PDA

View Full Version : vBulletin 3 RC3 Conversion Done!



skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 08:33 PM
Conversion Done, Please post any changes you feel is required, and I will look into it ASAP.

FEN/PGN coming soon, as soon as I clean my room... parents yelling at me :D :D

Thanks,
Jeo

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 08:40 PM
Yeah, I'll fix when im back (20 - 30 min)

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 08:54 PM
BTW I notice all the dates are in the american format of mm-dd-yyyy.

paulb
26-01-2004, 08:58 PM
BTW I notice all the dates are in the american format of mm-dd-yyyy.

What's V Bulletin? New software??

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 09:08 PM
Yes Paul.

Check out the topic vBulletin 3 RC3 at the top of this forum.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 09:21 PM
I'll start working on it ~ 11 after dinner.

BBL

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2004, 09:54 PM
Only problems I notice so far - the poll at the top of the Grand Prix thread got scrambled, and also private messages seem not to have transferred. Those aside, all looking :cool:

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 09:59 PM
Yes PM not transferred.

Avatar thing fixed.

Mod/RegUsers Permissions Fixed.

Mod appear as bold in online list.

Some other settings cleaned up.

What else?

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 10:04 PM
Users locations and interests have disappeared.
Its not really an issue because they can easily re-enter it themselves.

I just figure all of these issues are worth mentioning so that the users are aware of them.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 10:16 PM
:( Hmm, it worked last time, Oh well. I aint trying to convert again. No wayyyyyy.

Btw. FEN and PGN tags added.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 10:30 PM
Ranks Done.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2004, 10:45 PM
I'm gradually (quite quickly actually) learning the very different moderator functions on this board. Just as well as we have a little moron on the loose pretending to be Bill. :rolleyes:

Worth noting that if you want to report a post that is out of order, there is an "!" in the top right hand corner you can use to "report bad post". You'll need to give a reason. That will, I think, send an email to Paul and I both immediately giving the post and your reason for reporting it.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 10:46 PM
It will also send to Barry and Me.

Thanks for pointing that out Kevin.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:07 PM
I'm gradually (quite quickly actually) learning the very different moderator functions on this board. Just as well as we have a little moron on the loose pretending to be Bill. :rolleyes:

Hopefully Jeo will quickly delete that id and ban him.
However it may be useful to keep a record of his IP address.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:09 PM
To do:

Let mod ban
Quick reply
Make PM popup, I got like 10 pm's and I didn't even realise it :(

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:11 PM
Make PM popup, I got like 10 pm's and I didn't even realise it :(
I thought that was a feature. ;)

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:12 PM
It is, its just not enabled by default.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2004, 11:13 PM
I've noted the IP of "BillGletsos" for future reference. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:17 PM
Hopefully more smilies can be added.

I like the whistle and talk to the hand.
Also beating your head against a brick wall was useful.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:19 PM
Smilies later..

Mods you can already ban.

Go to bottom of page and click Mod, then you have several options there. :cool: :D

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:26 PM
Smilies later..

Mods you can already ban.

Go to bottom of page and click Mod, then you have several options there. :cool: :D
Quick reply working

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:29 PM
Appears search by keyword in advanced search does not work for finding anything in the migrated posts.

It works for posts since the change over.

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:32 PM
Rebuilding Search Index...

skip to my lou
26-01-2004, 11:33 PM
Will add CK template after Search Indexing is done.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Smilies later..

Thats fine.

It was just that I noticed that the migrated threads that had the missing smilies in them now just displayed the smilie codes instead.

Bill Gletsos
26-01-2004, 11:40 PM
Under the old board you could only delete your post if it was the last post and no one had replied to it.

It appears on this board that you can delete any of your posts even if they have been replied to which is the same as it was on the old ACF BB.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2004, 11:44 PM
Mods you can already ban.

Go to bottom of page and click Mod, then you have several options there. :cool: :D

The ban user option doesn't seem to work. There is a menu bar in the middle for moving the banned user to a usergroup - but no options appear. Then when you try to activate the ban you get "Invalid usergroup specified".

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:09 AM
Just fixed up the template, top part of board.

Ok, I will look into the ban problem now.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:12 AM
The ban user option doesn't seem to work. There is a menu bar in the middle for moving the banned user to a usergroup - but no options appear. Then when you try to activate the ban you get "Invalid usergroup specified".
Should be working fine now.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:20 AM
Anything else before I go to bed?

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2004, 12:43 AM
You're very fast at fixing stuff up. :cool:

Is there an option to edit a user's profile or else remove a banned user from the memberlist? I've just banned "BillGletsos" (no space) but there doesn't seem to be an edit profile option - only edit avatar/signature etc.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:53 AM
No such feature, and no such modification, therefore we will probably just have to wait till gold is released.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:56 AM
Anyway, you should not be moderating user profiles.

arosar
27-01-2004, 09:45 AM
test repply

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 09:48 AM
Anyway, you should not be moderating user profiles.
What about if their is profanity etc in a profile.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 10:10 AM
Profiles can not be moderated. Simply, we can moderate posts, avatars, signatures... basically anything displayed on a post. Thats about it.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Just restarted server ~ 1:50PM

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 03:15 PM
Profiles can not be moderated.
It certainly appears from the documentation on the vBulletin web site that an admin can change a users profile data.

Therefore I take it you mean this from a practical sense and its is not a limitation of the board software.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 03:25 PM
It certainly appears from the documentation on the vBulletin web site that an admin can change a users profile data.

Therefore I take it you mean this from a practical sense and its is not a limitation of the board software.

Yes, We cannot keep an eye on everyones profiles.

I guess you can report it, but you will have to report to me, moderators cant change profiles yet.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 03:46 PM
m/d/y is now d/m/y

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 04:55 PM
Bill, Mods can now edit profile info, ban etc.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 05:38 PM
My bro nagging me to play cricket.

Just leave any feature request / problems you have had with board. Also I will do that FEN start position for PGN tag that barry requested on the old board.

I'll make further changes after I get back

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 08:36 PM
Switched to Vertical Postbit

Does anyone like the Horizontal Postbit?

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 08:59 PM
1. Qd3 Kg1

Does it work for you all?

It should start from untouchable king position and make moves Qd3 Kg1

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2004, 10:18 PM
BYW it appears that during the conversion most of the threads that have polls have all the poll options screwed up.

Some options belong in other polls and not the polls they show up in.

skip to my lou
27-01-2004, 11:00 PM
Yes polls are scrambled, though if you give me the info I can rebuild manually and reset.

Unfortunately there is no automatic feature built into the BB to rebuild polls.

Though the data in the transfer was scrambled completely, so I dont see how an automatic rebuild would fix it.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 09:47 AM
It also appears that nested quoting is no longer working.

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 09:55 AM
Blah

It also appears that nested quoting is no longer working.

you mean like this?

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:02 AM
you mean like this?
Ok I see what you mean.

Is automatic nesting really important? If so I can manually hack the script.

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:02 AM
But to me, it looks like saving alot of disk space.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:07 AM
I guess it was noted as a feature on phpbb board.

I can live without it.
Can others?

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:12 AM
Well look at it this way, you very rarely want to reply to a combination of posts, so when you do, you can do the quotes manually :)

And for those of us that just hit quote and dont bother to edit the nested quotes or use quick reply I think it will be very good!

arosar
28-01-2004, 02:03 PM
Jeo - do you know flash too and associated scripts?

AR

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Jeo - do you know flash too and associated scripts?

AR
Now first tell me why you are asking these questions

arosar
28-01-2004, 02:16 PM
Cos I'm trying to see if you have the skills that I might be able to work with, OK? Sheesh!

AR

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 02:24 PM
Yes I do know flash and flash actionscript.

What do you mean work with?

And whats the Sheesh for? Seriously, you kept asking me these questions in random threads, and I still dunno the exact reason you are asking me.

arosar
28-01-2004, 02:31 PM
One last question. Did you charge the Aust Open for your work there or was it voluntary?

AR

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 03:00 PM
Voluntary

. . .

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 03:23 PM
One last question. Did you charge the Aust Open for your work there or was it voluntary?

AR

So why are you asking me all these questions? Can you give me a precise explanation instead of "Cos I'm trying to see if you have the skills that I might be able to work with, OK? Sheesh!" which tells me nothing.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2004, 06:20 PM
Well look at it this way, you very rarely want to reply to a combination of posts, so when you do, you can do the quotes manually :)


I agree. Quote pyramiding was being abused through laziness on the previous BB - better off without it.

chesslover
28-01-2004, 09:23 PM
I agree. Quote pyramiding was being abused through laziness on the previous BB - better off without it.

exactly...while the first couple of times it was good to have quote pyramids to see the entire context, soon it just became tiresome to read through multiple posts to see what the new poster was stating due to the numerous pyramid posts

Even though Kevin and others stated that we should be careful about quote pyramids, many thropugh laziness did not bother, so I think having no quote pyramiding is a good idea and makes it easier to read threads :)

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:35 PM
Old smilies are now imported.

What should I put on the default panel?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:44 PM
Yes, I just noticed them.
Well done. :clap:

Might I suggest that the :whistle: :wall: :mad: be added to the default in place of the :eek: :eh: :p

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:48 PM
Yes, I just noticed them.
Well done. :clap:

Might I suggest that the :whistle: :wall: :mad: be added to the default in place of the :eek: :eh: :p
I just made it bigger with now 21 smilies.

