR.Ha, being censured by AR is like being censured for supporting Australia in the cricket. i.e. totlally meaningless.
Like you, AR needs to improve his comprehension skills.

arosar
05-08-2005, 05:45 PM
Like you, AR needs to improve his comprehension skills.

LOL!

Bill, maaate, you cited Ilic in an attempt to mislead the public that my positions on both Sweeney and Ilic were inconsistent - when they are not.

There was no reason for you to mention Ilic at all in your post #14 in answering my question in post #9.

But all this is a diversion on your part. See your post #50. That's a real hoot. You'd better pray the Council's letters to Sweeney don't find their way to the public domain. Sweeney, mate?

AR

arosar
05-08-2005, 06:00 PM
Going back to Bill's post #14:

I asked, what were the precise reasons for banning, you replied:


It was clear in the letter he was sent.

Then I asked if you have a personal vendetta against Mr Sweeney, you replied:


I dont believe his foul language is acceptable but I did not instigate the action against him. It was instigated by another council member.

So, we know that one reason is "foul language". Are there any more?

Btw, is interrogating you like this grounds for my expulsion? I just wanna be clear about that cos I don't want peace to reign for 4 months and suddenly, BOOM[!] - I'm out.

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 06:10 PM
LOL!

Bill, maaate, you cited Ilic in an attempt to mislead the public that my positions on both Sweeney and Ilic were inconsistent - when they are not.

There was no reason for you to mention Ilic at all in your post #14 in answering my question in post #9.That is your opinion.
I disagree.

Alan Shore
05-08-2005, 07:08 PM
Yeah, but what do you think about the ban? Do you think it fair? Do you think the decision provided an accurate reflection of comments construed by Matt? Do you see my point about apples and oranges?

Bump. Bill, please address my questions.

arosar
05-08-2005, 07:09 PM
The issue had also been raised by the NSWJCL with the NSWCA. The NSWJCL felt the language was unacceptable and prone to discouraging parents and juniors from playing chess.

That's a stretch. I'm surprised that A/C hasn't already set up a poll to test it.

Anyway, off to the Spanish Club. You're welcome to come along too Bill. I get you drunk enough to start yappin'.

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 07:10 PM
Bump. Bill, please address my questions.No comment.

Alan Shore
05-08-2005, 07:22 PM
No comment.

But why? I *wish* I was in NSW so I could help both you and Matt sort things out.

As I see it:

1/Matt has made some comments, expressing his disagreement on how Bill operates.

2/ It is true, Matt has expressed these comments in a vulgar form.

3/ Bill, distressed (as most would be), snaps back.

The thing I'd most like to see is Matt and Bill meet face-to-face. The only thing I think has happened is miscommunication. If you two could actually attempt to work things out, *listening* to what the other says, we might actually get somewhere. What Matt said, on the BB is atypical of someone on a BB: they say whatever. Bill, I understand you can be upset over this, cos it was not nice. Yet, I maintain, a BB is NOT the place to resolve issues. it is a medium of communication but it ignores some 90% of what really SHOULD be communicated.

I sincerely hope you two can communicate directly outside the BB and work this out, as you two have disparity in what a BB means.

Please undertand I am a psychologist and am trying to help both of you resolve this conflict. I think the NSWCA was far too hasty without knowing the details, and should not have been voted on without knowing the facts. Billl, Matt, you do know what REALLY transpired. Please, work it out, and then we can do more for chess itself. Matt and Bill are both trying to further chess but while you are at loggerheads over trivialities, I fear this can only be destructive. I implore both of you to listen to what I have to say. Bill: Please listen to the appeal to ban Matt from tournaments - it is unrelated to the internet conflict between yourselves. Matt - Give Bill a go, in mulling these things over and act like a <deleted>ing adult, without the language to resolve this.

Thanks guys, I really hope this works out for all of you, but especially for chess itself - I know both of you are trying in your own separate ways.

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 07:42 PM
But why? I *wish* I was in NSW so I could help both you and Matt sort things out.

As I see it:

1/Matt has made some comments, expressing his disagreement on how Bill operates.

2/ It is true, Matt has expressed these comments in a vulgar form.

3/ Bill, distressed (as most would be), snaps back.Belthasar you seem to miss the point.
I didnt instigate this action against Matt. Another council member did as they belived his conduct was unacceptable.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2005, 07:48 PM
Because you don't seem to be contesting it, I can't see the point of tracking down the evidence.

I'm contesting it because I'm not sure if it's true.

There are a number of people here who are not at all good at paraphrasing without distortion, especially from memory. So I treat any report that I said something specific in the past as false unless I clearly remember otherwise.


Subsequently Bill quoted it a number of times because some of us gave it a forensic look at.

Shouldn't be hard to find then.


The key to his banning (as I understood your rationale) was that you were fed-up with moderating him in volume terms. Did the evidence of UCJ convince you he had changed and should be re-admitted and you would not be involved much in moderating him?

The evidence of UCJ had nothing to do with my views, which didn't even change. All that changed was that the owner decided to let Matt back on.


The thread of this has been that Bill intimated it was Open-and-Shut like ILIC. Amiel said that was misleading. I am indicating that it is misleading given that the re-admission here obviously judged the content on UCJ in a different light to the NSWCA judgement of what is on UCJ. Obviously ADMIN and all MODS thought light of the UCJ content otherwise they would not have re-admitted MS without evidence that he had changed in some way.

Nonsense - which part of "none of us took it into account" is too hard for you to understand? UCJ was Matt's site. As far as this forum is concerned, what he did there was his problem; we were concerned with what he had done here. I cannot remember UCJ ever being raised in discussions between the owner and mods about readmitting Matt. Matt's use of this site to send PMs for UCJ, which we deemed to be spam, was another matter.


But then, we lack the "show cause" letter, we lack the rules infringed allegation, we lack the mover and seconders names, we lack the wording of the motion, and we lack clarity on the offence where the word defamation appears here on the (bb) as an allegation but the letter from the NSWCA does not.

Doesn't make your beat-up not a beat-up.


So what changed to re-admit?

STML just reckoned he had been in the sinbin long enough. As with ChessGuru.

Alan Shore
05-08-2005, 08:05 PM
Belthasar you seem to miss the point.
I didnt instigate this action against Matt. Another council member did as they belived his conduct was unacceptable.

Bill, I haven't missed anything. I am STILL waiting for your own opinion on this matter, with which the factor of your reluctance to give is becoming increasingly obvious.

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2005, 08:09 PM
Bill, I haven't missed anything. I am STILL waiting for your own opinion on this matter, with which the factor of your reluctance to give is becoming increasingly obvious.Then you will be waiting a long time.
Of course if is so obvious then there is no need for me to respond.

antichrist
05-08-2005, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
The issue had also been raised by the NSWJCL with the NSWCA. The NSWJCL felt the language was unacceptable and prone to discouraging parents and juniors from playing chess.

This response seem quite reasonable, it was an open and shut case anyway. There are more important issues to argue about.

AR, if you are not going to offer to accept a position on Council this year you could be seen to be hypocritical.

And imagine all the juicey stories you will have for your blogg.

Bill's stray running-dog

PHAT
06-08-2005, 12:09 AM
Since UCJ was born I have spoken to the following NSWCA councilors. Not one, brought UCJ into the conversation. Not one objected to its content if UCJ was mentioned. This is from recent memory but I am open to correction.

Peter Cassettari - all smiles and hellos and polite chat.
Kerry Stead - UCJ was mention by another person but Kerry thought it funny.
Mal Murrell - knew nothing of UCJ.
Bill Gletsos - I shook his hand and thanked him for DOPing the event and I said how much I enjoyed it. Not a word about UCJ.
Tom Accola - all very friendly.
Norm Greenwood - as ever a gentleman.
Trent Parker - we speak often and of many things, but UJC was never a problem topic.

:hmm:


Who is the Sith Lord

Alan Shore
06-08-2005, 01:07 AM
Since UCJ was born I have spoken to the following NSWCA councilors. Not one, brought UCJ into the conversation. Not one objected to its content if UCJ was mentioned. This is from recent memory but I am open to correction.

Peter Cassettari - all smiles and hellos and polite chat.
Kerry Stead - UCJ was mention by another person but Kerry thought it funny.
Mal Murrell - knew nothing of UCJ.
Bill Gletsos - I shook his hand and thanked him for DOPing the event and I said how much I enjoyed it. Not a word about UCJ.
Tom Accola - all very friendly.
Norm Greenwood - as ever a gentleman.
Trent Parker - we speak often and of many things, but UJC was never a problem topic.

