PDA

View Full Version : Moderator Responsiblity



Cat
03-05-2006, 10:52 PM
Jase has asked for a new beginning with constructive dialogue.

Howard has thrown down the gauntlet to put a stop to abusive language on this BB.

I have suggested the moderators should police abuse vigorously, with yellow and red cards for offenders.

The venerable Starter has complained about abusive posts without a response.

Are the mods still there? Can stricter policies be set in place for specified forums?

four four two
03-05-2006, 11:08 PM
What would you classify as a red card?:hmm:

Rincewind
03-05-2006, 11:16 PM
What would you classify as a red card?:hmm:

A small stiff piece of paper, coloured red.

Cat
03-05-2006, 11:17 PM
What would you classify as a red card?:hmm:

I would reckon an abusive comment should recieve a yellow card. Maybe an orange for a second offence (like Bill Clinton's 3 strikes and you're out policy). A third offence and the red card should be shown, the punishment preferably delivered by the BB jury.

Severe abuse, such as using the words 'goose','small stiff', 'idiot' or 'troll' might attract an immediate red card.

Punishments could include a period of chess community service, and non-compliance might lead to temporary excommunication.

Rincewind
03-05-2006, 11:20 PM
Severe abuse, such as using the words 'goose','small stiff', 'idiot' or 'troll' might attract an immediate red card.

'small stiff' is a no no? Now I am confused.

Cat
03-05-2006, 11:24 PM
'small stiff' is a no no? Now I am confused.

I guess we should let it go as its unlikely to come up again.

Rincewind
03-05-2006, 11:28 PM
I guess we should let it go as its unlikely to come up again.

such words could be placed no thebanned word list but to do so would be counter productive. I believe language is there to assist debate and so I favour not engaging in a high degree of social engineering but rather call a troll a troll.

Standards of decency do vary somewhat but most people avoid using taboo words but last time I checked, none of the ones you specify are generally considered taboo.

Cat
03-05-2006, 11:33 PM
such words could be placed no thebanned word list but to do so would be counter productive. I believe language is there to assist debate and so I favour not engaging in a high degree of social engineering but rather call a troll a troll.

Standards of decency do vary somewhat but most people avoid using taboo words but last time I checked, none of the ones you specify are generally considered taboo.

Language can assist or be destructive, depending on how it's used. Abuse is never justified, nor does it add to the debate. Calling someone a troll or idiot are just the actions of a pertulant child unable to get their own way. It turns people away from debate. These words are limiting and intended to be so. You're standing on quicksand, Barry, find some firmer ground.

Sunshine
03-05-2006, 11:39 PM
Severe abuse, such as using the words 'goose','small stiff', 'idiot' or 'troll'

Thank you - I really enjoyed reading this definition.

Are there any examples of mild abuse ?

Rincewind
03-05-2006, 11:41 PM
Are there any examples of mild abuse ?

I'm guessing "duck", "minute firm", "ninny" and "goblin".

jase
03-05-2006, 11:42 PM
I can't agree with any set of words which one might be banned for using.
Its very definition encourages abuse of that form of control.

I can however see some merit in a policy that regulates against personal abuse. I emailed Karthick on this theme about a week ago; he's probably just contemplating a reply ... :eh:

Cat
03-05-2006, 11:52 PM
Yes, we don't want abuse-Nazi's either, but I think we can all agree on want constitutes civil behaviour.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 07:23 AM
People people. I cannot support an increase in moderater activity.

Each society behaves in its particular way, not in line with its laws and police, but in line with its culture. The culture here is a vicious us Vs them. The us Vs. them is not the problem - it is the viciousness that grates.

Fortunately, Gletsos and his fountain of abuse is all but gone. For my part, I know some BBers have noticed that that has reduced my head kicking behaviour. With Jessop pillowing without a whimper, there only remains Bonbot to muzzle.

Do I think a golden age is at hand? Yes. There have been some spirited exchanges between a few posters in recent months. But take note: they have not degenerated into a fetted brew of pointscoring personal abuse.

These steady changes for the better have not come about by greater law enforcement - moderater activity or bannings. They have come about because of a consistant cultural preasure to "cut it out."

Time for a Bon-fire.

WhiteElephant
04-05-2006, 08:32 AM
I hope the damage hasn't already been done. Lately there have been 150-200 guests constantly logged in and only the usual 15 or so members. I wouldn't be surprised if the guests are in fear of copping unsolicited personal abuse and so choose not to contribute.

Rincewind
04-05-2006, 08:41 AM
I hope the damage hasn't already been done. Lately there have been 150-200 guests constantly logged in and only the usual 15 or so members. I wouldn't be surprised if the guests are in fear of copping unsolicited personal abuse and so choose not to contribute.

No, the vast majority of guests are web crawling bots.

Southpaw Jim
04-05-2006, 09:22 AM
Severe abuse, such as using the words 'goose','small stiff', 'idiot' or 'troll' might attract an immediate red card.

I see no problem in calling a spade a spade.

I think the current ban on swearing, racist remarks and sexual discrimination is perfectly adequate. The world is too PC as it is :wall:

four four two
04-05-2006, 09:38 AM
No, the vast majority of guests are web crawling bots.