All of them that you requested are in there.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:52 PM
Thanks. :)

Based on some peoples posts on here I find the :whistle: and the :wall: very useful. :wink:

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 10:54 PM
Thanks. :)

Based on some peoples posts on here I find the :whistle: and the :wall: very useful. :wink:
dont you normally give this one a workover too :hand:

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 10:59 PM
Any other requests?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 11:00 PM
Yes, but Jeo already had the :hand: on the defaults at the time I requested the addition of the :whistle: and the :wall:

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 11:02 PM
*shakes head*

:eh:

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 11:38 PM
Major changes made to moderation.

You cannot delete a thread physically anymore.

This means the post / thread can be restored at any time.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 11:43 PM
Any reason for the change?

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 11:47 PM
Yes, but Jeo already had the :hand: on the defaults at the time I requested the addition of the :whistle: and the :wall:
i dont seem to be able to get this :pwned: to work properly so it shows the eusa dance/

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 11:51 PM
Any reason for the change?
Well the feature exists that there need not be a physical deletion, so might aswell use it.

Incase there is a dispute or something, nothing is lost.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 11:52 PM
i dont seem to be able to get this :pwned: to work properly so it shows the eusa dance/
Yes the dancing smilie does not work.
You get the razz smilie followed by wned: because the first two characters of the dancing smilie are the same as the razz smilie.

skip to my lou
28-01-2004, 11:55 PM
It has already been fixed :p

:owned:

skip to my lou
31-01-2004, 01:01 AM
Seems everything is back to normal. Unsticking thread, any more requests can be done through PM.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 12:43 PM
posts made in non-chess will no longer go towards post count.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 12:49 PM
posts made in non-chess will no longer go towards post count.
Now you have done it. :wink:
Just wait for the howls of protest. :whistle:
Doesn't worry me as I hardly ever post in them. :cool:

Btw I noticed your post count has now more than doubled.
Creative addition? :hmm:

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 12:50 PM
Bill, many forums employ this tactic, so that there is more discussion on the actual topic.

Note: Post count: 2004 :)

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 12:53 PM
Bill, many forums employ this tactic, so that there is more discussion on the actual topic.
True, but that won't stop some posters complaining. :wink:


Note: Post count: 2004 :)
:cool:

ursogr8
03-02-2004, 12:54 PM
Now you have done it. :wink:
Just wait for the howls of protest. :whistle:
Doesn't worry me as I hardly ever post in them. :cool:

Btw I noticed your post count has now more than doubled.
Creative addition? :hmm:

A very brave action Jeo :whistle:

But is it fair? :hmm:
If they don't count from now on, why not retrospectively take the old ones away too? :uhoh:

starter

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 12:55 PM
Ture, but that won't stop some posters complaining. :wink:

Well if theres a good reason not to do it, then I will not, but the chances of that seem very slim atm. :)

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 12:57 PM
A very brave action Jeo :whistle:

But is it fair? :hmm:
If they don't count from now on, why not retrospectively take the old ones away too? :uhoh:

starter
I thought about that, and that would not fair.

Anyway, if I reset all the post counts after disabling postcount in nonchess, then the artificial increase of post counts would disappear.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 12:59 PM
A very brave action Jeo :whistle:

But is it fair? :hmm:
If they don't count from now on, why not retrospectively take the old ones away too? :uhoh:
Changing the rules retrospectively probably isnt wise.

Also it would be hard to know how many of those counts came from the old ACF board non chess topics.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 01:18 PM
Change made and verified that it works.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 01:35 PM
Optional New Profile Fields:

ICC Handle
FIDE Rating
ACF Rating

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 02:35 PM
Ture, but that won't stop some posters complaining.

Don't bother me none. :cool:

Thunk
03-02-2004, 02:47 PM
Don't bother me none. :cool:


if a post doEsn’t count can it bE submittEd for a BB prizE in 2004 i wondEr.

PHAT
03-02-2004, 02:50 PM
No problem. We will simply not post in the "non-chess" section. We will simply fill the "Australin Chess" section with non-chess threads.

Karthic, don't stuff about with a system that has proven to be good. Tinkering with a stable and functioning system is foolish. Return the count system back to its original function.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:01 PM
if a post doEsn’t count can it bE submittEd for a BB prizE in 2004 i wondEr.
So far there is no confirmation on the prize or selection process for 2004.

But I do not think posts in non-chess will be eligible in the selection process.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:01 PM
No problem. We will simply not post in the "non-chess" section. We will simply fill the "Australin Chess" section with non-chess threads.

Karthic, don't stuff about with a system that has proven to be good. Tinkering with a stable and functioning system is foolish. Return the count system back to its original function.
I'll just keep moving it to non-chess then and if you keep doing it, to annoy us, then.. :hmm:

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 03:03 PM
Optional New Profile Fields:

ICC Handle
FIDE Rating
ACF Rating

Where do you get to specify these? What about FICS handle as well or rename ICC Handle to ICC/FICS handle?

Perhaps you could get people to specify their ACF master rating profile number and then apply the new ACF rating direct from the file every 3 months. :)

PHAT
03-02-2004, 03:04 PM
I'll just keep moving it to non-chess then and if you keep doing it, to annoy us, then.. :hmm:

Don't start a shit fight - it is no worth it for the sake of purifying the post counts. Just reverse the changes made and everyone will stay happy.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:07 PM
Where do you get to specify these? What about FICS handle as well or rename ICC Handle to ICC/FICS handle?

Perhaps you could get people to specify their ACF master rating profile number and then apply the new ACF rating direct from the file every 3 months. :)

Well soon it will be in your profile.. I was wanting feedback.

So ok, I will add FICS handle to that list..

ACF Master File Ratings. .. That would take a bit of work..

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:07 PM
Don't start a shit fight - it is no worth it for the sake of purifying the post counts. Just reverse the changes made and everyone will stay happy.
You know the ignore function on this board? Its going to come in quite handy...

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 03:17 PM
You know the ignore function on this board? Its going to come in quite handy...
:lol: :lol: :clap:

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 03:22 PM
Well soon it will be in your profile.. I was wanting feedback.

So ok, I will add FICS handle to that list..

ACF Master File Ratings. .. That would take a bit of work..

Should be too difficult technically.

I already have the current ACF Master File loaded in a table on my server at home in a MySQL table. I could set up an account for you to read it and Bob's your uncle. All you need is a single SQL query to do the biz.

The difficult bit is

- Most people won't know their ACF master file profile number, not too big a problem as they can look it up on the master list

- It would blow any anonymity out of the water for those who want it. That's bad luck I guess.

If you want to progress drop me a PM and I'll set you up a MySQL account.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:26 PM
I think it would be just better to let them type in their rating. Wouldn't it?

PHAT
03-02-2004, 03:35 PM
You know the ignore function on this board? Its going to come in quite handy...

The ignore function is just a stinking electronic way to be rude. Use it if you like but you would be being an illmannered snot nosed brat.

As for the post count, I don't actually care. BUT I do care about the way you have changed the system WITHOUT notice or debate. Didn't you learn anything from the first few days after you got into bed with the ACF BB denizens?

So what threats are you going to make about me postinmg non-chess stuff in the Australian Chess section. Come on techno brat, have a go.

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 03:36 PM
Then everyone would have to remember to update it every 3 months. This way they can set it and forget it. :)

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:40 PM
The ignore function is just a stinking electronic way to be rude. Use it if you like but you would be being an illmannered snot nosed brat.

As for the post count, I don't actually care. BUT I do care about the way you have changed the system WITHOUT notice or debate. Didn't you learn anything from the first few days after you got into bed with the ACF BB denizens?

So what threats are you going to make about me postinmg non-chess stuff in the Australian Chess section. Come on techno brat, have a go.
haha, you are really funny, because you easily make a fool of yourself.

As I said already, it will be moved to the non-chess section. If you keep up with it and do it on purpose just to annoy us then one of the mods will take action that they think is suitable.

And I did give notice you fool, the change was made after hearing a couple of peoples feedback and a few more by PM.

Now listen, I cannot wait for everyone to respond to make the change.

Since you dont care about post count, I dont see why you are complaining. Maybe its because you just want to be annoying?

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:42 PM
Then everyone would have to remember to update it every 3 months. This way they can set it and forget it. :)
Good point, but then someone would have to update it every 3 months. I dont think I'll have the time this year.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 03:44 PM
The ignore function is just a stinking electronic way to be rude. Use it if you like but you would be being an illmannered snot nosed brat.
Actually the ignore is very similar to kill lists.
Both are extremely usful in saving people having to wade thru posts from people whose majority of posts are total crap.


As for the post count, I don't actually care. BUT I do care about the way you have changed the system WITHOUT notice or debate. Didn't you learn anything from the first few days after you got into bed with the ACF BB denizens?
It could be argued that Jeo only agreed to not moderate the ACF forums.
He never agreed to hand over how particular features of the board might function.


So what threats are you going to make about me postinmg non-chess stuff in the Australian Chess section. Come on techno brat, have a go.
Ban ya. :lol: :lol: :clap: :owned: :whistle:

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 03:47 PM
Ban ya. :lol: :lol: :clap: :owned: :whistle:

:lol: :clap:

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 04:03 PM
Good point, but then someone would have to update it every 3 months. I dont think I'll have the time this year.

It should just be a quick job to update every three months - just re-run the query. I don't know how many people would be interested in the feature though. :confused:

Easier for me not to do it, than to do it, security risks mostly, but shouldn't be too hard and re-running every 3 month should be a cinch. :cool:

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:05 PM
What you have a query ready to modify VBulletin to display the ratings?