:hmm:


Who is the Sith Lord


Get the minutes off the Secretary - they have to be made public to all NSWCA members, right?

antichrist
06-08-2005, 03:25 AM
Get the minutes off the Secretary - they have to be made public to all NSWCA members, right?

But Matt is no longer a member and missed his day in court.

The obvious Council member that Matt did not converse with is the one that does not attend adult tournaments and the one most likely to be the subject of Bill's post below

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
"The issue had also been raised by the NSWJCL with the NSWCA. The NSWJCL felt the language was unacceptable and prone to discouraging parents and juniors from playing chess."

The other Councillors will vote accordingly to what they think is best for chess, regardless of their friendship or otherwise with Matt, we would not want them to do otherwise.

I have had my day in court without permission and found them all reasonable and decent people.

As I have stated earlier, it is even an issue Matt turning up for comps that Bill has to conduct, and to extent it is for the rest of Council considering his posts. They should not have to display deserved displeasure to him face to face because someone has the hide of Jessie the cow in turning up.

I can well understand JCL's concerns, even about my own posts occasionally. My excuse it that I was brought up in a very joking environment???

There should not be a witchhunt of Councillors - they only did what they thought was best for chess.

Who would want to serve on Council if there was such a witchhunt.

Find something worthwhile to pick on Bill about - he did not move it or vote on it - so get a life.

PHAT
06-08-2005, 09:03 AM
The other Councillors will vote accordingly to what they think is best for chess, regardless of their friendship or otherwise with Matt, we would not want them to do otherwise.

Quite true. As I have already said to Trent Parker, I had/have no problem with the charge being levelled. I have no real problem accepting a guilty verdict from a quasi jury. However, there are two serious problems.

1. The dury (councilors) was also the "victim".
2. The dury also decided on the sentance. There is a reason that in court the jury decides guilt but does not also give the sentance. It is because duries are not competant to assess the wider picture.

A competant magistrate/judge takes into accountsuch thingsa as: likelihood of recidavism, intent, impact of sentance, impact on victim, deterence, contrision, possible rehabilitation, protection of the public, et cetera.

Look at the facts:
1. I removed all material BEFORE I was asked to, indicting contrision.
2. I have the good of NSW chess in my mind, thus good intentions.
3. Even BB the majority of BB addicts here did not know how to find UCJ. Therefore it's actual infiltration into chess was miniscule.
4. There do not appear to be a flood for copy-cat crimes that need detering.

By applying the maximum length of suspension the council has effectively said that:
1. These defences do not matter.
2. My UCJ was something that made me not fit to play chess.

To that I say:
The coucil is all about punitive action and punshiment. Moreover, the type of punishment does not fit the crime.




Who would want to serve on Council if there was such a witchhunt.

Who would want to be seen dead in the same photo as the the mob who are responsible for this litany (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2762).

antichrist
06-08-2005, 09:46 AM
Quite true. As I have already said to Trent Parker, I had/have no problem with the charge being levelled. I have no real problem accepting a guilty verdict from a quasi jury. However, there are two serious problems.

1. The dury (councilors) was also the "victim". Disputes re chess are expected and should have an independent committee when there may be a conflict of interest of individuals or the association

A/C
That would have been known by anyone contemplating such action beforehand. They can't be expected to have committees for everything - in this case one of legal eagles. They expect a certain behaviour and don't expect gross violation - which can be handled by anyone virtually. They cannot even fill current positions, and who would even want to fill these new committees when completely unnecessary cases are brought before it - i.e., wilful "misbehaviour". People should not have to waste their mornings on such rubbish - like I hate druggie sh.t imposing themselves on professional medical staff whom I respect.

.
MS
2. The dury also decided on the sentance. There is a reason that in court the jury decides guilt but does not also give the sentance. It is because duries are not competant to assess the wider picture.

A/C
This is only in serious cases, magistrates will find guilty and impose the sentence. Some would say that it is perfect justice for the victim to decide the sentence. But the greater victim is chess. (in spite of our frustration at new ideas not being taken up)

MS:
A competant magistrate/judge takes into accountsuch thingsa as: likelihood of recidavism, intent, impact of sentance, impact on victim, deterence, contrision, possible rehabilitation, protection of the public, et cetera.

Look at the facts:
1. I removed all material BEFORE I was asked to, indicting contrision.
2. I have the good of NSW chess in my mind, thus good intentions.
3. Even BB the majority of BB addicts here did not know how to find UCJ. Therefore it's actual infiltration into chess was miniscule.
4. There do not appear to be a flood for copy-cat crimes that need detering.

By applying the maximum length of suspension the council has effectively said that:
1. These defences do not matter.
2. My UCJ was something that made me not fit to play chess.

To that I say:
The coucil is all about punitive action and punshiment. Moreover, the type of punishment does not fit the crime.

A/C
What you are saying is someone can one-dimentionally hurl abuse for ages at volunteers or other misbehaviour, but in return these volunteers/victims have to go through a sky-scraper of multi-layered screens, filters and checks and balances that would do the United Nations' Committee on Human Rights justice. Why should they have to lose their love of chess because of one person's excesses who does not even bother turning up for the show. They showed the case the contempt it deserved.

MS
Who would want to be seen dead in the same photo as the the mob who are responsible for this litany (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2762).

A/C
You made sure of that by not attending enough meetings to get your photo taken for their internet site (I assume) and by not turning up for your day in court so AR could take a shot for his blogg - Court Reports section.

We have had your saga for a "lifetime" it seems - when on and off this board. I even took a poll when you were in Baxter to have discussion of it barred.

I know I am over the top sufficiently - but when picking on officials or defamo one has to tread carefully. I feel sorry for you because you went overboard. You are a bit like Mike Tyson - are you sure he is not your pin-up?

Bill's mangy running-dog

arosar
06-08-2005, 09:58 AM
Since UCJ was born I have spoken to the following NSWCA councilors. Not one, brought UCJ into the conversation. Not one objected to its content if UCJ was mentioned. This is from recent memory but I am open to correction.

Peter Cassettari - all smiles and hellos and polite chat.
Kerry Stead - UCJ was mention by another person but Kerry thought it funny.
Mal Murrell - knew nothing of UCJ.
Bill Gletsos - I shook his hand and thanked him for DOPing the event and I said how much I enjoyed it. Not a word about UCJ.
Tom Accola - all very friendly.
Norm Greenwood - as ever a gentleman.
Trent Parker - we speak often and of many things, but UJC was never a problem topic.

:hmm:


Who is the Sith Lord


So basically, they're all a bunch of 2-faced bastards is what you're saying. And if not that, then at least a bunch of piss weak pussies cos as soon as someone says "jump", they all jump.

Wasn't UCJ advertised on one of the ACF email bulletins by the way?

AR

antichrist
06-08-2005, 10:10 AM
So basically, they're all a bunch of 2-faced bastards is what you're saying. And if not that, then at least a bunch of piss weak pussies cos as soon as someone says "jump", they all jump.

Wasn't UCJ advertised on one of the ACF email bulletins by the way?

AR

You will love this coming from a running-dog Lebo but let me warn you that you love your chessworld and your mates in there (esp. Pinoy) too much to also get barred for the above barb.

I know you are only uni-layered and know how to take your swipes at face value - but those in HQ may see it differently.

You would not say anything like that to their faces just out of respect.

Except for Bill they just keep their head down and do their unpaid job which you should be helping them with.

arosar
06-08-2005, 10:14 AM
You would not say anything like that to their faces just out of respect.

I bet I would.


Except for Bill they just keep their head down and do their unpaid job which you should be helping them with.

Oh boohoo...those poor unpaid volunteers again. Since you're such a chess lover, why don't you go in there and wipe their asses for them?

AR

antichrist
06-08-2005, 10:20 AM
Thanks for the laugh.

As I said I know how to take your rants - esp. horny basta.ds

ursogr8
06-08-2005, 02:35 PM
Ok then point to a post to back up your claim.



Do I look like your research assistant?

You have not even contradicted what I claimed, so no evidence is necessary ; and neither has KB cast doubt on the claim.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 02:51 PM
Do I look like your research assistant?

You have not even contradicted what I claimed, so no evidence is necessary ; and neither has KB cast doubt on the claim.Of course he has. KB said

I'm contesting it because I'm not sure if it's true.

There are a number of people here who are not at all good at paraphrasing without distortion, especially from memory. So I treat any report that I said something specific in the past as false unless I clearly remember otherwise.

antichrist
06-08-2005, 02:52 PM
Before Bill replied I was going to say "What have we done in previous lives to deserve this?"

ursogr8
06-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Of course he has. KB said

KB's lack of memory why he banned Matt is not my problem Bill. He can search the SHOUTBOX for his first reason as well as I can. He can search his own posts for his reference to banning Matt because KB had become tired of moderating the posts of one recalcitrant poster.
Similarly, your repeated quotes of the reason, and the fact that the period of banning was indefinite and unlikely to be revoked are equally accesible to you.
To imagine the two of you did not post on this issue is a stretch.