So the board isnt really that popular at all?....:hmm:
Does 200 guests=150 bots plus 50 chess players?:hmm:

four four two
04-05-2006, 09:41 AM
I see no problem in calling a spade a spade.

I think the current ban on swearing, racist remarks and sexual discrimination is perfectly adequate. The world is too PC as it is :wall:


I dont know how well you have read this bb Eurotrash...there is no "ban" on ethnic slurs or sexist comments. :whistle:

Southpaw Jim
04-05-2006, 10:08 AM
I dont know how well you have read this bb Eurotrash...there is no "ban" on ethnic slurs or sexist comments. :whistle:

I would've thought that this would cover it:


illegal vilification

But then I'm not an expert on equal opportunity/anti-discrimination legislation as it applies to BBs.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 10:57 AM
I think the current ban on swearing, racist remarks and sexual discrimination is perfectly adequate. The world is too PC as it is :wall:

What sought of IDIOT [ ;) ] would say mere swearing is comparable to with racism and sexism? It isn't the words per se, but how they are said.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 11:04 AM
So the board isnt really that popular at all?....:hmm:
Does 200 guests=150 bots plus 50 chess players?:hmm:

Popularity does not equate to importance. The people here are "nodes" for the whole Australian chess community. We are "in touch" with both, the self appointed ACF leaders and, with the rank and file. We are the ones who will lead the ground swell and the consequential coup.

Southpaw Jim
04-05-2006, 11:38 AM
It isn't the words per se, but how they are said.

I agree Matt - but not all people are as impervious to the use of such language as I. I wouldn't care if it were banned or not personally, but I accept that many people find such words highly offensive.

I think there is still a general societal expectation that such words are used with restraint - and note that there's not a blanket ban on swearing, but rather excessive vulgarity - which, as I said above, I believe is adequate for a BB such as this.

There's certainly words I find more offensive than 'idiot', you goose :P

Rincewind
04-05-2006, 12:11 PM
So the board isnt really that popular at all?....:hmm:
Does 200 guests=150 bots plus 50 chess players?:hmm:

I haven't done an analysis but would expect that 25% would be a optimistic number.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2006, 12:21 PM
IMHO, culture of debate requires addressing the issue, and leaving personal matters aside. Therefore, any personal attack (whether they include foul language or not) do not contribute to the healthy debate. And swearing is not required to express what you think of someone (indeed, proper language could be much more harmfull;)

However, there is a big difference between expressing it as an ideal we should try to achive and making a law. The latter is nothing but worst form of smoothering the freedom of expression.

Indeed, the whole PC (the biggest plaque of the Western Society nowdays) was born out of the desire to civilize debate, but ended up compromising freedom of thought (thus having adverse effect of the quality of debate).

I am with Matthew Sweeney in his view of moderation, even though his own conduct does not seem to contribute to the quality of discussion.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 01:11 PM
...but I accept that many people find such words highly offensive.

That is the point of swearing at someone, to offend them! If so, are we to say we must not say anything offensive? The outcome of that rout is no talkies at all.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 01:16 PM
debate. And swearing is not required to express what you think of someone (indeed, proper language could be much more harmfull;)

In deed! I might swear* but "other" posters use "proper" language for much more harm.


* swearing is a continum, so particular words' "acceptability" is subjective.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2006, 03:09 PM
That is the point of swearing at someone, to offend them! If so, are we to say we must not say anything offensive? The outcome of that rout is no talkies at all.

It depends of the purpose.
1. If the purpose is to offend, you might sweare (even though, IMHO, it's not very effective).
2. If the purpose is to convince spectators of the debate, it's of a little help.
3. If the purpose is to scare opponent because you feel your own arguments are weak, it might help against some.
4. If the purpose is to provoke an opponent into a silly swearing contest, thus deflecting an attention form the actual argument (as in previous case), it might also help.

Swearing in case 4 might be more effective then in case 3, but it usually backfires

5. To prevail over ones inferiority complex or make him/her to feel better about oneself.

Might help, but I am not an expert in the area, better leave to psychologist/psychiatrist

The list is not, by any means, all-inclusive and only attempts to address swearing at someone, not swearing in general.

Garvinator
04-05-2006, 03:22 PM
Indeed, the whole PC (the biggest plaque of the Western Society nowdays) was born out of the desire to civilize debate, but ended up compromising freedom of thought (thus having adverse effect of the quality of debate).
time for a thread split I think after my short reply. I disagree with this. Originally PC started with the idea of getting rid of terms that are seen by the receipent as racially offensive or the like ie nigger, chink etc.

While in its original form, PC was admirable and should be embraced, it has been politically corrupted and used to justify almost everything. One of the latest examples being that at Sea World, there was a big attempt to get fairy penguins named changed to little penguins as it might be perceived that called them fairy might be offensive to homosexuals.

Considering that the term fairy penguins comes from the little penguins looking like fairies (the flying kind in children books), to change their name is an absurd example of PC.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-05-2006, 03:42 PM
It seems to me we expressed the same view using different words. If you think there are some finer points worth debated, then indeed we'll need a new thread

ElevatorEscapee
04-05-2006, 08:23 PM
So the board isnt really that popular at all?....:hmm:
Does 200 guests=150 bots plus 50 chess players?:hmm:

The 150+ are defamation lawyers working pro-bono!