I dont really want to hack the software now. Only after gold, because its a pain to upgrade after hacking.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:09 PM
http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an136.gif

Looks like the change is already doing a good job :cool:

PHAT
03-02-2004, 04:10 PM
It could be argued that Jeo only agreed to not moderate the ACF forums. He never agreed to hand over how particular features of the board might function.


It could also be argued that manipulating features has an effect on posters posting habits. This is moderating by another form. Further, even if you do not agree with this arguement, it is certainly the case that modifying feature is contrary to the spirit of the agreement.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:21 PM
I did consult some members before making the change.

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 04:31 PM
What you have a query ready to modify VBulletin to display the ratings?

I dont really want to hack the software now. Only after gold, because its a pain to upgrade after hacking.

I wasn't talking about running a query at display time. Just have a column on the user table and update it in a batch once every three months. But if it too hard no worries. As I said, not sure how many people would avail themselves of it.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:36 PM
no that isn't hard, though there will have to be two fields, one the person can modify, and one the person cant, the one that can be modified can be set to the ACF master list ID, then the script has to detect the ID from profile, find it in another database or table, then insert the relevant rating value into the rating field. Its not hard. It has to be maintained every 3 months aswell. The question is, is it worth it? :)

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 05:13 PM
If we build it, will they come?

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 05:29 PM
I did consult some members before making the change.

I'm not too fussed about it really, but for anyone who cares, I knew nothing about this one.

If anyone posts non-chess posts in the chess section in protest at it we could just delete their posts. :D

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 05:30 PM
Good Idea!

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 05:40 PM
The ignore function is just a stinking electronic way to be rude.

What? The only one you haven't already patented? :hand:

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 05:46 PM
What? The only one you haven't already patented? :hand:
:lol: :whistle:

ursogr8
03-02-2004, 10:08 PM
I'll just keep moving it to non-chess then and if you keep doing it, to annoy us, then.. :hmm:

hi Jeo, Can I chip in here for a moment.

There is no doubt you can do a number of super-admin. actions to really get up the noses of those who use the non-chess threads.

But should you do it?

Give me a solid reason to help me understand what you gain.

At the moment all I can see is sort of a vengeance because non-chess posters are making a bit of an untidy use of your nice chess BB. And if this is all you are gaining then it is a bit ugly. Help me understand why. What are you gaining?

Now Jeo, I don't use the non-chess threads myself much, and often don't read the threads. But I think you should leave them alone until you give us a good reason to change the functionality on poster counts.
Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?

kind regards
starter

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 10:23 PM
Because it will encourage people to post in other sections. Since this is a chess site, I think its a very good idea.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 10:43 PM
Because it will encourage people to post in other sections. Since this is a chess site, I think its a very good idea.
I suspected that might be your reasoning because the very same reasoning occurred to me when you mentioned what you were doing in the thread. ;)

ursogr8
04-02-2004, 08:04 AM
I suspected that might be your reasoning because the very same reasoning occurred to me when you mentioned what you were doing in the thread. ;)

Bill, Jeo

So your theory is that some posters are lodging on the non-chess threads simply to increase their post count. And when you take the count away on these threads they will change their behaviour eh?

OK. Here is a challenge for you. Here is a list of frequent users of the non-chess threads. Name two whose behaviour is driven by the desire for a high post count and will change their behaviour when you change the post-count policy
Kevin
Matt
peanbrain
antichrist
CL (this is a given ONE)
Barry Cox
arosar


See, it is struggle to believe that any one of this list (except...) will change behaviour.

Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?

starter

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 08:27 AM
Bill, Jeo

So your theory is that some posters are lodging on the non-chess threads simply to increase their post count. And when you take the count away on these threads they will change their behaviour eh?

OK. Here is a challenge for you. Here is a list of frequent users of the non-chess threads. Name two whose behaviour is driven by the desire for a high post count and will change their behaviour when you change the post-count policy
Kevin
Matt
peanbrain
antichrist
CL (this is a given ONE)
Barry Cox
arosar


See, it is struggle to believe that any one of this list (except...) will change behaviour.

Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?

starter

I have no problem with people posting in non-chess. I dont care if someone only posts in non chess and no where else, though dont expect to get credit for posting non-chess content.

Sure, I can do alot of Super Admin things. Though what I should do is none of your business and you shouldn't be publicly questioning me about it. If I ask for your opinion in what I should do, then you can give your opinion. But I didn't ask you did I?

Same goes with people questioning moderation issues directly on the forum. From now on, resolve it by PM.

If you have a problem with what I am doing (or any moderator for that matter), then you need to write a complaint to feedback@chesskit.com and admin@chesskit.com and the CK team will try and resolve the issue.

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 10:41 AM
I have no problem with people posting in non-chess. I dont care if someone only posts in non chess and no where else, though dont expect to get credit for posting non-chess content.

Sure, I can do alot of Super Admin things. Though what I should do is none of your business and you shouldn't be publicly questioning me about it. If I ask for your opinion in what I should do, then you can give your opinion. But I didn't ask you did I?

Same goes with people questioning moderation issues directly on the forum. From now on, resolve it by PM.

If you have a problem with what I am doing (or any moderator for that matter), then you need to write a complaint to feedback@chesskit.com and admin@chesskit.com and the CK team will try and resolve the issue.

well now, we are back to the issues we had when we first came across to these boards from the old yabb site.

As soon as someone questions Jeos decisions, he claims no one should be publicly questioning his decisions. I voted at that time to stay here, can I have a new vote please.

Personally I think all posts should count to the post total. The post count is counting posts that are recording on this site, not whether they are chess related. This is how it was done through two boards now and even though our bb members make the odd jibe at each other, no one is really taking post counts seriously :lol: :owned: .

But now Jeo has managed to turn a light hearted affair into a serious issue. I notice also that very few ppl have taken advantage of the extra features of this board. Most of our posters still post the same way as they did on the yabb board.

Why does this change to the post counts need to occur? What harm is being done by having all posts count?

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 11:19 AM
Apparantly my administration of board functionality and settings was OK. It was moderation that was the issue. All that is happening is, you are complaining about every single action that has been made. :hmm: why dont we just make everyone administrator, then you can change the settings all you like. Listen, the reason I am administrator is because I am here to maintain the board settings and functionality. If you think you could do a better job, then make your own forum, and maintain that. But wait, you cant change ANY settings. None at all!! Dont even make new forums, because someone might complain. Dont delete posts either ok?

I made this change. No one cares about the change. Though everyone is complaining. :hmm:

I was reporting back here for any changes that I have made. From now on, administration in silence, that means I will not consult any members about changes, because it seems any effort to consult is useless, since you all complain anyway!! Even if you do not care about the change or it does not affect you...... YOU STILL COMPLAIN. :wall: :wall: :wall:

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 11:33 AM
And dont bother asking me about board settings or functionality from now on. I simply will not reply. This is my last post about anything to do with mod/admin of forum.

"As soon as someone questions Jeos decisions". I consulted some people before making the change. "Everything is ok, and no one cares about post count". But wait theres more.. Everyone seems to AGREE with this, yet still want the decision reversed. :hmm:

http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an093.gif

ursogr8
04-02-2004, 12:02 PM
Apparantly my administration of board functionality and settings was OK. It was moderation that was the issue. All that is happening is, you are complaining about every single action that has been made. :hmm: why dont we just make everyone administrator, then you can change the settings all you like. Listen, the reason I am administrator is because I am here to maintain the board settings and functionality. If you think you could do a better job, then make your own forum, and maintain that. But wait, you cant change ANY settings. None at all!! Dont even make new forums, because someone might complain. Dont delete posts either ok?

I made this change. No one cares about the change. Though everyone is complaining. :hmm:

I was reporting back here for any changes that I have made. From now on, administration in silence, that means I will not consult any members about changes, because it seems any effort to consult is useless, since you all complain anyway!! Even if you do not care about the change or it does not affect you...... YOU STILL COMPLAIN. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Jeo
Thank you for the PM of 12.44 4/2/4 taking the gag off comment.

Your new new board is fine by me.
The migration from the new board to the new new board went well because you got good feedback and negotiation going with Bill and Baz. That is the model that works best.

Now, the latest policy change to the post-count is small beer. That is true. But the motives looked suss and that is why there is a varied reaction. The motive looked like a provacation at first. And then you explained you were trying to encourage transfer of activity to the CHESS threads. Finally you resorted to 'well that is the way that it is done on other boards'.

What for the future?
Make changes in silence; and when they are discovered there will be a reaction.
Announce changes and refuse to negotiate; and then there will be a reaction.
Announce potential changes and then negotiate; and then there will be a reaction.

We like your board man. But we also want to participate in the policy settings.

You are the SUPER-admin. You can do anything. But should you do it.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 01:23 PM
Bill, Jeo

So your theory is that some posters are lodging on the non-chess threads simply to increase their post count. And when you take the count away on these threads they will change their behaviour eh?

OK. Here is a challenge for you. Here is a list of frequent users of the non-chess threads. Name two whose behaviour is driven by the desire for a high post count and will change their behaviour when you change the post-count policy
Kevin
Matt
peanbrain
antichrist
CL (this is a given ONE)
Barry Cox
arosar


See, it is struggle to believe that any one of this list (except...) will change behaviour.

Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?

starter

I cannot answer for Jeo, but I have always believed the BB is there for Chess Discussion first and formost. I believed that on the old ACF Board and I believe it here.

I dont think people post in the non chess threads just to increase their post count (except...) but I dont see that as sufficient reason to count non chess thread posts.