ADMIN's re-admittance of Matt is a given.
But the unanswered question is why did KB not immediately re-impose the ban 'seeing nothing had changed in Matt's behaviour in his (KB's view).

Incidentally, I can live with KB saying he can't remember. :hand:

antichrist
06-08-2005, 03:15 PM
You two obviously have nothing better to do with your time.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 03:45 PM
KB's lack of memory why he banned Matt is not my problem Bill. He can search the SHOUTBOX for his first reason as well as I can. He can search his own posts for his reference to banning Matt because KB had become tired of moderating the posts of one recalcitrant poster.
Similarly, your repeated quotes of the reason, and the fact that the period of banning was indefinite and unlikely to be revoked are equally accesible to you.
To imagine the two of you did not post on this issue is a stretch.What is being questioned is your current paraphrasing of what was originally said as your ability to twist via paraphrase what had been said has been previously noted.

ADMIN's re-admittance of Matt is a given.
But the unanswered question is why did KB not immediately re-impose the ban 'seeing nothing had changed in Matt's behaviour in his (KB's view).As usual your memory fails you.
Matt was unbanned by KB in mid January aftyer the Aus Open in Mt. Buller concluded when KB decided he was prepared to monitor his behaviour however he was virtually immediately re-banned when it was discovered he had been posting whilst banned using the Woodstocker nick.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 04:11 PM
Quite true. As I have already said to Trent Parker, I had/have no problem with the charge being levelled. I have no real problem accepting a guilty verdict from a quasi jury. However, there are two serious problems.

1. The dury (councilors) was also the "victim".That was neither stated nor implied in the letter you were sent.

2. The dury also decided on the sentance. There is a reason that in court the jury decides guilt but does not also give the sentance. It is because duries are not competant to assess the wider picture.There are numerous cases where a case is only heard by a judge/magistrate without a jury and the judge/magistrate imposes the sentence.

A competant magistrate/judge takes into accountsuch thingsa as: likelihood of recidavism, intent, impact of sentance, impact on victim, deterence, contrision, possible rehabilitation, protection of the public, et cetera.

Look at the facts:
1. I removed all material BEFORE I was asked to, indicting contrision.No it indicated fear on your part of legal action against you. The hacker destroyed the site around May 31st. I made it quite clear to you when you were readmitted here in early June that I considerd your statements defamatory and that copies of it had been archived. It was virtually immediately after this that you made your offer "to cut it out". You were clearly scared of legal action. When the UCJ site was restored around June 20th/21st you removed the content I believe not as an act of contrition but because of the fear of legal action.

2. I have the good of NSW chess in my mind, thus good intentions.I suspect many would not see it that way.

3. Even BB the majority of BB addicts here did not know how to find UCJ. Therefore it's actual infiltration into chess was miniscule.Enough people obviously found it because it had just short of 40,000 views.

4. There do not appear to be a flood for copy-cat crimes that need detering.That is immaterial.

By applying the maximum length of suspensionAnother incorrect statement on your part. You got a 17 month suspension. The maximum is 24 months.

Who would want to be seen dead in the same photo as the the mob who are responsible for this litany (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2762).Probably those who would not want to be seen dead in a photo with you given your obscene postings on UCJ.

PHAT
06-08-2005, 05:23 PM
That was neither stated nor implied in the letter you were sent.
There are numerous cases where a case is only heard by a judge/magistrate without a jury and the judge/magistrate imposes the sentence.
No it indicated fear on your part of legal action against you. The hacker destroyed the site around May 31st. I made it quite clear to you when you were readmitted here in early June that I considerd your statements defamatory and that copies of it had been archived. It was virtually immediately after this that you made your offer "to cut it out". You were clearly scared of legal action. When the UCJ site was restored around June 20th/21st you removed the content I believe not as an act of contrition but because of the fear of legal action.
I suspect many would not see it that way.
Enough people obviously found it because it had just short of 40,000 views.
That is immaterial.
Another incorrect statement on your part. You got a 17 month suspension. The maximum is 24 months.
Probably those who would not want to be seen dead in a photo with you given your obscene postings on UCJ.


Since the time I offered to "cut it out", I have. I will continue to do so. I have not directed any converstions toward you. However, you continue to direct your words at me, bagging me out at every opportunity. Do not reply to this post. If you do, I will be putting in a formal complaint citing intimidation.

antichrist
06-08-2005, 05:30 PM
Since the time I offered to "cut it out", I have. I will continue to do so. Also note that I have not directed a single word to you on the BB until now. However, you continue to direct your words at me, bagging me out at every opportunity. Do not reply to this post. If you do, I will be putting in a formal complaint.

Well now I have seen the Greenbottle defense! The Homer Simpson defense. The Saddam Hassain(?) defense.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 05:38 PM
Since the time I offered to "cut it out", I have. I will continue to do so. Also note that I have not directed a single word to you on the BB until now. However, you continue to direct your words at me, bagging me out at every opportunity.You have however directed words towards the NSWCA. As such I will continue to direct words at you when you make statements that are incorrect and/or misrepreserntative about the NSWCA.

Do not reply to this post. If you do, I will be putting in a formal complaint.You do what you like but I wont be intimidated by threats from you.

arosar
06-08-2005, 05:52 PM
LOL!

Aahh...yes. The usually noisy and loquacious Bill Gletsos is back out. Picking on easy targets.

Bill, you obviously have a personal hatred of Matty. You are clearly using the NSWCA as intrument for venting your anger. And now you are a mod your arrogance reaches ever greater heights.

You are a bully Bill. 6,521 posts and counting.

AR

antichrist
06-08-2005, 06:02 PM
Ah well Bill, I try to give you good advice and stay out of these blues - now another one has joined the chorus.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 06:55 PM
Ah well Bill, I try to give you good advice and stay out of these blues - now another one has joined the chorus.Yes, AR is to reporters what the National Enquier is to newspapers.
I'm just waiting for his blog to report that he was once abducted by aliens. ;)

arosar
06-08-2005, 08:29 PM
I'm just waiting for his blog to report that he was once abducted by aliens. ;)

At 11 posts a day, you will surely reach your lunacy long before I reach mine.

AR

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 08:44 PM
At 11 posts a day, you will surely reach your lunacy long before I reach mine.With 2935 next to your name you havent exactly been a shrinking violet when it comes to posting either. However far more geese address their posts to me than you. Being a kind hearted soul I respond and try to set them on the path to enlightenment. Compared to yours far more of my posts are informative.

arosar
06-08-2005, 08:53 PM
LOL! Try hard comeback.


With 2935 next to your name...

You can tell the difference between 6000 and 3000, right Bill?


Compared to yours far more of my posts are informative.

I'm no bully. You are.

6,525 posts and counting.

AR

Alan Shore
06-08-2005, 08:55 PM
Probably those who would not want to be seen dead in a photo with you given your obscene postings on UCJ.

I was in a photo with a great bloke, who shouted a table of people in Canberra, who has consistently suggested many ways of improving chess in this country and I, along with all others present were happy to be in that photo. So don't presume too much.

P.S. Has anyone seen these minutes yet?

P.P.S. AC, what's your problem? In all your posts on this BB (and Non-chess) all you've done is slag people off - have you had any good ideas at all?

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 08:59 PM
You can tell the difference between 6000 and 3000, right Bill?Yeah it means at best you are only half as informative as I am.

I'm no bully. You are.Just because I wont let others bully me does not make me a bully.

arosar
06-08-2005, 09:00 PM
I was in a photo with a great bloke, who shouted a table of people in Canberra, who has consistently suggested many ways of improving chess in this country and I, along with all others present were happy to be in that photo. So don't presume too much.

Matt is a very sociable guy. A genuine man of the people. Many people know him.

AR

arosar
06-08-2005, 09:01 PM
Yeah it means at best you are only half as informative as I am.

No, it means you attract more geese than me.

AR

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2005, 09:07 PM
No, it means you attract more geese than me.As evidenced by your post. ;)

arosar
06-08-2005, 09:16 PM
As evidenced by your post. ;)

But aren't you antichrist's new best friend?

AR

antichrist
06-08-2005, 09:21 PM
I was in a photo with a great bloke, who shouted a table of people in Canberra, who has consistently suggested many ways of improving chess in this country and I, along with all others present were happy to be in that photo. So don't presume too much.