(Credit for that joke must go to Eclectic, sourced from the shoutbox a month or so back). :D

WhiteElephant
04-05-2006, 09:18 PM
If the majority of those 150-200 are bots then why were there only around 20 guests when I first joined around 1.5 years ago? That is a huge increase in bots.

ElevatorEscapee
04-05-2006, 09:25 PM
Maybe the they put on weight around the "bot-bot" ;)

PHAT
04-05-2006, 10:24 PM
1. If the purpose is to offend, you might sweare (even though, IMHO, it's not very effective).
2. If the purpose is to convince spectators of the debate, it's of a little help.
3. If the purpose is to scare opponent because you feel your own arguments are weak, it might help against some.
4. If the purpose is to provoke an opponent into a silly swearing contest, thus deflecting an attention form the actual argument (as in previous case), it might also help.

Swearing in case 4 might be more effective then in case 3, but it usually backfires

5. To prevail over ones inferiority complex or make him/her to feel better about oneself.

Might help, but I am not an expert in the area, better leave to psychologist/psychiatrist

The list is not, by any means, all-inclusive and only attempts to address swearing at someone, not swearing in general.
1. The big C is hugely effective at offending particular people. The more up themselves OR PC, the greater the effect.
2. It communicates something [see below]
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. :hmm: .... narrr. Most people who swear would rather not have to because the non-swearers snear at them. Getting sneared at - even by deadshits - does nothing for the ego.

5? It is that all. You left out THE three most important.

6. Purpose: to add emphesis, in a common way - in a way that we so easily use "OK" rather than some other word. For example, replace the following words with the word "f#$%ing":
very,
great,
exceedingly,
much,
pretty,
Now thesaurus:
absolutely, acutely, amply, astonishingly, awfully, certainly, considerably, cruel, dearly, decidedly, deeply, eminently, emphatically, exaggeratedly, exceedingly, excessively, extensively, extraordinarily, extremely, greatly, highly, incredibly, indispensably, largely, notably, noticeably, particularly, positively, powerfully, pressingly, pretty, prodigiously, profoundly, really, remarkably, substantially, superlatively, surpassingly, surprisingly, terribly, truly, uncommonly, unusually, vastly, wonderfully

Thus, any abuse garnished with a f#$%ing emphesis on the descriptor is multiplied in its strength.

7. Purpose: to hide a lack of educational opportunity or gab. Would any decent person wish to exposed the swearer aa a school drop-out or a tounge-tied nong.

8. Purpose: vocabular path of least resistance.

I see objection to swearing as elitism without a heart.

Cat
04-05-2006, 10:34 PM
People people. I cannot support an increase in moderater activity.

Each society behaves in its particular way, not in line with its laws and police, but in line with its culture. The culture here is a vicious us Vs them. The us Vs. them is not the problem - it is the viciousness that grates.

Fortunately, Gletsos and his fountain of abuse is all but gone. For my part, I know some BBers have noticed that that has reduced my head kicking behaviour. With Jessop pillowing without a whimper, there only remains Bonbot to muzzle.

Do I think a golden age is at hand? Yes. There have been some spirited exchanges between a few posters in recent months. But take note: they have not degenerated into a fetted brew of pointscoring personal abuse.

These steady changes for the better have not come about by greater law enforcement - moderater activity or bannings. They have come about because of a consistant cultural preasure to "cut it out."

Time for a Bon-fire.

There's a difference between using spirited colloquialisms and delivering abuse. When have you ever called someone a goose, cretin or short stiff? You have often used your mastery of the vernacular to demonstrate your intellectual superiority to KB or BG, but I don't think anyone could accuse you of being abusive. Certainly not the unimaginative name-calling that we have come to expect from the Crash Dummies.

So I think we can easily distinguish the creative loquacious banter of some jovial chums such as ourselves, from the dull, hollow, unimaginative verbal abuse of the Crash Dummies. Maybe the objective measure might be imagination, or lack of. Any demonstration of shallow thinking should be quickly exposed and yellow carded. We could pull them up by their boot laces and force them to use their forebrains.

PHAT
04-05-2006, 11:42 PM
...and force them to use their forebrains.

I do not think that they have that many. You multiplied by 2 when you should have divided 2, for an estimate of what each of them has.

Cat
05-05-2006, 08:55 AM
I do not think that they have that many. You multiplied by 2 when you should have divided 2, for an estimate of what each of them has.

Maybe that's the problem! Too many years of digital thinking and their forebrains have atrophied completely.

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2006, 12:42 PM
It's funny how this thread's been started by the poster with one of the worst records for unprovoked abuse on this BB. Perhaps he should lead by example by posting while refraining from abuse over a period of six months or so and then coming back and say "Look, if I can stop it anyone can".

Abuse is extremely difficult to define and there is often a gradually escalating blur from perceived/implied/direct attacks on someone's ability, intelligence, competence or motives to more straightforward insults. Also, different people perceive different things as abuse - eg is the first sentence in this post abuse or not?