On the old ACF board and also here titles are based on post counts. The posters wanted those titles to reflect Chess titling of some sort.
It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me to base those titles on chess related threads.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 01:32 PM
Sure, I can do alot of Super Admin things. Though what I should do is none of your business and you shouldn't be publicly questioning me about it. If I ask for your opinion in what I should do, then you can give your opinion. But I didn't ask you did I?
I think thats being a bit precious. ;)

If suddenly the functioning of the board changes it is reasonable to expect people to ask why.

There maybe entirely valid reasons for the change. Any sane person would therefore not complain.
However a change maybe made on a whim, that to the person making the chnage seems entirely reasonable, but to the majority of users may or may not be.
By people discussing the change in an open forum (as opposed ot PM's or even worse emails to feedback or admins) then perhaps the the users will see the reason for the chnage or perhaps the admin will see the folly of his ways.

Having said all that I don't have an issue with any of your recent changes.
Of course that could just be because I agree with your reasoning. ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 01:35 PM
And dont bother asking me about board settings or functionality from now on. I simply will not reply. This is my last post about anything to do with mod/admin of forum.
You seriously need to reconsider this. :hmm:
It isnt conducive to good management practices. :wall:


"As soon as someone questions Jeos decisions". I consulted some people before making the change. "Everything is ok, and no one cares about post count". But wait theres more.. Everyone seems to AGREE with this, yet still want the decision reversed. :hmm:
You just need to realise you cannot please everybody all of the time. :doh:
As long as your pleasing the majority, the minority can cry in their beer. ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 01:39 PM
I made this change. No one cares about the change. Though everyone is complaining. :hmm:
Actually not all complained. Some complained, some agreed, some didnt care.


I was reporting back here for any changes that I have made. From now on, administration in silence, that means I will not consult any members about changes, because it seems any effort to consult is useless, since you all complain anyway!! Even if you do not care about the change or it does not affect you...... YOU STILL COMPLAIN. :wall: :wall: :wall:
Your policy of reporting was working fine as far as I was concerned. :clap:
Don't let the views of morons, dipsticks and cretins ruin that. :whistle:

arosar
04-02-2004, 01:50 PM
This is just ridiculous. Arguing over post counts. Listen Jeo man....you must always consult. Users don't like surprises OK? And stop acting like a baby.

Now, I saw you log into ICC last night - or at least someone using your handle. Was it you anyways?

AR

ps: LATE EDIT - I just read the thread and it seems we have pigheadedness again. Look, make all posts in whatever thread count to whole total. What's the freaking big deal? Reverse your decision Jeo.

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 02:06 PM
You seriously need to reconsider this. :hmm:
It isnt conducive to good management practices. :wall:


You just need to realise you cannot please everybody all of the time. :doh:
As long as your pleasing the majority, the minority can cry in their beer. ;)
hmm ok..

"You just need to realise you cannot please everybody all of the time.
As long as your pleasing the majority, the minority can cry in their beer."

I guess thats true. :)

Chess Dad
04-02-2004, 02:37 PM
And dont bother asking me about board settings or functionality from now on. I simply will not reply. This is my last post about anything to do with mod/admin of forum.

"As soon as someone questions Jeos decisions". I consulted some people before making the change. "Everything is ok, and no one cares about post count". But wait theres more.. Everyone seems to AGREE with this, yet still want the decision reversed. :hmm:

http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an093.gif

I was just testing if I could add a smilie like yours:


http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an015.gif

i thought this one could be usefull

Chess Dad
04-02-2004, 02:42 PM
or even:

http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an129.gif

http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an231.gif

http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an012.gif

gee Bill you could really have fun with some of these.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 03:10 PM
Yes, I could imagine
http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an015.gif
and
http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an012.gif
coming in really handy. ;)

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 03:42 PM
I made this change. No one cares about the change. Though everyone is complaining. :hmm:

I do not think the post count change was a big deal but for what it is worth I disagree with it and would have advised against it had you bothered to ask me. Furthermore I think there should be consultation over every potentially significant change with all the moderators at the very least.


From now on, administration in silence, that means I will not consult any members about changes, because it seems any effort to consult is useless, since you all complain anyway!!

Once again: You presumably want people from the former ACF BB here for some reason that is of benefit to your site. But if you make changes that are more significant (and I don't mean this one about the post count, I am imagining what might happen) without consulting with them or at least with the moderators, you will lose their confidence and some of them will again want to set up a board under full ACF control. Therefore you should consult about significant changes. If in doubt about whether a change is significant, consult anyway. This is not rocket science.

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 04:12 PM
BUT.. I did consult.. :doh:

And there is no reason to consult moderators for such a small change anyway.


You presumably want people from the former ACF BB here for some reason

Actually no. They're welcome to stay but quite frankly I dont care where the ACF BB goes.

arosar
04-02-2004, 04:20 PM
BUT.. I did consult..

Did you ask if it was OK to not include Non-Chess thread posts to go into the total post count? Show me your post.


I dont care where the ACF BB goes.

So why did you move us here in the first place? You offered to host the BB, didn't you? I can only think that you were motivated by a captive audience for a fledgling business.

Look, you see like an OK kinda bloke. But sometimes, you're a bit annoying and your decision-making soo ill-considered. Just reverse what you did OK. It's very easy for you, ain't it? Tell us when you've done it then we can get off this stupid subject.

AR

ursogr8
04-02-2004, 04:23 PM
BUT.. I did consult.. :doh:

And there is no reason to consult moderators for such a small change anyway.



And consult you did Jeo.

But how were you to guess that the guy with the biggest post-count had the least to lose with the change in policy on post counts. :whistle: :uhoh:

We can guarantee the intellectual honesty of the moderators, usually. But of the rest, well, we are chess players.

starter

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 04:25 PM
Err look -> "They're welcome to stay".. means.. great to host the bb, you are WELCOME to stay......... .. . "but quite frankly I dont care where the ACF BB goes." means -> leave or stay, it doesn't bother me.

And there was no objection to me controlling the board settings before, just moderation. :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 04:59 PM
And consult you did Jeo.

But how were you to guess that the guy with the biggest post-count had the least to lose with the change in policy on post counts. :whistle: :uhoh:
Starter, that is incorrect.

Jeo announced he had made the change at 1.43pm yesterday.

Prior to his announcement I was unaware of it happening.

I only made my comments at 1.49pm

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 05:33 PM
BUT.. I did consult.. :doh:

Who? "A few people" - who were they?

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 05:38 PM
And there was no objection to me controlling the board settings before, just moderation. :hmm:

No one anticipated that you would use that position in such a way without adequate consultation. Note that when you have changed even more minor things in the past, like titles, without consultation, some people have complained. So it was not too difficult to envisage that people would complain this time too - at least about not being consulted if not about the change itself. Yet when they complain, you act all surprised.

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 06:33 PM
No, the agreement was I didn't mod, the agreement was not that I do not admin board settings.

This is a small issue and I am not debating it any further.

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 06:44 PM
the issue of post counts is small But the larger issue of control and changes without consultation is a major one.

Not many posters were consulted regarding changing from yabb to the chesskit board. when we came to chesskit, alot of us complained about the moderation style. At that stage I was in favour of a stronger moderation style as I thought some of the abuse posts would stop and most of them have.

Then a compromise was worked out where the acf officials would moderate the acf sections and the rest of the board was under full chesskit control.

Some posters said that they thought we should go back to the yabb acf board as they could see conflict occurring along the same lines.

Well look what has happened, we have another conflict similar to the last time rising from lack of consultation and over zealous actions by the administrator. :wall:

In my opinion, this will probably be sorted out, but then another issue will come up and we will be back arguing. I would like to go back to the old yabb board.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 06:44 PM
So far there is no confirmation on the prize or selection process for 2004.

But I do not think posts in non-chess will be eligible in the selection process.

a lot of the current ACF 2003 nominatiosn are non chess posts

chesslover
04-02-2004, 06:50 PM
The ignore function is just a stinking electronic way to be rude. Use it if you like but you would be being an illmannered snot nosed brat.

As for the post count, I don't actually care. BUT I do care about the way you have changed the system WITHOUT notice or debate. Didn't you learn anything from the first few days after you got into bed with the ACF BB denizens?

So what threats are you going to make about me postinmg non-chess stuff in the Australian Chess section. Come on techno brat, have a go.

you are a rebel WITH a cause

You are the person fighting for the common battler, against the establishment authoritarianism. bravo, bravo :clap: :clap:

I admire your fighting spirit, and the way you fight against injustice and dictatorial behaviour, and respect and admire you for that :clap:

Do NOT be intimidated or cowed or lose your courage and spirit

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 06:52 PM
I meant it for 2004.

ursogr8
04-02-2004, 06:54 PM
Starter, that is incorrect.

Jeo announced he had made the change at 1.43pm yesterday.

Prior to his announcement I was unaware of it happening.

I only made my comments at 1.49pm

Bill

The post you made 11.43 on 3/2 gave Jeo solace. At that stage he could have been, or was, wavering. After your crediblity-added post it was going to be hard to let him see that there were issues here.
Now I don't post much in the non-chess thread and so I was not affected by the policy change. But we need to reach an understanding with Jeo and that is why I pressed a litmus test post on him (and you).

Pedantically I didn't say that he consulted with you. So, technically I am not incorrect as you charge.
But I did deliberately leave that as an impression. You have done two similar evasions to me in the past day or so. It is not your usual directness.

We agree on so many issues and I respect your contribution. Even on this thread you have i) warned K there would be an outcry, and ii) told him about managing change 101.