P.S. Has anyone seen these minutes yet?

P.P.S. AC, what's your problem? In all your posts on this BB (and Non-chess) all you've done is slag people off - have you had any good ideas at all?

Well I did suggest I see a shrink but RW would not come with me.

You must admit that slagging off of St George was a beauty.

antichrist
07-08-2005, 05:49 PM
Since the time I offered to "cut it out", I have. I will continue to do so. I have not directed any converstions toward you. However, you continue to direct your words at me, bagging me out at every opportunity. Do not reply to this post. If you do, I will be putting in a formal complaint citing intimidation.


RW, you missed a beauty here - the Iraqi Information Ministers defense! (whatever his name was)

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally Posted by arosar
I'm no bully. You are.



Just because I wont let others bully me does not make me a bully.

bully n A quarrelsome person who terrorizes weaker people.

Bills signature line (recently deleted by him) >

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 06:31 PM
Bills signature line (recently deleted by him) >I dont know what medicine you are taking but it is obviously affecting your eyesight as that signature line is still there and has been since I first started using it.

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 06:45 PM
I dont know what medicine you are taking but it is obviously affecting your eyesight as that signature line is still there and has been since I first started using it.

Bill
I went looking for it in one forum and it was not there. So I then SEARCHED for when Matthew commented on it. And is the copy I produced.
I will now check that forum again, and edit my post, if necessary.
starter

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 06:49 PM
Bill
I went looking for it in one forum and it was not there. So I then SEARCHED for when Matthew commented on it. And is the copy I produced.
I will now check that forum again, and edit my post, if necessary.
starter

And here Bill is an example post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=46364&postcount=65) which does not have your signature line.

OK. Now a possible explanation is that you checked a box to not show signature line in that particular forum/post?

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 06:56 PM
And here Bill is an example post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=46364&postcount=65) which does not have your signature line.

OK. Now a possible explanation is that you checked a box to not show signature line in that particular forum/post?

starterAs have noticed a number of times observation never was one of your strong points.
I dont believe I ever used a signature line prior to 29 May 2005 at 2.53pm when I started using the current signature line. As such it would have been impossible for it to appear back in the Feb 2005 post you cited.
In fact the first post I used it in was http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59049&postcount=50

eclectic
07-08-2005, 06:59 PM
And here Bill is an example post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=46364&postcount=65) which does not have your signature line.

OK. Now a possible explanation is that you checked a box to not show signature line in that particular forum/post?

starter

hi starter,

view single post option does not show signature line anyway

a signature line (change) applies to all a persons posts ... that's why karthick doesn't like large fonts in them as it messes up system especially if the person's posts are legion

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:06 PM
hi starter,

view single post option does not show signature line anywayI believe that is incorrect as demonstrated by this single post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59049&postcount=50)



a signature line (change) applies to all a persons posts ... that's why karthick doesn't like large fonts in them as it messes up system especially if the person's posts are legion

eclecticThat may be true if the person previously used a signature line however if a person adds a signature line never having had one before then their previous posts dont suddenly get the signature line.

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:08 PM
As have noticed a number of times observation never was one of your strong points.
I dont believe I ever used a signature line prior to 29 May 2005 at 2.53pm when I started using the current signature line. As such it would have been impossible for it to appear back in the Feb 2005 post you cited.
In fact the first post I used it in was http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59049&postcount=50

I have checked what you say and am fully convinced you did not use sig. lines prior to the current.Although, how you expected me to observe a nil entry will probably take me the rest of the evening to work out. :rolleyes:
I will amend the post to delete recently deleted.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:12 PM
I have checked what you say and am fully convinced you did not use sig. lines prior to the current.Although, how you expected me to observe a nil entry will probably take me the rest of the evening to work out. :rolleyes:
I will amend the post to delete recently deleted.What I dont follow is how you could even claim it was recently deleted as my last 450+ posts have it.
The post you picked to support your argument was back in February and hardly could be called recent.

eclectic
07-08-2005, 07:13 PM
I believe that is incorrect as demonstrated by this single post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59049&postcount=50)


That may be true if the person previously used a signature line however if a person adds a signature line never having had one before then their previous posts dont suddenly get the signature line.

bill,

if i do an advanced search and hunt for my posts older than 1 year it attaches the signature I have now ... but that may be a peculiarity of that search option

eclectic

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:15 PM
I dont know what medicine you are taking but it is obviously affecting your eyesight as that signature line is still there and has been since I first started using it.

And now that we have established that the highly skilled 'e' in exile poster also has a slightly disfunctional view of how non-existent sig. lines work, perhaps you would like to tone down your post directed at me?

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:17 PM
bill,

if i do an advanced search and hunt for my posts older than 1 year it attaches the signature I have now ... but that may be a peculiarity of that search option

eclecticNo need to. I'll clarify what I said as follows:

If a person previously was using a signature line and changes it then all their previous posts where they were previously using a signature line will get the new signature.

However if a person adds a signature line having never had a signature line before then their old posts dont get a signature. If that person then changes their signature line then all their previous posts that had a signature line get the new signature line as well as any new posts but all their previous posts that never ever had a signature line do not get a signature line and never will.

Hope that clears it up.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:20 PM
And now that we have established that the highly skilled 'e' in exile poster also has a slightly disfunctional view of how non-existent sig. lines work, perhaps you would like to tone down your post directed at me?Nope.
See post #161 in this thread.

eclectic
07-08-2005, 07:22 PM
No need to. I'll clarify what I said as follows:

If a person previously was using a signature line and chnages it then all their previous posts where they were previously using a signature line will get the new signature.

However if a person adds a signature line having never had a signature line before then their old posts dont get a signature. If that person then chnages their signature then all their previous posts that had a signature get the new signature but not the posts that never ever had a signature line.

Hope that clears it up.

bill,

thanks for the clarification

iron logic such as yours would cause you to be banished! from less enlightened forums ( wouldn't you agree, starter? ;) )

:whistle:

eclectic

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:22 PM
What I dont follow is how you could even claim it was recently deleted as my last 450+ posts have it.
The post you picked to support your argument was back in February and hardly could be called recent.

Because Bill I had two browser sessions open, and in one I was collecting all the occasions that
> you said matt would be banned permanently, and
>> KB said he recommended that Matt be banned because he, KB had grown tired of moderating one poster.
(You see, I am your research assistant on that one.)
And in that second broswer session your posts had no sig. line, for the exact reason you have now explained.

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:24 PM
Because Bill I had two browser sessions open, and in one I was collecting all the occasions that
> you said matt would be banned permanently, and
>> KB said he recommended that Matt be banned because he, KB had grown tired of moderating one poster.
(You see, I am your research assistant on that one.)
And in that second broswer session your posts had no sig. line, for the exact reason you have now explained.I dont see that as any excuse for your use of the word recent.

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:31 PM
I dont see that as any excuse for your use of the word recent.

You really are a doubting thomas Bill.

I made the same assumption as 'e' in post #158.

From my observing the second browser session, your sig. line had gone; hence I concluded a recent change from what Matt quoted with a :hmm: comment... to blank.
See.... I am observant. ;)

starter

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:36 PM
And now that we have established that the highly skilled 'e' in exile poster also has a slightly disfunctional view of how non-existent sig. lines work, perhaps you would like to tone down your post directed at me?

starter

Bill

Bump

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:36 PM
You really are a doubting thomas Bill.

I made the same assumption as 'e' in post #158.

From my observing the second browser session, your sig. line had gone; hence I concluded a recent change from what Matt quoted with a :hmm: comment... to blank.
See.... I am observant. ;) That logic is flawed because if you had been really observant you would have noticed that the post from which it was missing was well before the one in which Matt commented on it.
As such it could not have been as you described recently deleted.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:39 PM
Bill

BumpMy previous response stands.
In fact as far as I am concerned the more you try to explain it the bigger the hole you are digging for yourself.

I'd quit while you are behind if I were you before you get even further behind. ;)

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:42 PM
That logic is flawed because if you had been really observant you would have noticed that the post from which it was missing was well before the one in which Matt commented on it.
As such it could not have been as you described recently deleted.

Ah yes, but what I was reading was Matt's post, not your post. So I did not get to see whether your post had a signature line or not. i only read Matt's post because I wanted the exact wording; (not a paraphrase ;) ) and I was sure he would not vary one iota from the exact.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:44 PM
Ah yes, but what I was reading was Matt's post, not your post. So I did not get to see whether your post had a signature line or not. i only read Matt's post because I wanted the exact wording; (not a paraphrase ;) ) and I was sure he word not vary one iota from the exact.That in no way explains how you can then say my sig was recently deleted

Too bad their isnt a simply of a guy digging a hole as I could really use one right about now. :whistle:

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:44 PM
My previous response stands.
In fact as far as I am concerned the more you try to explain it the bigger the hole you are digging for yourself.