Increases in moderation lead to more work for moderators and more conflict with posters. Therefore moderation won't generally be increased without pressing reason. However, very severe unprovoked abusive attacks, especially on new posters, typically get short shrift from the mods as it is. There should be no need to wrap regular posters in cotton wool.

I have passed on a suggestion for an abuse-free heavily-modded area for serious discussion of Australian chess reform but it has not as yet been adopted.

Brian_Jones
05-05-2006, 01:01 PM
I have passed on a suggestion for an abuse-free heavily-modded area for serious discussion of Australian chess reform but it has not as yet been adopted.

That is because many who want "serious discussion" have already taken their bat and ball to play elsewhere. Many are yet to be convinced that you (and other admins) are really interested in change.

firegoat7
05-05-2006, 01:32 PM
It's funny how this thread's been started by the poster with one of the worst records for unprovoked abuse on this BB.

Well the joke must be on you because nobody else is laughing. To suggest that Cat is an abusive poster is just ludicrous.:hand:



Perhaps he should lead by example by posting while refraining from abuse over a period of six months or so and then coming back and say "Look, if I can stop it anyone can".

Perhaps you have no new ideas. I would suggest that your efforts to run people out of town are next to useless, sherrif.:owned:

cheers Fg7
P.S. boom-boom-boom-ba boom ba boom boom boom ratatata...(now sing along)....I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.:owned:

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2006, 02:18 PM
That is because many who want "serious discussion" have already taken their bat and ball to play elsewhere. Many are yet to be convinced that you (and other admins) are really interested in change.

Well, I'm not an admin, I'm a mod, and as such I cannot create new forums. Only admins can do that.

I fully support having a heavily modded area for the specific purpose discussed. However people have to realise that if we have one it is only a matter of time before the usual suspects disgrace themselves in it and get banned from the area. It is only worth it if posters accept that posters who abuse the privelege would get thrown out of the area for ages straight away. And it is barely even worth talking about until the site owner is interested.

Re your claim that many who want "serious discussion" have left to get it elsewhere:

(i) Who are these many who have left in search of "serious discussion"?
(ii) What "elsewhere" do you refer to?

*firegoat's waste of bandwidth ignored*

antichrist
05-05-2006, 03:43 PM
In such a forum if it could be restricted to members of assocs. affiliated with ACF well then touchy issues can be discussed much more freely without the cloud of a libel suit hanging over us.

Southpaw Jim
05-05-2006, 04:15 PM
In such a forum if it could be restricted to members of assocs. affiliated with ACF well then touchy issues can be discussed much more freely without the cloud of a libel suit hanging over us.

BAAHAHAHAHA.. you stirrer, you :lol: :clap:

Cat
05-05-2006, 09:46 PM
Well the joke must be on you because nobody else is laughing. To suggest that Cat is an abusive poster is just ludicrous.:hand:


Perhaps you have no new ideas. I would suggest that your efforts to run people out of town are next to useless, sherrif.:owned:

cheers Fg7
P.S. boom-boom-boom-ba boom ba boom boom boom ratatata...(now sing along)....I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.:owned:

Thanks David

Cat
05-05-2006, 09:55 PM
*firegoat's waste of bandwidth ignored*

Well why don't you just ignore it, why do you have to tell anyone that you're ignoring it? Why do you have to report your every action, are you so insecure that you cannot ignore somebody without telling them you're ignoring them?

We're all seeking witnesses to our lives, this is the motive behind all our actions. But what's striking about you is this instatiable desire for every detail in your tiny mind to be recognised. Why are you so desperate for us all to be your witnesses Kevin, why do you hurt so much?

PHAT
05-05-2006, 10:07 PM
... Kevin, why do you hurt so much?

Because ulcers never heal.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2006, 01:52 PM
Well why don't you just ignore it, why do you have to tell anyone that you're ignoring it?

To make it clear that it has been seen and considered unworthy of anything but contempt. If I did not do this some idiot may imagine that either I had some other reaction that caused me not to reply, or else that I missed it. Though since you are the only poster that deluded here, perhaps I should just PM you every time I treat firegoat's post this way.


why do you hurt so much?

Oh do I? I had no idea I caused you so much pain. Your skin is clearly far too thin; I suggest you go and see a doctor. :lol:

PHAT
06-05-2006, 03:03 PM
If I did not do this some idiot may imagine that either I had some other reaction that caused me not to reply, or else that I missed it.

So blood what. Nobody gives a stuff what you think of other people. You aren't that important that we hang on your every criticism.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2006, 04:44 PM
So blood what. Nobody gives a stuff what you think of other people. You aren't that important that we hang on your every criticism.

Aaaah, but they might then use their false impression as the basis of a later beat-up.

Of course, such a hysterical response (the needless bolding and size changes and so on) from you to so little suggests you are hanging on my words more than you pretend. Also, Cat frequently criticises me for my views of other posters, so I take it from the above you are asserting he really does not care and you are therefore calling your buddy a liar. :lol:

Cat
06-05-2006, 08:57 PM
To make it clear that it has been seen

Ah so that's it, you want to show everybody you can read. Well look, this is very impressive stuff, maybe we can just take it as read in future? Although there is the slight risk an idiot might slip through thinking you can't read it, I reckon it's a risk worth taking, in order to spare the rest of us a lot of misery. Sounds fair enough?