But your post of 11.43 on 3/2 disappointed me.

regards
starter

chesslover
04-02-2004, 06:58 PM
Ban ya. :lol: :lol: :clap: :owned: :whistle:

That is not at all funny, and you should be ashamed of yourself for stating that to matt :mad:

All matt did was to voice his democratic free speech, and you and others jump on poor Matt, for his anti-establishment, freedom loving believes.

Given Matt's previous history in this BB, where he was banned, this flippant remark is particularly hurtful and sensitive, and you should think about that before your dispense these retorts in a manner to prove that you are witty.... :mad:

I think an apology to Matt is in order, as I feel bad for him by this cruel and insensitive remark (paticularly given his history here), over a heartfelt statement of his :mad:

PHAT
04-02-2004, 07:06 PM
I cannot answer for Jeo, but I have always believed the BB is there for Chess Discussion first and formost. ...

On the old ACF board and also here titles are based on post counts. The posters wanted those titles to reflect Chess titling of some sort.
It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me to base those titles on chess related threads.



It seems to me that an "all catagories count" policy is thetrue reflection of participation in a chess community. When we go to the footy team BBQ, we do not value the guests for how much footy trivia or training ideas they want to sprout. People are valued for their contributions to "community" by their anacdotes, experiance and wit.

Nobody here will change ratio of chess to non-chess posts as a result of this STUPID half baked meddling of post counting arrangments. But the counting of only, chess posts will not give a true measure of contribution to the BB community.

Jeo, pull your head in.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:08 PM
Bill, Jeo

So your theory is that some posters are lodging on the non-chess threads simply to increase their post count. And when you take the count away on these threads they will change their behaviour eh?

OK. Here is a challenge for you. Here is a list of frequent users of the non-chess threads. Name two whose behaviour is driven by the desire for a high post count and will change their behaviour when you change the post-count policy
Kevin
Matt
peanbrain
antichrist
CL (this is a given ONE)
Barry Cox
arosar


See, it is struggle to believe that any one of this list (except...) will change behaviour.

Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?

starter

WHAT are you talking about?

I resent your implication that I post in the non chess thread to increase my post count - that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

If you look at my posts they are usually very long, and are in relation to subjects and issues that I feel strongly about - God, US presidential elections, President Bush and the war against terrorists as well as cricket. That is all

And if you BOTHERED to look at these posts they are very long and detailed, and set out by facts in a very comphrehensive (and at the risk of being called immodest) in a brilliant and compelling manner.

If I was just going for post counts, I would be giving a couple of sentences a post - which a LOT of those over 500+ posts have done.

I am interested in US politics, and God and cricket and president Bush and will not change the posts in hem with or wothout these policies. I resent your allegation and know you are WRONG

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:15 PM
Personally I think all posts should count to the post total. The post count is counting posts that are recording on this site, not whether they are chess related. This is how it was done through two boards now and even though our bb members make the odd jibe at each other, no one is really taking post counts seriously :lol: :owned: .

But now Jeo has managed to turn a light hearted affair into a serious issue. I notice also that very few ppl have taken advantage of the extra features of this board. Most of our posters still post the same way as they did on the yabb board.

Why does this change to the post counts need to occur? What harm is being done by having all posts count?

I agree with your statements 100%

I think that all posts should count. If the policy is to encourage people to not post in non chess, that will not work, for if people are like me they will continue to post there on their passions and interets, regardless of whether it counts or not

PHAT
04-02-2004, 07:22 PM
you are a rebel WITH a cause

You are the person fighting for the common battler, against the establishment authoritarianism. bravo, bravo :clap: :clap:

I admire your fighting spirit, and the way you fight against injustice and dictatorial behaviour, and respect and admire you for that :clap:

Do NOT be intimidated or cowed or lose your courage and spirit

Ummm, thank you CL.

I hope you are not going to start loving thy nieghbour, because that would make it very difficult for me to give you curry. :lol:

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 07:24 PM
And if you BOTHERED to look at these posts they are very long and detailed, and set out by facts in a very comphrehensive (and at the risk of being called immodest) in a brilliant and compelling manner.

:eek: Copy and paste is brilliant? :lol:

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:26 PM
I dont think people post in the non chess threads just to increase their post count (except...) but I dont see that as sufficient reason to count non chess thread posts.

On the old ACF board and also here titles are based on post counts. The posters wanted those titles to reflect Chess titling of some sort.
It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me to base those titles on chess related threads.


For the last friging time, stop putting me down :mad: :mad:

I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT post in the non chess just to get my counts up. In fact even though I have less posts than you, I have written FAR FAR more than you on subjects in chess and non chess. Does that sound like someone who wants post counts? think, think, think before attacking me

I used to admire you and respect you and think that you were the greatest boon to australian chess. I defended you and would have fought for you anytime and everywhere. My respect and admiration for the way you conducted yourself was without equal, and i was your number 1 fan, and was prepared to go to any lengths to support you

yet you always put me down, and make me feel inferior and as if I am never good enough. why do you delight in making me look bad when I respect and admire you so so much? why? why? That is very very bad, and not good at all for you to treat me like that

PHAT
04-02-2004, 07:27 PM
That is not at all funny, and you should be ashamed of yourself for stating that to matt :mad:

All matt did was to voice his democratic free speech, and you and others jump on poor Matt, for his anti-establishment, freedom loving believes.

Given Matt's previous history in this BB, where he was banned, this flippant remark is particularly hurtful and sensitive, and you should think about that before your dispense these retorts in a manner to prove that you are witty.... :mad:

I think an apology to Matt is in order, as I feel bad for him by this cruel and insensitive remark (paticularly given his history here), over a heartfelt statement of his :mad:

Thanks dude. But CL, mate, I am not that delicate.

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 07:30 PM
For the last friging time, stop putting me down :mad: :mad:

I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT post in the non chess just to get my counts up. In fact even though I have less posts than you, I have written FAR FAR more than you on subjects in chess and non chess. Does that sound like someone who wants post counts? think, think, think before attacking me

I used to admire you and respect you and think that you were the greatest boon to australian chess. I defended you and would have fought for you anytime and everywhere. My respect and admiration for the way you conducted yourself was without equal, and i was your number 1 fan, and was prepared to go to any lengths to support you

yet you always put me down, and make me feel inferior and as if I am never good enough. why do you delight in making me look bad when I respect and admire you so so much? why? why? That is very very bad, and not good at all for you to treat me like that
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:31 PM
hmm ok..

"You just need to realise you cannot please everybody all of the time.
As long as your pleasing the majority, the minority can cry in their beer."

I guess thats true. :)

that is true Jeo. I like your BB and think that you are doing a good job under difficult circumstances.

The fact is that you cannot please 100% of the people 100% of the time, and if a vast majority are for it then you are entirely right to proceed in the way you proposed. That is democracy, and the people who did not like the opinion must learn to accept the majority verdict

PHAT
04-02-2004, 07:32 PM
I am interested in US politics, and God and cricket and president Bush


Who do you think would win a limited overs at the MCG, Bush Vs God?

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:36 PM
I do not think the post count change was a big deal but for what it is worth I disagree with it and would have advised against it had you bothered to ask me. Furthermore I think there should be consultation over every potentially significant change with all the moderators at the very least.



Once again: You presumably want people from the former ACF BB here for some reason that is of benefit to your site. But if you make changes that are more significant (and I don't mean this one about the post count, I am imagining what might happen) without consulting with them or at least with the moderators, you will lose their confidence and some of them will again want to set up a board under full ACF control. Therefore you should consult about significant changes. If in doubt about whether a change is significant, consult anyway. This is not rocket science.

as usual, a well made and articulate post from you Kevin, showing and displaying a common sense and maturity that does credit on you

wel done, and may I state that I find almost all of your posts well made and articluate - even though I disagree with the ones in relation to God and President Bus - and learn a little bit more each day as a result. You are one of the best things in this BB

PHAT
04-02-2004, 07:45 PM
For the last friging time, stop putting me down :mad: :mad:

I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT post in the non chess just to get my counts up. In fact even though I have less posts than you, I have written FAR FAR more than you on subjects in chess and non chess. Does that sound like someone who wants post counts? think, think, think before attacking me

I used to admire you and respect you and think that you were the greatest boon to australian chess. I defended you and would have fought for you anytime and everywhere. My respect and admiration for the way you conducted yourself was without equal, and i was your number 1 fan, and was prepared to go to any lengths to support you

yet you always put me down, and make me feel inferior and as if I am never good enough. why do you delight in making me look bad when I respect and admire you so so much? why? why? That is very very bad, and not good at all for you to treat me like that

And CL went on to cry out: FATHER, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 07:45 PM
:eek: Copy and paste is brilliant? :lol:

WHAT copy and paste?

Almsost all of my posts in the US presidential threads are my OWN ORIGINAL analysis on how the outcome of the democrat nomination will be. I have put links where there are stories, and the stats are obviously from polls. However the vast majority of my posts in the non chess threads are NOT cut and paste, and are my very own ORIGINAL analysis, that is reflective of my thinking and thoughts on the issues that I am interested in

And for that matter I do agree with Matt, gray, starter, Kevin etc that non chess posts should count for total posts

skip to my lou
04-02-2004, 08:01 PM
All I see is alot of CnP statistics.

chesslover
04-02-2004, 08:14 PM
All I see is alot of CnP statistics.

that is your opinion. I love poll numbers, and analysing the trends and number of delegates each person has got, and predicting what will happen :)

ursogr8
04-02-2004, 10:12 PM
For the last friging time, stop putting me down :mad: :mad:

I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT post in the non chess just to get my counts up. In fact even though I have less posts than you, I have written FAR FAR more than you on subjects in chess and non chess. Does that sound like someone who wants post counts? think, think, think before attacking me

I used to admire you and respect you and think that you were the greatest boon to australian chess. I defended you and would have fought for you anytime and everywhere. My respect and admiration for the way you conducted yourself was without equal, and i was your number 1 fan, and was prepared to go to any lengths to support you

yet you always put me down, and make me feel inferior and as if I am never good enough. why do you delight in making me look bad when I respect and admire you so so much? why? why? That is very very bad, and not good at all for you to treat me like that

CL

If you can talk Paul B and George into a second award, 'Best poster with character for 2003', then you have got my vote.

starter

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 10:49 PM
the issue of post counts is small But the larger issue of control and changes without consultation is a major one.