I'd quit while you are behind if I were you before you get even further behind. ;)

It is how it happened Bill.

The only reason the explanation has taken a few iterations is that you keep asking additional questions.

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:47 PM
It is how it happened Bill.

The only reason the explanation has taken a few iterations is that you keep asking additional questions.It may well be how it happened. However all it shows is faulty logic and lack of observation. :hand:

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 07:51 PM
That in no way explains how you can then say my sig was recently deleted

I will spell it out.

1 Matt quotes your sig line recently, and goes :hmm:

2 Amiel calls you a bully

3 I look up the dic'y defn of bully and post

4 At the same time I am reading and old thread (in a second brwoser session) and notice no sig line.

5 I make the same assumption as 'e' that when you change a sig lines it flows back to all posts

6 Therefore I conclude you have changed your sig. line since Matt commented on it.
Hence 'recently.


I think you are getting to the quarrelsome stage mate; just retract the medicine bit made some time back and we can go and have a coffee.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 07:56 PM
I will spell it out.

1 Matt quotes your sig line recently, and goes :hmm:

2 Amiel calls you a bully

3 I look up the dic'y defn of bully and post

4 At the same time I am reading and old thread (in a second brwoser session) and notice no sig line.

5 I make the same assumption as 'e' that when you change a sig lines it flows back to all postsSo what. It is a false assumption on your part. That is hardly my problem. You should have been more observant with regards sig lines.

6 Therefore I conclude you have changed your sig. line since Matt commented on it.
Hence 'recently.Hence your logic is flawed.

I think you are getting to the quarrelsome stage mate; just retract the medicine bit made some time back and we can go and have a coffee.No you are being quarrelsome because you fail to admit your logic was faulty and you were not very observant. Your false assumption with regards sig lines is hardly my problem.

As far as I am concerned end of discussion. :hand:

antichrist
07-08-2005, 08:22 PM
Starter, you have got to realise that you are dealing with a New South Welshman - you must expect to lose

ursogr8
07-08-2005, 09:46 PM
Starter, you have got to realise that you are dealing with a New South Welshman - you must expect to lose


Originally Posted by arosar
I'm no bully. You are.



Just because I wont let others bully me does not make me a bully.

bully n A quarrelsome person who terrorizes weaker people.

Bills signature line >

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
:rolleyes:

bergil
07-08-2005, 10:46 PM
Starter, are you saying you have a weak mind? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2005, 10:55 PM
Starter, are you saying you have a weak mind? :hmm:Exactly. ;)

ursogr8
08-08-2005, 08:49 AM
Starter, are you saying you have a weak mind? :hmm:

At least a/c has the humour to tag his posts with variants of 'running dog' when he feels Bill is sinking and needs some support.
Your post obviously has a different target. Perhaps you were asking for an example of the subject under discussion. Did you read this one (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=55562&postcount=13), or was it before your arrival on the board?
And this was directed to a kid who was just picking up on a misspelling of his name in a Victorian event. :rolleyes:

starter

ursogr8
08-08-2005, 03:56 PM
ok now i have had a gutful of you :evil: :evil: and want a proper apology for either being forgetful or for being deliberately mischievious.

I WAS NEVER BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE- HOW OFTEN MUST I SAY IT :evil: :evil: :evil:

I asked to be removed as i didnt support the concept of having an unmoderated forum and my wishes were complied with. As soon as I said I wanted back in to the coffee lounge and my explaination as to why, my access was restored.

PLEASE NEVER REFER TO ME BEING BANNED FROM THE COFFEE LOUNGE AS IT IS FACTUALLY UNTRUE. :evil: :evil:

Holy Moley gg''
You have gone off the deep end here mate (incidentally what is the banana-territory equivalent of mate; given that mate is now 'owned by the Labour_right in Waler_land.)

If you really want an answer to this post of yours you would have to clarify
a) are you claiming Karthick did not flick the switch to turn-off your access to the Lounge
or
b) are you claiming Bill's contorted defence where he said that banning only applies to a BB not just one FORUM?

starter

ps Sorry for the delay in replying; your post missed my radar.

EGOR
08-08-2005, 05:37 PM
Egor, did you read the relevant posts to know if the ban is harsh?
I'm a bit slow to reply, but yes I did.

antichrist
08-08-2005, 05:40 PM
I'm a bit slow to reply, but yes I did.

that is on UCJ?

EGOR
08-08-2005, 06:11 PM
that is on UCJ?
I think that it is obvious that Matt's ban is about what he posted on UCJ. Yes, it was on UCJ.

PHAT
08-08-2005, 06:34 PM
Quite an entertaining read.
It seems to me that Matt's ban is to harsh, but it probably because he did not reply to or appear before the council at the July meeting.

Are you suggesting that had I fronted up to the council meeting, the ban would have been shorter?

firegoat7
08-08-2005, 10:24 PM
You removed the offending material from your bb because you were scared you'd lose your shirt. Even you are not stupid enough to keep it there or re-post it. Would you really like your children to read that material?

As for your other comments :whistle:

Eric, you are clearly a peanut.

As such may I recommend that you go lay in the sun a bit more. Hopefully, it will make a difference from the ice cream hands you are collecting sitting in your dark closet.
It is alleged by moi (fg7) that NSWCA must be a pack of monkeys if it allows a peanut like you to DICTATE such a ridiculous policy. What a joke.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
08-08-2005, 10:31 PM
I implied no such thing. I said "Both involve what the Council saw as unacceptable standards of conduct. Both were asked to show cause why action should not be taken."


WTF,

You are a deranged lunatic. What sorta of clown bans somebody from playing chess in the whole state because of a difference of opinion. Over indulgent ego wonkas- that is who.

Your a clown Gletsos, resign you petty petty little man.

Cheers Fg7
P.S How could anybody such a foolish knee jerk reaction?

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2005, 10:38 PM
KB's lack of memory why he banned Matt is not my problem Bill. He can search the SHOUTBOX for his first reason as well as I can.

This is tiresome and silly. At no point have I referred to a lack of memory of why Matt was banned. All I cannot recall is whether or not I made the comment you attributed to me when you wrote "Step 2. After much coaxing the [B]strict[/I] Mod says effectively 'it is indefinite and likely to be permanent'. It is taking too much time to moderate MS's posts." Clearly if I did make this comment it is a comment about the prospects for bringing Matt back on and the reasons why those prospects appeared dim, not about the reason for Matt's banning.


He can search his own posts for his reference to banning Matt because KB had become tired of moderating the posts of one recalcitrant poster.

Ditto to above. You can't even remember from week to week what you are meant to be remembering me saying so is it any wonder that I assume any paraphrase of my past comments by you to be false until proven true?


But the unanswered question is why did KB not immediately re-impose the ban 'seeing nothing had changed in Matt's behaviour in his (KB's view).

I have already answered that question - see my post #89. This is another example of you failing to remember the course of a very recent discussion and yet again shows that any characterisation of any past discussion you give should be assumed to be unreliable unless proven otherwise.


Incidentally, I can live with KB saying he can't remember. :hand:

Better than you 'remembering" things that never happened for me. :hand:

PHAT
08-08-2005, 10:48 PM
Since I am barred "from all NSWCA tournaments and activities" until 2007, will I be permitted to attend the Grade Match Presentations on Sept 14, where I am up for a board prize and team prize with my team, from the NSW Teams Tournament earlier this year?

:hmm:

firegoat7
08-08-2005, 11:17 PM
Since I am barred "from all NSWCA tournaments and activities" until 2007, will I be permitted to attend the Grade Match Presentations on Sept 14, where I am up for a board prize and team prize with my team, from the NSW Teams Tournament earlier this year?

:hmm:

Look anything can be arranged Matty. For instance for a small fee- (Donatable to MCC of course) I am prepared to practice Voodoo on Gletsos and his cronies for you. I can guarantee a 100% success rate. Tell u wot first installment is for free.

Firegoat7 paces the hall in a clockwise direction. Points to Ra. Shows the sun dial a picture of Bill Gletsos, some monkey testicles and a map of Haiti.

Firegoat7 chants "bingowingodingolingo"

Firegoat7 carefully places the articles in a round cylinder

Next Firegoat7 points to the moon before throwing chicken blood on the cylinder 4 times

Next the cylinder is placed in the sacred ashes to burn in hell with the spirit of the possessed. He lights a match, thus signalling the creation of a new dimension of understanding before burning everything into a fine white ash.