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2006, 09:08 PM
There's a difference between using spirited colloquialisms and delivering abuse. When have you ever called someone a goose, cretin or short stiff? You have often used your mastery of the vernacular to demonstrate your intellectual superiority to KB or BG, but I don't think anyone could accuse you of being abusive. Certainly not the unimaginative name-calling that we have come to expect from the Crash Dummies.What a load of hypocritical dribble.

He has been abusive to new posters on the main board without provocation and anyone reading the Coffee Lounge can see what a vulgar and abusive individual he is.

If Kevin or I used Matt's so called "mastery of the venacular" against any posters you would quickly condemn us for being abusive.

Any demonstration of shallow thinking should be quickly exposed and yellow carded.In which case consider yourself yellow carded.

Basil
06-05-2006, 10:04 PM
People people. I cannot support an increase in moderater activity...

Matt, why not?

I think you made your point well (in that it was arguable and certainly has merit IMHO), however in the instances of

- your banning (I have no personal opinion either way through lack of facts)
- what to do about Levi

It is clear that rules are required. The equivalent of small country went to fight in your defence regarding the banning, and given that most of the material was subjective as I understand it, the rules are necessary.

Ditto for Levi.

Iterating, your premise has my support, but I'm not yet conviced it is a workable solution.

Cat
07-05-2006, 12:16 AM
What a load of hypocritical dribble.

He has been abusive to new posters on the main board without provocation and anyone reading the Coffee Lounge can see what a vulgar and abusive individual he is.

If Kevin or I used Matt's so called "mastery of the venacular" against any posters you would quickly condemn us for being abusive.
In which case consider yourself yellow carded.

You have no literary skills, Bill, you splurge.

Basil
07-05-2006, 12:25 AM
David

Your post above ...

It appears to be an insult for the sake of it. There is no point relevent to the thread. Bill managed this, supported with facts as he sees them.

IMHO, you have failed.

Cat
07-05-2006, 12:27 AM
David

Your post above ...

It appears to be an insult for the sake of it. There is no point relevent to the thread. Bill managed this, supported with facts as he sees them.

IMHO, you have failed.

It was educational Howard.

PHAT
07-05-2006, 08:28 AM
Bill managed this, supported with facts as he sees them.


Howhard is it ! : you swan in here like Mother Teresa, and start telling us what we already know. In this case, the DOG is playing to his one man audience, you.

Your main problem, which is in in any way a fault of yours, is that you are new here. You do not know the years of BB history. You have come in just as Gletsos had been muzzled by the ACF. He brings everything upon himself, and as a mad dog he has no rights to protection from being shot.

Basil
07-05-2006, 11:51 AM
Have another drink, Matt

Your drivel needs extinguishing or sharpening. As it stands, its just woeful & substandard.

And speaking of audience, I fear you lost 'them' ('it' is correct as audience is singular) days ago.

Kevin Bonham
07-05-2006, 02:43 PM
Ah so that's it, you want to show everybody you can read.

Judging from your totally irrelevant reply, you can't. :hand:

PHAT
07-05-2006, 03:30 PM
Have another drink, Matt

Your drivel needs extinguishing or sharpening. As it stands, its just woeful & substandard.

I would have had to have a first one. Perhps you should concider if "woeful and substandard" is abuse. You answer will help us all know if you are going to be a bot or a good guy.


And speaking of audience, I fear you lost 'them' ('it' is correct as audience is singular) days ago.

Word of warning. Being a grammar and spelling Nazi on any BB in the universe will see you reviled until you leave.

Basil
07-05-2006, 07:07 PM
Matt

You have jumped the gun. I will only correct and appreciate my own grammar etc.. (I wouldn't be siccing a la Firegoat, even though i have ample opportunity to return the complement. I don't seek to correct others - its not a competition, but if it were (subjunctive), I wouldn't win - top 10 perhaps :)

We all have our strengths - for instance I can appreciate the dialogue between you and Cat regarding Genome - good stuff. Interesting

I was merely getting into the spirit of self correction which had started as a bit of fun a few days ago -

geez, why is everyone so damn antsy on this BB?

Conclusion. Your imputation that I'm a grammar nazi is incorrect.

PHAT
07-05-2006, 07:28 PM
geez, why is everyone so damn antsy on this BB?

It is the cultural legacy of having Bilbot and Kevbot among the founding inhabitants. We are close to having killed off the DOG. However, Opium Boy is proving to be made of sterner stuff - denser but slightly more flexable. No matter, we will see him off one day too.

Cat
08-05-2006, 09:50 PM
[Cat, if you don't stop requoting completely irrelevant posts that are far longer than your inane replies I will start deleting posts committing such errors in full].


What exactly did Matt say to deserve a months ban? What was the context, and how was the decision made. I ask these questions Kevin, because you have repeatedly demonstrated personal bias in your language and decision-making and you're hardly in a postion to make judgements about Matt's behaviour.