Not many posters were consulted regarding changing from yabb to the chesskit board. when we came to chesskit, alot of us complained about the moderation style. At that stage I was in favour of a stronger moderation style as I thought some of the abuse posts would stop and most of them have.

Then a compromise was worked out where the acf officials would moderate the acf sections and the rest of the board was under full chesskit control.

Some posters said that they thought we should go back to the yabb acf board as they could see conflict occurring along the same lines.

Well look what has happened, we have another conflict similar to the last time rising from lack of consultation and over zealous actions by the administrator. :wall:

In my opinion, this will probably be sorted out, but then another issue will come up and we will be back arguing. I would like to go back to the old yabb board.

It seems more ppl are interested in talking about crap in this thread than actually discussing a serious issue :( fine have it that way. ill just make my point in another direction then :uhoh:

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 11:10 PM
a lot of the current ACF 2003 nominatiosn are non chess posts
After the complete and utter farce this best post on the BB has become I will be doing my utmost to ensure the ACF wastes none of its funds for any future prizes, so you can forget about 2004. :hand:

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 11:15 PM
can someone tell me how to i access the posts from the old acf board as i want to get a post from there :)

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 11:16 PM
can someone tell me how to i access the posts from the old acf board as i want to get a post from there :)

There is a whole thread on it, dude.

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=178

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 11:29 PM
Bill

The post you made 11.43 on 3/2 gave Jeo solace. At that stage he could have been, or was, wavering. After your crediblity-added post it was going to be hard to let him see that there were issues here.
Now I don't post much in the non-chess thread and so I was not affected by the policy change. But we need to reach an understanding with Jeo and that is why I pressed a litmus test post on him (and you).

Pedantically I didn't say that he consulted with you. So, technically I am not incorrect as you charge.
But I did deliberately leave that as an impression. You have done two similar evasions to me in the past day or so. It is not your usual directness.

We agree on so many issues and I respect your contribution. Even on this thread you have i) warned K there would be an outcry, and ii) told him about managing change 101.

But your post of 11.43 on 3/2 disappointed me.
starter if you are going to criticise at least get your facts straight. http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an232.gif
Firstly my post was at 1.49 not 1.43.
Jeo made an annnnouncement at 1.43 and he gave no indication at that time or wavering one bit.

Now if you look at my 1.49 post you will see a number of things:
1) I warned him he had done it now and could expect howls of protest.
2) I made it abundantly clear to him it did not worry me because I hardly posted in the non chess threads.

He could easily determine that he should not be taking any solace from my post.

Therefore I completely and totally disagree with your assertion that my post added any credability to his decision at all. http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an002.gif

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 11:38 PM
That is not at all funny, and you should be ashamed of yourself for stating that to matt :mad:

All matt did was to voice his democratic free speech, and you and others jump on poor Matt, for his anti-establishment, freedom loving believes.

Given Matt's previous history in this BB, where he was banned, this flippant remark is particularly hurtful and sensitive, and you should think about that before your dispense these retorts in a manner to prove that you are witty.... :mad:

I think an apology to Matt is in order, as I feel bad for him by this cruel and insensitive remark (paticularly given his history here), over a heartfelt statement of his :mad:

The more you post the more I'm convinved your dont have a clue at times what is going on.
You have no understanding of sarcasm, irony, wit or humour. :wall:

Just have a good look at the sentence of mine you quoted. :doh:
Knowing that Jeo had previously banned Matt is the essence of the statement.
It starts with two :lol:.
Its followed by :clap: :owned: indicating I think I'm being rather clever and ends with me :whistle: in the wind.

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 11:40 PM
It seems to me that an "all catagories count" policy is thetrue reflection of participation in a chess community. When we go to the footy team BBQ, we do not value the guests for how much footy trivia or training ideas they want to sprout. People are valued for their contributions to "community" by their anacdotes, experiance and wit.
I can see your point I just dont agree with it. :)


Nobody here will change ratio of chess to non-chess posts as a result of this STUPID half baked meddling of post counting arrangments. On this we agree. ;)

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 11:48 PM
And if you BOTHERED to look at these posts they are very long and detailed, and set out by facts in a very comphrehensive (and at the risk of being called immodest) in a brilliant and compelling manner.
Ha ha ha. Someone who nominates 5 of their own posts for best post of 2003 being accused of being immodest and then follows it up with the above.

Its not immodest, its down right self absorbed and totally conceited.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 12:02 AM
For the last friging time, stop putting me down :mad: :mad:

I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT post in the non chess just to get my counts up. In fact even though I have less posts than you, I have written FAR FAR more than you on subjects in chess and non chess. Does that sound like someone who wants post counts? think, think, think before attacking me

I used to admire you and respect you and think that you were the greatest boon to australian chess. I defended you and would have fought for you anytime and everywhere. My respect and admiration for the way you conducted yourself was without equal, and i was your number 1 fan, and was prepared to go to any lengths to support you

yet you always put me down, and make me feel inferior and as if I am never good enough. why do you delight in making me look bad when I respect and admire you so so much? why? why? That is very very bad, and not good at all for you to treat me like that
Because you seem to post at times without any forethought or consideration of the other persons view.

I'm not right all the time but there was a stage when no matter what I said you supported me. That made me wonder just how much thought you had really put into what I had said. It seemed to me that what I had said just happened to match your opinion.
When confronted by someones opinion that differed from your own you reacted like a hysterical school girl(apologies to any hysterical schoolgirls I've just offeneded ;) ).

Yes you may make long and thoughtful posts at times but you also post a lot like a broken record.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 12:04 AM
And CL went on to cry out: FATHER, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME.
Now that really made me laugh Matt.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 02:07 AM
After the complete and utter farce this best post on the BB has become I will be doing my utmost to ensure the ACF wastes none of its funds for any future prizes, so you can forget about 2004. :hand:

The farce value is almost entirely due to the spectacular efforts of a single poster.

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 07:13 AM
starter if you are going to criticise at least get your facts straight. http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an232.gif
Firstly my post was at 11.49 not 11.43.
Jeo made an annnnouncement at 11.43 and he gave no indication at that time or wavering one bit.

Now if you look at my 11.49 post you will see a number of things:
1) I warned him he had done it now and could expect howls of protest.
2) I made it abundantly clear to him it did not worry me because I hardly posted in the non chess threads.

He could easily determine that he should not be taking any solace from my post.

Therefore I completely and totally disagree with your assertion that my post added any credability to his decision at all.

Bill

Instead of spending so much time searching for appropriate smilies to add to your arguments you might better allocate the time to accuracy.
Now I am going to paste in the offending post of yours for the second time. It was at 11.43pm as I have said all along.
This time I am going to ask if you will also respond to the litmus test post that I placed subsequently; (the one that caused K. to suddenly realise he was not going to change the behaviour of posters with his policy change; the one which caused K. to ban me from asking questions for an hour or so); the test that you have not replied to previously. Your response, and apology for the second smilie, can be in separate posts if you wish.

starter


I suspected that might be your reasoning because the very same reasoning occurred to me when you mentioned what you were doing in the thread. ;)

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 09:37 AM
Anyone with access to calender gets custom title, anyone with custom title gets access to calendar.

Calendar entries should be just chess events, nothing else.

If the calendar is abused by you, then you will lose your access to it and also lose custom title.

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Someone please tell me if you can see the entry for Feb 8th?

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 10:28 AM
Someone please tell me if you can see the entry for Feb 8th?

K
I Can see cricket entry
starter

skip to my lou
05-02-2004, 10:33 AM
Thanks starter.

btw, access to calendar means, you can add/edit/del your own events, which everyone can see.

People with access to calendar so far:

Admin, Mod, firegoat7 :eek:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 12:30 PM
Bill

Instead of spending so much time searching for appropriate smilies to add to your arguments you might better allocate the time to accuracy.
Now I am going to paste in the offending post of yours for the second time. It was at 11.43pm as I have said all along.
This is the first time you have mentioned pm.
You previously only mentioned 11.43.
Therefore given the lack of the pm I had assumed you had mistyped an extra 1 and had meant 1.43.

In fact when I posted above at 12.29am on 5/02/2004 I then made the mistake of typing 11 instead of 1, which I have now corrected.

Perhaps if you had quoted the actual post when you first mentioned the 11.43 time in your post at 7.54pm on 4/02/2004 there would have been no misunderstanding on my part.

I still however reject your assertion that my post at 11.43pm on 3/02/2004 gave him any solace. This was after all 10 hours after he had made the change/announcement. Given that my opinion was just one of many why should he put more credence in my opinion than those of others.


This time I am going to ask if you will also respond to the litmus test post that I placed subsequently; (the one that caused K. to suddenly realise he was not going to change the behaviour of posters with his policy change; the one which caused K. to ban me from asking questions for an hour or so); the test that you have not replied to previously.
I assume you are referring to your post of 9.04am on 04/02/2004.
If so then I responded to that at 2.23pm on 04/02/2004.
If you are referring to another of your posts then be explicit and quote it.