Finally the ashes are placed in firegoat7s left hand as he does three anti-clockwise rotations. The chant is repeated 'likamuddafukkafromhell'

The deed is done.

Cheers Fg7

PHAT
09-08-2005, 12:41 AM
Look anything can be arranged Matty.

Don't you need some hair or something. There is plenty of it torn out up here - I could pop it in an envelope.

BTW, if it comes to a battle between Voo Doo magic and The Force, my money is on the who ever has the scariest mask.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2005, 01:57 AM
firegoat - I have my curses too, and they worked a treat on UCJ. :lol:

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 10:47 AM
This is tiresome and silly. At no point have I referred to a lack of memory of why Matt was banned. All I cannot recall is whether or not I made the comment you attributed to me when you wrote "Step 2. After much coaxing the [B]strict[/I] Mod says effectively 'it is indefinite and likely to be permanent'. It is taking too much time to moderate MS's posts." Clearly if I did make this comment it is a comment about the prospects for bringing Matt back on and the reasons why those prospects appeared dim, not about the reason for Matt's banning.



Ditto to above. You can't even remember from week to week what you are meant to be remembering me saying so is it any wonder that I assume any paraphrase of my past comments by you to be false until proven true?



I have already answered that question - see my post #89. This is another example of you failing to remember the course of a very recent discussion and yet again shows that any characterisation of any past discussion you give should be assumed to be unreliable unless proven otherwise.



Better than you 'remembering" things that never happened for me. :hand:

On the 5th of June 2005 you were of the view that Matt should be permanently banned from this bb. Evidence (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=60044&postcount=60)
Do you still hold this view?

shaun
09-08-2005, 10:49 AM
That information is not for the general public. If NSWCA members wish to know the answer to that they can contact the Secretary to view the minutes.
I will however point out that I vacated the chair whilst the matter was discussed and I abstained from voting.

I requested a copy of the minutes from the NSWCA Secretary and this was the reply I recieved.



Dear Shaun,

I refer to your email dated 4 August 2005 requesting the Minutes of the NSWCA Council Meeting where disciplinary action was taken against Matthew Sweeney.

It is not the NSWCA's practice to provide copies of Minutes to members as they are regarded as confidential to the Council. However, the Constitution provides for the NSWCA records to be open for inspection to members. As you are not a member of the NSWCA, it is considered not appropriate for you to have access to the Minutes of the Council Meeting.

However, I confirm that Matthew Sweeney has been debarred from all NSWCA tournaments and activities to 31 December 2006 on disciplinary grounds pursuant to Section 7.1 of the NSWCA Constitution.

Regards
Tom Accola
NSWCA Secretary


Now I am aware that I am not a NSWCA member (as a previous application to join was rejected), but does this mean that Matthew Sweeney is also not allowed to see the minutes concerning his suspension, due to the fact he is suspended?

arosar
09-08-2005, 11:25 AM
. . . I am not a NSWCA member (as a previous application to join was rejected)...

Eh? Why was it rejected?

AR

Trent Parker
09-08-2005, 11:39 AM
Eh? Why was it rejected?

ARPerhaps because he is already a member of the ACTCA so there is no need to be a member of NSWCA?

shaun
09-08-2005, 11:43 AM
Eh? Why was it rejected?

AR

No reason given. And under the ACF rules I am entitled to apply on the grounds I live within 25km of the NSW border (in fact I can walk to the NSW border from my house).

shaun
09-08-2005, 11:46 AM
Perhaps because he is already a member of the ACTCA so there is no need to be a member of NSWCA?

You might think that, but do you know that?
BTW when I was editing Australian Chess Forum there were NSW members recieving the magazine who lived far further from NSW than I did.

Trent Parker
09-08-2005, 11:49 AM
You might think that, but do you know that?
BTW when I was editing Australian Chess Forum there were NSW members recieving the magazine who lived far further from NSW than I did.

JUst guessing. Hence the perhaps....

Trent Parker
09-08-2005, 12:16 PM
And under the ACF rules I am entitled to apply on the grounds I live within 25km of the NSW border (in fact I can walk to the NSW border from my house).

Just out of interest can you direct me to what part of the rules this is in? I have heard this rule as well.....

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 12:43 PM
27. The entry of players residing in Australia into official ACF tournaments or
matches shall only be accepted if approved by the State Association of the state
where the player resides or the State Association of another State which has a
border 50km or less from the player's place of residence. Should such approval
not be given, the player shall have the right of appeal to the ACF Council,
which is empowered to grant entry on a single event or general basis.

A State Association opposed to the participation of a player resident in its
State shall have a right to appeal to the ACF against a decision by another
State Association to approve the participation of such a player.

The By-law for ACF Tournaments gives no right of membership of any State Association.
It only involves the right to participate in ACF events.

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 12:46 PM
You might think that, but do you know that?
BTW when I was editing Australian Chess Forum there were NSW members recieving the magazine who lived far further from NSW than I did.
Shaun
I notice on the NSWCA web-site that they have a contacts list, with a member (Keith Farrell) on Council specifically designated for Country issues. Perhaps he has detailed knowledge of membership criteria.
regards
starter

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 12:52 PM
Perhaps because he is already a member of the ACTCA so there is no need to be a member of NSWCA?
TCN
Given that Shaun would like to read the minutes of a NSWCA meeting, and that the Secretary denies access to non-members, it would seem clear that he needs to be a member of NSWCA in order read the minutes.
starter

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 12:53 PM
Shaun
I notice on the NSWCA web-site that they have a contacts list, with a member (Keith Farrell) on Council specifically designated for Country issues. Perhaps he has detailed knowledge of membership criteria.Perhaps you should just ask instead of guess.
Membership issues are handled by the Registrar.

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 12:57 PM
The By-law for ACF Tournaments gives no right of membership of any State Association.
It only involves the right to participate in ACF events.

Bill
Just out of interest; how many folk are currently banned from NSW chess activities, and how many have had a banned period in the past 4 years?
And how many folk have had their membership application to the NSWCA rejected in the past 4 years?
starter

arosar
09-08-2005, 12:59 PM
I'm still not clear on why Mr Press was denied membership in to the NSWCA. I imagine that if I wanted to, I could join CV (through a club), CAWA, Tassie, CAQ, and SACA. Right?

AR

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 01:06 PM
Perhaps you should just ask instead of guess.
Membership issues are handled by the Registrar.

Shaun asked (for membership) and apparently got a rejection, without reason.
It seemed logical to turn to the next likely Councillor who may not abstain from commenting.

So far we have
TCN, who does not seem to know

Bill, who probably knows but has not revealed

The registrar who rejected the application.

The full list is under the CONTACTS tab at this site. (http://www.nswca.org.au/)

ursogr8
09-08-2005, 01:11 PM
I'm still not clear on why Mr Press was denied membership in to the NSWCA. I imagine that if I wanted to, I could join CV (through a club), CAWA, Tassie, CAQ, and SACA. Right?

AR
Amiel
Yes for CV.
I know some Clubs who would accept your membership application. :P ;)
starter

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 01:29 PM
Bill
Just out of interest; how many folk are currently banned from NSW chess activities, and how many have had a banned period in the past 4 years?Currently 2 are suspended. Over the past 4 years I think only 2 although it may have been 3. It is also possible that there were some who were suspended more than 4 years ago whose suspension ended in the past 4 years.

And how many folk have had their membership application to the NSWCA rejected in the past 4 years?I think only 1.

Brian_Jones
09-08-2005, 01:37 PM
I'm still not clear on why Mr Press was denied membership in to the NSWCA. I imagine that if I wanted to, I could join CV (through a club), CAWA, Tassie, CAQ, and SACA. Right?

AR
Clearly Amiel you need a history lesson. In 1992, shortly after ACE was started, your mate was NSWCA President and editor of the national magazine.
I choose not to join NSWCA and instead became a member of the ACTCA.
In its infinite wisdom, the ACF went along with the NSWCA and stopped me playing in ACF events. A new bye-law (the Jones law) was written to make it compulsory to join your home state, except for these 25km exceptions to cover Queanbeyen, Tweed Heads etc. Since then some States have insisted that other States not accept memberships from out of State players!

antichrist
09-08-2005, 01:40 PM
Well so far Shaun has gotten further than my attempt. I sent an e mail to the secretary about 5 days ago and do not have a reply yet. But I am sure that it will come.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 01:51 PM
Shaun asked (for membership) and apparently got a rejection, without reason.
It seemed logical to turn to the next likely Councillor who may not abstain from commenting.

So far we have
TCN, who does not seem to know

Bill, who probably knows but has not revealed

The registrar who rejected the application.