Cat
08-05-2006, 09:56 PM
Is this the line for which Matt has recieved a months ban?

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2006, 10:01 PM
What exactly did Matt say to deserve a months ban?It has previously been stated in the moderation thread that Sweeney is on a zero tolerance policy. What part of zero tolerance dont you understand.

What was the context, and how was the decision made.There was a complaint made, the moderators discussed it and since it was in direct violation of board rules he was banned.

I ask these questions Kevin, because you have repeatedly demonstrated personal bias in your language and decision-making and you're hardly in a postion to make judgements about Matt's behaviour.Cat because you have repeatedly demonstrated personal bias in your language you're hardly in a postion to make judgements about any Mods behaviour.
You have been a total hypocrite in not condemning Matt for his vile and abusive language on this board and previous boards.

ursogr8
08-05-2006, 10:04 PM
Is this the line for which Matt has recieved a months ban?
No.

Cat
08-05-2006, 10:10 PM
It has previously been stated in the moderation thread that Sweeney is on a zero tolerance policy. What part of zero tolerance dont you understand.

Answer the question blockhead.


There was a complaint made, the moderators discussed it and since it was in direct violation of board rules he was banned.

What was the complaint Einstein? BTW 'moderation' is a totally inappropriate description of your behaviour.


Cat because you have repeatedly demonstrated personal bias in your language you're hardly in a postion to make judgements about any Mods behaviour. You have been a total hypocrite in not condemning Matt for his vile and abusive language on this board and previous boards.

And what vile and abusive behaviour was he called up on? You're absolutely hopeless at answering a question, you should be in the Liberal Party.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2006, 10:18 PM
Answer the question blockhead.You abusive hypocrite.

What was the complaint Einstein? BTW 'moderation' is a totally inappropriate description of your behaviour.Why he was banned is explained in the moderation decisions thread.

And what vile and abusive behaviour was he called up on?Keep evading criticisng his abuse you hypocrite.

You're absolutely hopeless at answering a question, you should be in the Liberal Party.And you are still a hypocrite.

Cat
08-05-2006, 10:28 PM
You abusive hypocrite.
Why he was banned is explained in the moderation decisions thread.
Keep evading criticisng his abuse you hypocrite.
And you are still a hypocrite.

We could tango like this all night couldn't we? me asking a simple and civil question and you venting off. Maybe you should leave it to somebody more capable?

WhiteElephant
08-05-2006, 10:30 PM
Hi Cat,

Matt wrote something like 'Learn to use quotes or die' in capital letters after AC posted one of those confusing quoted posts where you couldn't tell who said what. AC must have complained. This was the so-called threat of violence, or death threat, whatever KB called it. I personally didn't think it warranted a banning.

Bill Gletsos
08-05-2006, 10:35 PM
We could tango like this all night couldn't we? me asking a simple and civil question and you venting off.You were the abusive one, you hypocrite.

Maybe you should leave it to somebody more capable?You delude yourself as usual.

Cat
08-05-2006, 10:48 PM
Hi Cat,

Matt wrote something like 'Learn to use quotes or die' in capital letters after AC posted one of those confusing quoted posts where you couldn't tell who said what. AC must have complained. This was the so-called threat of violence, or death threat, whatever KB called it. I personally didn't think it warranted a banning.

See Bill, thats how you do it!

Thanks WhiteElephant. Well that was obviously a very fair and reasonable decision. Poor A/C must be still coming to terms with the shock, my condolences A/C. I mean there's no other way to read that other than a literal attempt on A/C's life, it's there in black & white.

Maybe we should involve the police, I mean we don't know what this guy's capable of. Suppose I drop a question mark! Anything could happen? This guy is some sort of grammar-nut, obviously went to boarding school and we all know what goes on there!!??***

How does he feel about smilies:D Oops:silenced: We better examine his old posts to build up a profile on this guy. I mean, is he safe to let back on the BB? What if there are children posting, you know how clumsy they are with grammar.

Maybe Bill knows something about this? He's been very quiet of late, he must have been feeling very vulnerable with his shaky sense of diction. It's enough to make you loose sleep at night!

Better off without him i sa y and we can al be slopy with our lngwage in confidense there are no lingual terrorists abroad. I reckon we should proudly rename the Mods as 'Homeland Security' for the BB, protecting our writes to be illiterate at all times. Yeah!

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2006, 11:52 PM
I ask these questions Kevin, because you have repeatedly demonstrated personal bias in your language and decision-making and you're hardly in a postion to make judgements about Matt's behaviour.

That is your opinion (maybe) but you would have a hard time proving that there is any actual bias in my actions as a moderator, whatever you might think of me as a poster. If you think you can prove bias or even go anywhere near doing so, be my guest, but it is very obvious that my treatment of Matt, firegoat and yourself has been far more lenient than if I was letting my biases interfere to any significant degree. I could have banned Matt 50 times if not 100 over the past two years if I had been into banning him for probable breaches as well as clearcut ones.


Matt wrote something like 'Learn to use quotes or die' in capital letters after AC posted one of those confusing quoted posts where you couldn't tell who said what. AC must have complained. This was the so-called threat of violence, or death threat, whatever KB called it. I personally didn't think it warranted a banning.