Your response, and apology for the second smilie, can be in separate posts if you wish.
Given the confusion over what post you were referring to previously I apologise for the http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an002.gif

If I had been aware of the correct post you were referring to I would have used the following smilie instead.http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an021.gif
;)

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 01:03 PM
This is the first time you have mentioned pm.
You previously only mentioned 11.43.
Therefore given the lack of the pm I had assumed you had mistyped an extra 1 and had meant 1.43.


When I worked why you were making a false assumption I added the pm.




Perhaps if you had quoted the actual post when you first mentioned the 11.43 time in your post at 7.54pm on 4/02/2004 there would have been no misunderstanding on my part.

Yes, this would have avoided your incorrect assumption too.




I still however reject your assertion that my post at 11.43pm on 3/02/2004 gave him any solace. This was after all 10 hours after he had made the change/announcement. Given that my opinion was just one of many why should he put more credence in my opinion than those of others.

That’s an easy one. Because you are Bill, and your credibility is a notch higher.





I assume you are referring to your post of 9.04am on 04/02/2004.
If so then I responded to that at 2.23pm on 04/02/2004.

Yes you did respond.
But your response was inadequate.
I am clearly testing your theory that behaviour will change for the named individuals in my post. Your response did not address that test, but rather you wanted to debate what the post-count metric should be.
You are requested to complete the test.




Given the confusion over what post you were referring to previously I apologise for the http://www.wernergut.de/smilies/anim/an002.gif


I accept the withdrawal of the smiley.
The jury is still out on whether I deserve the 1 finger.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 01:34 PM
That’s an easy one. Because you are Bill, and your credibility is a notch higher.
Given a couple of the slanging matches he and I had in the past I'm not so sure this is true. ;)


Yes you did respond.
But your response was inadequate.
I am clearly testing your theory that behaviour will change for the named individuals in my post. Your response did not address that test, but rather you wanted to debate what the post-count metric should be.
You are requested to complete the test.
Might I suggest you didn't comprehend my response then.

The first part of your post was:


Bill, Jeo

So your theory is that some posters are lodging on the non-chess threads simply to increase their post count. And when you take the count away on these threads they will change their behaviour eh?

I replied:

I dont think people post in the non chess threads just to increase their post count (except...) but I dont see that as sufficient reason to count non chess thread posts.
I consider that an adequate response.
I think it was clear from my response that I dont think removing the count will make them alter their posting habits. However in case it wasn't I just said it.

The next part of your post was:

OK. Here is a challenge for you. Here is a list of frequent users of the non-chess threads. Name two whose behaviour is driven by the desire for a high post count and will change their behaviour when you change the post-count policy
Kevin
Matt
peanbrain
antichrist
CL (this is a given ONE)
Barry Cox
arosar


See, it is struggle to believe that any one of this list (except...) will change behaviour.
I believe my answer to the first part sufficiently answers this.

Finally :

Sure, you can do what you do, but should you do what you are doing?
It appeared to me that this question was soley aimed at Jeo as only he was capable of carrying out the changes.



The jury is still out on whether I deserve the 1 finger.
After re-reading your original post and my response to it and based on my summation above the jury found you guilty as charged. :whistle:

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Given a couple of the slanging matches he and I had in the past I'm not so sure this is true. ;)


Might I suggest you didn't comprehend my response then.

The first part of your post was:


I replied:

I consider that an adequate response.
I think it was clear from my response that I dont think removing the count will make them alter their posting habits. However in case it wasn't I just said it.

The next part of your post was:

I believe my answer to the first part sufficiently answers this.

Finally :

It appeared to me that this question was soley aimed at Jeo as only he was capable of carrying out the changes.


After re-reading your original post and my response to it and based on my summation above the jury found you guilty as charged. :whistle:

Yes part of the post was solely aimed at K.
Yes, I can now see that you were attempting the test the first time. And now this second time you are attempting the test also.
You could have answered Nil, except CL and it would have been full marks of course.
Yes, I accept 1, leaving the other with you.

tks

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 01:51 PM
Yes part of the post was solely aimed at K.
Yes, I can now see that you were attempting the test the first time. And now this second time you are attempting the test also.
You could have answered Nil, except CL and it would have been full marks of course.
Actually thats where we disagree.
I did use (except..) in my response but was just playing your little game.
I don't believe even CL would change his behaviour.


Yes, I accept 1, leaving the other with you.
I submit that I did answer the question fully and the examiner is biased in regards to what he believes the answer to be.
Therefore based on this and your suggestion of leaving one with me I'm re-instating the 2. :whistle:

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 02:11 PM
Actually thats where we disagree.
I did use (except..) in my response but was just playing your little game.
I don't believe even CL would change his behaviour.


I submit that I did answer the question fully and the examiner is biased in regards to what he believes the answer to be.
Therefore based on this and your suggestion of leaving one with me I'm re-instating the 2. :whistle:

Well Bill that is a pity that you will not accept 1.
I suppose it was self-evident from your many posts with Matt in 2003, that you would not accept a draw.
So Matt lay down on a beach and had a New Years Resolution.
He took all those twos like so many grains of sand; and he built a sand castle. And then do you know what he did with the sand-castle? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 02:19 PM
Well Bill that is a pity that you will not accept 1.
I suppose it was self-evident from your many posts with Matt in 2003, that you would not accept a draw.
10-15 move draws are not my style. I'll accept a draw when the situation warrants it or when their is no chance of success or its a good way to stave off imminent defeat. ;)

I did not see this as falling into any of those categories. :)


So Matt lay down on a beach and had a New Years Resolution.
He took all those twos like so many grains of sand; and he built a sand castle. And then do you know what he did with the sand-castle? :hmm:
You are telling this story so you tell me. :whistle:

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:09 PM
Ha ha ha. Someone who nominates 5 of their own posts for best post of 2003 being accused of being immodest and then follows it up with the above.

Its not immodest, its down right self absorbed and totally conceited.

1. It is not 5 posts, it is 4 - get your facts right before you attack me

2. I was being witty when I praised my post. I thougght that others could see I was being humerous. Obviously not :(

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:17 PM
The farce value is almost entirely due to the spectacular efforts of a single poster.

who are you referring to? :confused:

I think you are referring to me, and if so your post is very very wrong and hurtful

I have done nothing wrong, as all I have done is within the rules. Tell me where I have broken the rules?

Self nomination IS IS IS allowed. Even paul said that. Also note that there have been others self nominating - BEFORE I even self nominated. And again I repeat it is allowed - that means that it IS allowed. a fact confirmed by paul himself

Also the non chess threads that had been posted were posted by others well before me. Let me repeat that - OTHERS posted the non chess thread before I nominated them.

Even though you are a very smart man, here your post does not show that. Next time before you post something like this that is so wrong, it would be wise if you think whether the statement that you make is supported by the evidence

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:24 PM
And now this second time you are attempting the test also.
You could have answered Nil, except CL and it would have been full marks of course.
Yes, I accept 1, leaving the other with you.
tks

Full marks of course? what does that mean? what does that mean, pls tell me?

Do you think that the correct response is that I will stop posting on non chess, as I am only interested in post count? :mad: :mad: :wall:

If I was just interested in post count, and was posting in the non chess board, do you really think I would be making long posts about US elections? Think please and consider the facts before you make any conclusions

remember when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me

chesslover
05-02-2004, 05:29 PM
Actually thats where we disagree.
I did use (except..) in my response but was just playing your little game.
I don't believe even CL would change his behaviour.


I submit that I did answer the question fully and the examiner is biased in regards to what he believes the answer to be.
Therefore based on this and your suggestion of leaving one with me I'm re-instating the 2. :whistle:

That is 100% correct. My posting in the non chess threads on issues that I feel passionate about or have an interest will change as a result of this silly policy - which by the way only you seem to endorse

At last after a long time in rthis thread, you are finally getting something right ;) (that is a jokey retort, not an angry statement - so that you do not misunderstand :) )

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 05:49 PM
I think you are referring to me, and if so your post is very very wrong and hurtful

:hand:


I have done nothing wrong, as all I have done is within the rules. Tell me where I have broken the rules?

You do not need to break the rules to generate a farcical situation. You have not broken any rules of the nomination process, but you've used it in a manner that's become controversial and lowered people's impression of the process.


Also the non chess threads that had been posted were posted by others well before me. Let me repeat that - OTHERS posted the non chess thread before I nominated them.

Irrelevant. The reason it is farcical has nothing to do with chess threads vs non chess threads and nothing to do with who posted any thread - the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated. Take that away and the process has run reasonably cleanly and smoothly, I feel, hence my comment.


Even though you are a very smart man, here your post does not show that.

Correct. The point is too obvious to require intelligence in its stating.


Next time before you post something like this that is so wrong, it would be wise if you think whether the statement that you make is supported by the evidence

Next time before you post something like this that is so wrong, it would be wise if you think whether the statement that you make is supported by the evidence. :hmm:

I believe the evidence supports my statement very well.

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 05:59 PM
1. It is not 5 posts, it is 4 - get your facts right before you attack me
Well I based my facts on YOUR post when you said:

I have unilaterally decided that I will restrict self nominations of my posts to 5. As the second biggest poster in this BB,that is particularly hard but I will restrict my nominations to just 5 of my own posts.

I wasnt actually going to waste my time counting them, I made the stupid mistake of actually assuming you knew what you were saying.