The full list is under the CONTACTS tab at this site. (http://www.nswca.org.au/)
Back on the old ACF BB on 14th May 2003 Shaun asked if his application to join the NSWCA was going to be accepted. I replied to him on the 14th May 2003 that the answer was no as essentially the NSWCA deemed him a ACT player and as such accepting his membership was not appropriate.

I sent Shaun an email on 5th June 2003 confirming the Councils decision to not accept his membership.

arosar
09-08-2005, 01:58 PM
Since then some States have insisted that other States not accept memberships from out of State players!

FMD! This is why I hate these effing bureaucrats, the bastards. Fkn loonies!

AR

Trent Parker
09-08-2005, 02:01 PM
Shaun asked (for membership) and apparently got a rejection, without reason.
It seemed logical to turn to the next likely Councillor who may not abstain from commenting.

So far we have
TCN, who does not seem to know



Also note that i wasn't on council at that time......

arosar
09-08-2005, 02:01 PM
. . . he answer was no as essentially the NSWCA deemed him a ACT player and as such accepting his membership was not appropriate.

So what if he's an ACT player and member of ACTCA? Is there some particular difference that this would make if he joined NSWCA? I mean, I could prolly go and join the USCF or NZCF. I wonder if they'll say to me, sorry mate, your essentially an ACF player, thank you and goodbye.

Explain this to us Bill.

AR

shaun
09-08-2005, 02:02 PM
Back on the old ACF BB on 14th May 2003 Shaun asked if his application to join the NSWCA was going to be accepted. I replied to him on the 14th May 2003 that the answer was no as essentially the NSWCA deemed him a ACT player and as such accepting his membership was not appropriate.

I sent Shaun an email on 5th June 2003 confirming the Councils decision to not accept his membership.

I recall the email, but cannot remember if there was a reason given. I suspect my faulty memory is to blame. And I don't think I was ever refunded my $10 membership fee, but I again I may have misremembered this as well.

Nonetheless the NSWCA has accepted memberships from players outside of NSW, including at least one from as far away as the USA.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 02:09 PM
I recall the email, but cannot remember if there was a reason given. I suspect my faulty memory is to blame. And I don't think I was ever refunded my $10 membership fee, but I again I may have misremembered this as well.You told us to keep it as a donation.


Nonetheless the NSWCA has accepted memberships from players outside of NSW, including at least one from as far away as the USA.If I recall correctly that was a NSW member who moved during the year to the USA because of work commitments.

Trent Parker
09-08-2005, 02:10 PM
The By-law for ACF Tournaments gives no right of membership of any State Association.
It only involves the right to participate in ACF events.

OK Bill. It seems to me that this is different to what shaun is talking about.

Shaun is the section that bill quotes in his reply the section you are talking about?

If not please let me know where this 25km rule is please.

antichrist
09-08-2005, 02:16 PM
Now we have a new meaning to the term "banished".

shaun
09-08-2005, 02:17 PM
You told us to keep it as a donation.

Quite possibly I did




If I recall correctly that was a NSW member who moved during the year to the USA because of work commitments.

But this I remember differently. It was not a change of address request, but a subscription from the start of the year. And I think (but will have to check) they then renewed the membership the following year from the USA.

shaun
09-08-2005, 02:19 PM
OK Bill. It seems to me that this is different to what shaun is talking about.

Shaun is the section that bill quotes in his reply the section you are talking about?

If not please let me know where this 25km rule is please.

Bill and I (and Brian Jones) are talking about the same clause.

Libby
09-08-2005, 04:06 PM
So why would anyone be against somebody holding multiple state memberships if they chose to? Who is being (potentially) adversely affected?

EGOR
09-08-2005, 04:13 PM
Are you suggesting that had I fronted up to the council meeting, the ban would have been shorter?
I cannot actually say whether that fronting up to the council would have made your ban shorter or not. I think that not fronting the council could have been seen by them as arrogance, which might have made them more inclinded to impose a tougher ban. I could be wrong, only the council knows, but it seems a likely possiblity to me.

antichrist
09-08-2005, 04:31 PM
I cannot actually say whether that fronting up to the council would have made your ban shorter or not. I think that not fronting the council could have been seen by them as arrogance, which might have made them more inclinded to impose a tougher ban. I could be wrong, only the council knows, but it seems a likely possiblity to me.

It may have made it opposite as well.

Garvinator
09-08-2005, 04:55 PM
Are you suggesting that had I fronted up to the council meeting, the ban would have been shorter?
The most likely answer is yes, the ban would have been shorter.

There are two likely reasons for this:

1) By not showing up, the nswca council only would have heard from the complaintant and any witnesses. Therefore they would have only heard one side of the story and that would have been a biased version in favour of the complaintant.

As no other versions or explainations are put by the other side, it is not difficult to imagine that the actions were viewed more harshly than they might have been otherwise.

2) By not showing up, the nswca council might have viewed your no show a sign of contempt for their procedures or that he knows he is guilty and couldnt be bothered showing up. They might have been a little bit pissed off that they all turned up to give you an opportunity to at least explain your 'actions' and didnt both to turn up at all.

With both of these scenarios, the guilty verdict and lengthy ban is not a complete surprise. I would say though that the in effect 18 month ban is rather harsh, compared to the 2 years for Ilic.

Maybe the suspension would have been shorter if you were not able to play in any chess events at all, then I would suspect that any suspension would be taken more seriously as it has a much greater effect.

Brian_Jones
09-08-2005, 05:26 PM
So why would anyone be against somebody holding multiple state memberships if they chose to? Who is being (potentially) adversely affected?

Good question Libby. It is a situation created by control freaks.
We live in a free society (within reason) so we should be able to join the chess organisation(s) of choice (those that offer most benefits). But if I join ACTCA instead of NSWCA then they can't control me so are unhappy!

antichrist
09-08-2005, 05:42 PM
GG, does the Qld Assoc have an exclusion rule for players living in other states?

Usually Assoc. and clubs will take any money they can get.

PHAT
09-08-2005, 05:45 PM
I think that not fronting the council could have been seen by them as arrogance,

Which might be true :wink:


...which might have made them more inclinded to impose a tougher ban.

If it were true, it would mean that a person gets one penalty for a transgression and an extra one for merely being arrogant.



I could be wrong, only the council knows, but it seems a likely possiblity to me.

Seems to me that you don't have much faith in the competance of the current council to exercise power fairly. Be strong mate, call them for what you know they are.

PHAT
09-08-2005, 05:56 PM
The most likely answer is yes, the ban would have been shorter.

There are two likely reasons for this:

1) By not showing up, the nswca council only would have heard from the complaintant and any witnesses. Therefore they would have only heard one side of the story and that would have been a biased version in favour of the complaintant.

That would mean that they knowingly imposed a harsh ban based upon a "biased version in favour of the complaintant." Jeez, that doesn't sound too good, eh.


By not showing up, the nswca council might have viewed your no show a sign of contempt for their procedures...

Spot on.


...or that he knows he is guilty and couldnt be bothered showing up.

Its a four hour round trip plus tolls.


They might have been a little bit pissed off that they all turned up to give you an opportunity to at least explain your 'actions' and didnt both to turn up at all.

They (nearly) all turn up each month anyway.


I would say though that the in effect 18 month ban is rather harsh, compared to the 2 years for Ilic.

Everyone so far agrees with you. The council is out of step with the community it perports to represent.

Garvinator
09-08-2005, 06:21 PM
Everyone so far agrees with you. The council is out of step with the community it perports to represent.
while this might be true, none of us bbers were there at the council meeting where the arguments were made.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2005, 06:26 PM
The most likely answer is yes, the ban would have been shorter.

There are two likely reasons for this:

1) By not showing up, the nswca council only would have heard from the complaintant and any witnesses. Therefore they would have only heard one side of the story and that would have been a biased version in favour of the complaintant.

As no other versions or explainations are put by the other side, it is not difficult to imagine that the actions were viewed more harshly than they might have been otherwise.As I stated in post #43 the Council members were able to view the material directly on UCJ and judge for themselves.

2) By not showing up, the nswca council might have viewed your no show a sign of contempt for their procedures or that he knows he is guilty and couldnt be bothered showing up. They might have been a little bit pissed off that they all turned up to give you an opportunity to at least explain your 'actions' and didnt both to turn up at all.If he didnt want to bother driving he had well over 3 weeks to respond in writing.


With both of these scenarios, the guilty verdict and lengthy ban is not a complete surprise. I would say though that the in effect 18 month ban is rather harsh, compared to the 2 years for Ilic.Ilic may well have got longer if the constitution allowed for it.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 01:00 AM
Wasn't Ilic's situation that he did not know that Cathy Rogers was a DOP or arbiter? It was a spur of moment response in an argument and confrontation by another male player etc. That is a spontaneous response to an esculating situtation.