AC did not complain. The complaint came from a third party.

From a poster with no priors it just would have been deleted probably with a warning. However as previously mentioned half a zillion times Matt is on a zero tolerance policy that will only be reviewed if he behaves himself for several months. He has breached the rules so many times that he has long since forfeited the right to be here. Because he is not willing to show respect for the rules of the board, we are not willing to waste effort cleaning up after him all the time, which is what happens when we are too lenient to him. Also his bans are escalating each time we ban him in the pious hope that he realises that if he does not stop it he will be spending less and less time on here in future. All this has been discussed to death several times before on this board.

Basil
09-05-2006, 12:21 AM
See Bill, thats how you do it!
David, I think you are relying on W/E's recollection (which is actually quite accurate) to argue a point with Bill. The only problem is the dissertation supplied by WE is not the entire quote.

Also I think a point that the mods could make is with your question of "what did he say that got him banned for a month"?, is

I think the salient pointS are that
- he said something that got him banned
- his history got him a timeframe of a month

Other than that - what KB said. They have my full support. Shame though.

Alan Shore
09-05-2006, 01:39 AM
Hey Kevin - learn to play Snake, or die.

:cool:

Gringo
09-05-2006, 02:17 AM
Belthasar, get a T.V. stand - or Cark it:pirate:

WhiteElephant
09-05-2006, 07:43 AM
Apology to AC for assuming he complained. Howard, I tried to be faithful in quoting Matt's post, if I made a slight omission, it was not deliberate. I think I got the gist of it anyway.

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2006, 12:58 PM
Hey Kevin - learn to play Snake, or die.

Is me beating your Snake score more likely than AC learning to quote? :eek:

(Note that I won't even delete Belthasar's post let alone ban him because (i) he is not on ZTP (ii) it's directed solely at me (iii) it is incapable of being taken any way other than jokingly.)

antichrist
09-05-2006, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Is me beating your Snake score more likely than AC learning to quote? :eek:

I did do it properly one day entirely by accident and everyone cheered. The trouble was is that I did not know how I done it.

ElevatorEscapee
09-05-2006, 08:18 PM
[QUOTE=antichrist][QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Is me beating your Snake score more likely than AC learning to quote? :eek:

I did do it properly one day entirely by accident and everyone cheered. The trouble was is that I did not know how I done it.

Maybe inability to quote correctly is a disease, I hope I don't catch it! ;)

PS I am not saying anything about beating or snakes. :silenced:

Basil
10-05-2006, 09:34 PM
Bill is not online?! Should I call the police? An ambulance? I don't like seizmic shifts without notice :)

bergil
10-05-2006, 09:52 PM
Bill is not online?! Should I call the police? An ambulance? I don't like seizmic shifts without notice :)
He would be at his local chess club Ryde Eastwood as usual for a Wednesday night. You can now relax all is right with the world again. ;)

Cat
25-06-2006, 05:19 PM
Matt gets a 2 month ban for what,exactly? It ridiculous, Matt breathes life into this forum, he's one of the most creative contributors and this kind of moderation is killing the forum. If it's for throwing insults then we should all get the same treatment - KB is one of the worse offenders.

Sure Matt was on a zero tolerance policy but where does that end? There's a fine line between moderation and excess and you're tipping across it KB.

I think I'll be checking out for some time. The atmosphere in here is getting very stale and there is too much expressed sensitivity to permit reasoned debate. There are better things out there, I've been living in kafkaland for too long. Cheers to all!

Cat.

Basil
25-06-2006, 05:34 PM
Hi David

With respect, I don't think you linked any two premises.


Matt ... he's one of the most creative contributors and this kind of moderation is killing the forum.
Yes, he's creative and a contributor, but this has nothing to do with the appropriatness of the ban.


If it's for throwing insults then we should all get the same treatment - KB is one of the worse offenders.
Matt is on zero tolerance [which you acknowlege in the next para]. So Matt's ban is for his behaviour whilst on zero tolerance. Its a simple and finite position. If you think Kevin or anyone else should receive the treatment, by all means make you case, but Matt's is done and dusted.


The atmosphere in here is getting very stale and there is too much expressed sensitivity to permit reasoned debate.
Had Matt not been banned, would you say the air is stale? Presuming yes, would you care to suggest the root of the staleness. If you point to the mods, could you cite some examples? If you point elsewhere, then I suggest this point has nothing to do with this thread.

From memory, the last ban was against AO for 24 hours for making a dick of himself.
Prior to that I think it was me [CL restriction] for my 1/2 hour madness.
Hardly heavy handed stuff.

Don't be away too long.
Cheers
Howard

Bill Gletsos
25-06-2006, 05:50 PM
Matt gets a 2 month ban for what,exactly? It ridiculous, Matt breathes life into this forum, he's one of the most creative contributors and this kind of moderation is killing the forum. If it's for throwing insults then we should all get the same treatment - KB is one of the worse offenders.Refer post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108594&postcount=57. He called another poster a lying xxx.