In hindsight I should have realised that you didnt.

chesslover
05-02-2004, 06:20 PM
You do not need to break the rules to generate a farcical situation. You have not broken any rules of the nomination process, but you've used it in a manner that's become controversial and lowered people's impression of the process.

Irrelevant. The reason it is farcical has nothing to do with chess threads vs non chess threads and nothing to do with who posted any thread - the farce concerns your use of self-nomination to nominate posts that otherwise would not have been nominated. Take that away and the process has run reasonably cleanly and smoothly, I feel, hence my comment.


Well if you think that is wrong, change the rules, The rules are there, and if I have not broken the rules then I do think that it is very rich of you to attack me - especially when I have ensured that I have complied with the rules.

Just because the rules are not to your taste, and Bill's and a couple of others, does not mean that it makes it right. The rules are the rules, and I have not broken any rules by self nomination.

Also I notice that there are at least 2 other people who have self nominated, yet I see that you have not bothered to attack these people for making the race a "farce" in your mind.

I honestly believe that my posts deserve to be nominated and have done that. If no one agrees, then so be it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and view

ursogr8
05-02-2004, 07:03 PM
Full marks of course? what does that mean? what does that mean, pls tell me?

Do you think that the correct response is that I will stop posting on non chess, as I am only interested in post count? :mad: :mad: :wall:

If I was just interested in post count, and was posting in the non chess board, do you really think I would be making long posts about US elections? Think please and consider the facts before you make any conclusions

remember when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me

CL
On reflection, I have become convinced that I don't know what would stop you posting.

The clear intent of the competition to find the best post is just that, the best post. But what do you do CL? You nominate four of your own.In other words you are admitting you don't know the difference between good and not-so-good; otherwise you would have economised on the panel's time by selecting the 'most good' of your four posts. Now the panel has to do the job that you should have done, i.e filter to the best of the 4.
And having made one inefficiency you have now compounded it by having a multitude of posts defending the mistake to have 4. And defending the over-the-top self-nomination; which is another matter.

The only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot help yourself. Dress it up if you must with 'go-with-the flow' statements. In my view we are sinking-in-the-torrent, instead.

CL, nothing will stop you posting.

starter

chesslover
05-02-2004, 08:52 PM
The clear intent of the competition to find the best post is just that, the best post. But what do you do CL? You nominate four of your own.In other words you are admitting you don't know the difference between good and not-so-good; otherwise you would have economised on the panel's time by selecting the 'most good' of your four posts. Now the panel has to do the job that you should have done, i.e filter to the best of the 4.


fair point.I accept that criticism

chesslover
05-02-2004, 09:26 PM
in relation to the non counting of non chess threads in total posts, and the objections that matt made to that here are some stats;

Australian chess section - 61 threads and 3035 posts(average 50post/thread)

Tournaments section - 36 threads and 851 posts (average 24 post/thread)

General chess section - 21 threads and 275 posts (average 13 posts/ thread)

non chess section - 43 posts and 1139 posts (average 27 posts/threads)

Thus non chess accounts for almsot 27% of all threads and 22% of all posts

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 10:58 PM
CL, nothing will stop you posting.

starter
umm i have to correct u there starter, there is a way he can be stopped from posting :eek: ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-02-2004, 11:00 PM
umm i have to correct u there starter, there is a way he can be stopped from posting :eek: ;)
:lol: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 01:17 AM
Well if you think that is wrong, change the rules,

No, that would be needlessly illiberal. Do you write to Bob Carr and say "ban it" every time you see someone doing something you think is silly? Of course not, if you did your name would be Matthew Sweeney. :owned:

(Sorry Matt, that really was a cheapo.)


Just because the rules are not to your taste,

Rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned. Please don't misrepresent my position like this. And I have no problem with Paul S nominating his own post because it was a post that others would have nominated anyway - except that it gave you a precedent to use out of context. :(


Also I notice that there are at least 2 other people who have self nominated, yet I see that you have not bothered to attack these people for making the race a "farce" in your mind.


Correct. One of those was of a post that deserved nomination anyway, the other was after you had already created the fuss and contributed nothing to the farce value.

ursogr8
06-02-2004, 06:55 AM
umm i have to correct u there starter, there is a way he can be stopped from posting :eek: ;)



:lol: :whistle:


I presume you are talking banning not filtering?


Well then I will be on CL’s side. Free speech guys.

Bill Gletsos
06-02-2004, 09:23 AM
I presume you are talking banning not filtering?


Well then I will be on CLs side. Free speech guys.
I dont think we were suggesting that it should be done.
gg was simply pointing out that your statement was not 100% correct, because you overlooked an option(all be it one most wouldn't support).

Garvinator
06-02-2004, 10:57 AM
geez guys, i dont recall saying that cl should be banned, of course not. All i tried to do was say that your post was not completely correct and have a few laughs :eek: .

Sorry i wont make that mistake again. Ill be mister serious like cl all the time if you like :hand: :whistle: :boohoo:

chesslover
06-02-2004, 05:08 PM
No, that would be needlessly illiberal. Do you write to Bob Carr and say "ban it" every time you see someone doing something you think is silly? Of course not, if you did your name would be Matthew Sweeney. :owned:

(Sorry Matt, that really was a cheapo.)

Rubbish, the rules are very much to my taste, read the thread Bill started where I voted for allowing people to self-nominate and against any suggestion that self-nomination be banned. Please don't misrepresent my position like this. And I have no problem with Paul S nominating his own post because it was a post that others would have nominated anyway - except that it gave you a precedent to use out of context. :(

Correct. One of those was of a post that deserved nomination anyway, the other was after you had already created the fuss and contributed nothing to the farce value.

I have a lot of respect for you, and although I disagree that my post was unworthy, you are entitled to your opinion

Let us now put this behind us for what is done is now done, and there is no use crying over spilt milk

chesslover
06-02-2004, 05:12 PM
I presume you are talking banning not filtering?


Well then I will be on CLs side. Free speech guys.

well it is not surprising that authoritarian establishment types want people who resist their views to be banned. They think that by crushing all dissent their views will prevail. What they do not know is that truth and democracy will ultimately prevail

In addition I have done nothing that deserves me to be banned. I have followed all the rules, and have not breached any directions given by moderators - unlike a couple of others :mad:

Bill Gletsos
06-02-2004, 08:35 PM
well it is not surprising that authoritarian establishment types want people who resist their views to be banned. They think that by crushing all dissent their views will prevail. What they do not know is that truth and democracy will ultimately prevail

In addition I have done nothing that deserves me to be banned. I have followed all the rules, and have not breached any directions given by moderators - unlike a couple of others :mad:
And once again you demonstrate your total lack of understanding.
Neither gg nor I suggested you be banned.
We simply pointed out to starter that his statement was factually incorrect because he had overlooked an option.

skip to my lou
07-02-2004, 10:44 AM
Can someone see http://66.45.233.213/

Is it a whole lot faster than this board?

I found that it was, I was getting 12 seconds load time on the front page of this server, and 6 seconds for http://66.45.233.213/

Heaps of people are downloading nalimov tablebases from this server so I think the forum needs its own server (maybe).

Rincewind
07-02-2004, 11:24 AM
Can someone see http://66.45.233.213/

Is it a whole lot faster than this board?

I found that it was, I was getting 12 seconds load time on the front page of this server, and 6 seconds for http://66.45.233.213/

Heaps of people are downloading nalimov tablebases from this server so I think the forum needs its own server (maybe).

Looks about the same to me.

Are both servers connected to the internet via the same uplink? If so, which of the two servers probably won't matter much for us. The issue is more likely to be the saturation of that uplink by the other traffic.

skip to my lou
07-02-2004, 11:49 AM
This server is on http://theplanet.com/

http://66.45.233.213/ is on http://www.interserver.net/

In ping times, theplanet is about 50ms less than interserver, but theplanet server load is like 2 at any time, interserver is 0.1 because theres nothing much on it atm.

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 08:07 PM
Jeo, It appears all of matts posts are no longer visible on the BB.

I assume this is your doing either intentionally or unintenionally.

skip to my lou
07-02-2004, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I ignored him. Though whoever I ignore, the board seems to set that person to Global Ignore :(

chesslover
07-02-2004, 09:01 PM
Jeo, It appears all of matts posts are no longer visible on the BB.

I assume this is your doing either intentionally or unintenionally.

I think it was all a "mistake" by Jeo ;)

Bill Gletsos
07-02-2004, 09:08 PM
I think it was all a "mistake" by Jeo ;)
Then that makes it unintentional. ;)

chesslover
07-02-2004, 10:27 PM
are there hydras in this BB? amongst the people who post here a lot? :confused:

chesslover
07-02-2004, 10:37 PM
does this board support delayed posting rights after registration as a new user?

That way a person once registered cannot post for maybe 24 hours - which means that there is a disincentive to register just so that they can post silly posts - as they have to wait for a certain period of time before they post

skip to my lou
07-02-2004, 10:47 PM
no

chesslover
07-02-2004, 10:51 PM
no, as in No none of the people who post here often have hydras or no, as in this board does not allow posting rights for a period after registration as a new user?

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 11:01 PM
no, as in No none of the people who post here often have hydras or no, as in this board does not allow posting rights for a period after registration as a new user?

I'm not aware of any regular with a currently frequently used hydra (though I'm not saying for sure there are none) but certainly some regulars have used hydras at times on various BBs.

Re the other thing, I think delays on signup would limit discussion more than they advance it.

skip to my lou
07-02-2004, 11:03 PM
"does this board support delayed posting rights after registration as a new user?" - no