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2005, 01:04 AM
Wasn't Ilic's situation that he did not know that Cathy Rogers was a DOP or arbiter? It was a spur of moment response in an argument and confrontation by another male player etc. That is a spontaneous response to an esculating situtation.Cathy informed him she was an Arbiter. Plus the incident did not happen at the time of the game but shortly afterwards outside the playing rooms.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 01:18 AM
Cathy informed him she was an Arbiter. Plus the incident did not happen at the time of the game but shortly afterwards outside the playing rooms.

If it was outside the playing rooms should it have been considered at all?

Like, my brother had a party for his daughter, one silly bugger got drunk and crazy and was put out, down the road on way to home he kicked some car doors in, someone upset at his actions whacked him once (maybe with weapon) and he was in a coma for 4 weeks and cops still looking for offender 6 months later. They are only after one person - the offender (whoever he is), however, he is not in trouble with the party organisers.

PHAT
10-08-2005, 01:25 AM
... he kicked some car doors in, someone upset at his actions whacked him once (maybe with weapon) and he was in a coma for 4 weeks ...

Brain damage is not an appropriate penalty for vandalism.

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2005, 01:27 AM
If it was outside the playing rooms should it have been considered at all?It wasnt outside the club just outside the playing rooms and still inside the playing venue.
Anyway I'm not going to waste my time on this with you.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 01:31 AM
Brain damage is not an appropriate penalty for vandalism.

most of it was hospital-induced coma so he would not suffer more damage. Because he kicked a girl's car door in (someone I have know since birth) she was blueing with a girl who had a crush on the guy and defending him, everyone watched their blue and not notice in the dark background who whacked him - amazing really that the cops have been unable to find him after confiscating all cameras and questioning everyone about three times.

But point is it was outside of the "playing area" - was Ilics also?

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2005, 01:31 AM
On the 5th of June 2005 you were of the view that Matt should be permanently banned from this bb. Evidence (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=60044&postcount=60)

Firstly this is completely irrelevant to the substance of my post you were responding to and therefore to quote my post above this question is somewhere between a waste of bandwidth and a red herring. Also note the "evidence" only shows I thought he should be permanently banned if unwilling to show serious evidence of willingness to mend his ways.


Do you still hold this view?

No because the site owner's intentions, as known to me, have changed since that post was written.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 01:34 AM
It wasnt outside the club just outside the playing rooms and still inside the playing venue.
Anyway I'm not going to waste my time on this with you.

Well maybe Matt can answer me, can the whole club be considered the playing/tournament area or just the playing rooms. I think strictly speaking only the rooms should count - because they cannot go and officially play in the other rooms.
My St George post was almost banished - a third context for banished.

PHAT
10-08-2005, 02:17 AM
Well maybe Matt can answer me, can the whole club be considered the playing/tournament area or just the playing rooms. I think strictly speaking only the rooms should count - because they cannot go and officially play in the other rooms.


Peter, I can only give my opinion. It does not realy matter if it was inside/outside the playing room or even on the foot path. The fact is, a play lost his rag "at" a chess tournament. It was well out of order. It had an imeadiate effect on officials and players. Even football thugs cannot talj to officials that way.

My "offence" was not a chess playing offence. It was "abuse" unrelated to the playing of chess. It seems strange then, that my penalty is specifically to preventing me playing chess. I was expecting a repemand or even a fine.

BTW, I wonder if someone will say what will happen if I turn up to the presentation night to collect my prize.

antichrist
10-08-2005, 02:26 AM
Peter, I can only give my opinion. It does not realy matter if it was inside/outside the playing room or even on the foot path. The fact is, a play lost his rag "at" a chess tournament. It was well out of order. It had an imeadiate effect on officials and players. Even football thugs cannot talj to officials that way.

My "offence" was not a chess playing offence. It was "abuse" unrelated to the playing of chess. It seems strange then, that my penalty is specifically to preventing me playing chess. I was expecting a repemand or even a fine.

BTW, I wonder if someone will say what will happen if I turn up to the presentation night to collect my prize.

I don't think fining a player is in the constitution - who could they enforce it?

Send your daughter to pick up your prize, and instruct her on the way walking down from the stand to put her middle finger up at them.

PHAT
10-08-2005, 02:29 AM
Send your daughter to pick up your prize, and instruct her on the way walking down from the stand to put her middle finger up at them.

She is too well manered to do that , and so am I.

themovingman
10-08-2005, 02:42 AM
Quite true. As I have already said to Trent Parker, I had/have no problem with the charge being levelled. I have no real problem accepting a guilty verdict from a quasi jury. However, there are two serious problems.


1. The dury (councilors) was also the "victim".

uh - no, seems not - since I thought I read it was more along the lines of " bringing chess into disrepute - the "defamation" idea was a false lead ??


2. The dury also decided on the sentance. There is a reason that in court the jury decides guilt but does not also give the sentance. It is because duries are not competant to assess the wider picture.

A competant magistrate/judge takes into accountsuch thingsa as: likelihood of recidavism, intent, impact of sentance, impact on victim, deterence, contrision, possible rehabilitation, protection of the public, et cetera.

Look at the facts:
1. I removed all material BEFORE I was asked to, indicting contrision.
2. I have the good of NSW chess in my mind, thus good intentions.
3. Even BB the majority of BB addicts here did not know how to find UCJ. Therefore it's actual infiltration into chess was miniscule.
4. There do not appear to be a flood for copy-cat crimes that need detering.

By applying the maximum length of suspension the council has effectively said that:
1. These defences do not matter.
2. My UCJ was something that made me not fit to play chess.

To that I say:
The coucil is all about punitive action and punshiment. Moreover, the type of punishment does not fit the crime.





Who would want to be seen dead in the same photo as the the mob who are responsible for this litany (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2762).

themovingman
10-08-2005, 03:05 AM
By applying the maximum length of suspension the council has effectively said that:


1. These defences do not matter.


I don't think maximum - which implies to me at least that there are worse behaviors - how much did Ilic get : 2 years ? consider this a shot across the bow matey



2. My UCJ was something that made me not fit to play chess.


I think it was something about a detriment to juniors and parents of same - many know how parents can be sometimes over-sensitive (and sometimes should well be) - so apparently it was stumbled upon and reported (perhaps in the form of complaint (as in "what are you going to do about this disgusting ... etc etc" ) to jcl and then the nswca - we all appreciate I think how this web thing just growed - like topsy. The wonderful world of blogs and free access - indeed.




To that I say:
The coucil is all about punitive action and punshiment. Moreover, the type of punishment does not fit the crime.





Who would want to be seen dead in the same photo as the the mob who are responsible for this litany (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2762).

ursogr8
10-08-2005, 09:50 AM
The most likely answer is yes, the ban would have been shorter.

<snip>
.

Good morning gg''

Oddly enough I thought the ban would have been longer if he showed up.
I speculated that it was more than likely that he would have been drawn into a defence of his position and perhaps even read out the litany of his issues with the NSWCA.
I reckon, the addition of lack of respect and contrition, together with a repeat of his criticisms, would have added somewhat to the 17.

starter

PHAT
10-08-2005, 02:02 PM
... how much did Ilic get : 2 years ? consider this a shot across the bow matey

I concider it an act of war.


... so apparently it was stumbled upon and reported (perhaps in the form of complaint (as in "what are you going to do about this disgusting ... etc etc" ) to jcl and then the nswca

We know what the NSWCA did. But what didn't it do. It never asked that UCJ be tidied up It never said anything. It was apparently happy to leave UCJ there, and simply go for a ban.

The NSWCA has no moral high ground on this because it never asked UCJ to clean up. That it didn't, speaks volumes. It says, NSWCA doesn't realy care about chesses reputation, it only cares about silencing its critics.

EGOR
10-08-2005, 02:56 PM
We know what the NSWCA did. But what didn't it do. It never asked that UCJ be tidied up It never said anything. It was apparently happy to leave UCJ there, and simply go for a ban.

The NSWCA has no moral high ground on this because it never asked UCJ to clean up. That it didn't, speaks volumes. It says, NSWCA doesn't realy care about chesses reputation, it only cares about silencing its critics.
I would see this as the most valid point that you have made on this issue. I agree that the first step should have to approach you and seen if you were willing to address the complaints in a reasonable way. I don't agree that sending saying 'we'll suspend you unless you explain/defend yourself' is doing that.
It is most likely that Bill is going to tell me how the NSWCA followed the constitution and that what I am saying is unfounded or something to that effect.
Well, I've said so he does not have to. :D