Sure Matt was on a zero tolerance policy but where does that end? There's a fine line between moderation and excess and you're tipping across it KB.Zero tolerance ends when he can demonstrate he can follow the BB rules for an extended period of time. So far he hasnt gone close to doing so.

I think I'll be checking out for some time.So long and thanks for all the fish.

The atmosphere in here is getting very stale and there is too much expressed sensitivity to permit reasoned debate.But it now will soon freshen up.

There are better things out there, I've been living in kafkaland for too long.If you dont like Queensland then you can always move elsewhere.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2006, 06:14 PM
The zero tolerance policy remains until Matt goes 3 months on the forum while not banned without breaking the rules. If he does that we'll rethink it. That would probably involve it being scaled back or removed in some fashion, unless there was some unusual reason to keep it.

I actually think the forum is better when the main hotheads are either off it or relatively quiet (although this is no reason to ban anyone while they are within the rules even if they're being a twit). It may not be as active in postcount terms but people seem to actually talk about chess!

Garvinator
25-06-2006, 06:33 PM
If you dont like Queensland then you can always move elsewhere.
Do you suggest Sydney ;)

antichrist
25-06-2006, 06:33 PM
The zero tolerance policy remains until Matt goes 3 months on the forum while not banned without breaking the rules. If he does that we'll rethink it. That would probably involve it being scaled back or removed in some fashion, unless there was some unusual reason to keep it.

I actually think the forum is better when the main hotheads are either off it or relatively quiet (although this is no reason to ban anyone while they are within the rules even if they're being a twit). It may not be as active in postcount terms but people seem to actually talk about chess!

KB, I hope you are not referring to me in above para - speak about yourself first. You are on the nose with as many people as myself. Take that mate. But I still love youse all.

Bill Gletsos
25-06-2006, 06:34 PM
Do you suggest Sydney ;)I was thinking more along the lines of the land of hope and glory. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2006, 06:39 PM
KB, I hope you are not referring to me in above para - speak about yourself first.

No I am not referring to you. You are a rather eccentric poster with a high percentage of worthless babble in your output and a hopeless inability to stay on topic but you are not a hothead in the style of Matt, Cat and firegoat7.


You are on the nose with as many people as myself. Take that mate.

Do I take it before or after Manhattan? With all due respect to my ability to generate enemies, I strongly suspect that's not true. :lol:

Basil
25-06-2006, 06:41 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of the land of hope and glory. :owned:

:eek:

:D

:cool:

:clap:

Have a tenner

Cat
25-06-2006, 09:21 PM
Refer post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=108594&postcount=57. He called another poster a lying xxx.
Zero tolerance ends when he can demonstrate he can follow the BB rules for an extended period of time. So far he hasnt gone close to doing so.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
But it now will soon freshen up.
If you dont like Queensland then you can always move elsewhere.


Booo!

bergil
25-06-2006, 09:22 PM
Booo!
Haven't you left already? :lol:

Cat
25-06-2006, 10:21 PM
Haven't you left already? :lol:


Nearly

bergil
25-06-2006, 10:24 PM
Nearly
Promises promises :lol:

four four two
25-06-2006, 10:30 PM
Nearly

He has come again...sorry couldnt resist.:lol:

antichrist
25-06-2006, 10:34 PM
He has come again...sorry couldnt resist.:lol:


What dribbling?

Starter is not around.

Metro
13-04-2008, 04:09 PM
I had a look for and have not found a place which states swear words which are banned in this site.

I read the bs word recently in a post by Shirty.Acceptable?
In anycase,I would like to see a list of banned words(Of course asterisks can be used to cover them).
Thanks.

eclectic
13-04-2008, 04:13 PM
In anycase,I would like to see a list of banned words(Of course asterisks can be used to cover them).
Thanks.

if they are covered in asterisks how will one know what the swear words are so that one can vociferously object to them?

:rolleyes:

Rincewind
13-04-2008, 04:13 PM
I had a look for and have not found a place which states swear words which are banned in this site.

I read the bs word recently in a post by Shirty.Acceptable?
In anycase,I would like to see a list of banned words(Of course asterisks can be used to cover them).
Thanks.

There is no explicit list of banned words other than those in the censor lists which are almost exclusively used to avoid people posting links to dubious sites.

The site rules say "No swearing or excessive crudity. Some latitude is shown in mild cases but there is a low tolerance for crude/vulgar abuse towards other posters, particularly those who are relatively new to the board."

If there is a particular post which offends you are encouraged to flag it for moderation via the normal mechanism.

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2008, 04:58 PM
I had a look for and have not found a place which states swear words which are banned in this site.

I read the bs word recently in a post by Shirty.Acceptable?

I'm guessing you mean post 102 on ACF September Ratings 2007. I stayed out of that one since I'd been involved in a bit of aggro on that thread myself.


In anycase,I would like to see a list of banned words(Of course asterisks can be used to cover them).

On the main board it's pretty safe to assume the f-word and the c-word are always out - we will delete those more or less irrespective of context and we will also often delete abbreviated versions of them (but that depends on context). In the Coffee Lounge they are OK if not gratuitous or used abusively towards another poster.

Beyond that it often has more to do with what is conveyed than the words used, and also whether or not a term is used abusively.