PDA

View Full Version : ACF not associated with this bb?



Trent Parker
19-04-2004, 06:39 PM
The ACF has ended any association with the ChessKit Bulletin Board.

This quote is from the recent ACF Newsletter.

I'm not sure what the advantages and or disadvantages of being associated with this bulletin board is...

But why have the ACF "ended any association with the ChessKit BB"? Just curious.

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 06:44 PM
This quote is from the recent ACF Newsletter.
I'm not sure what the advantages and or disadvantages of being associated with this bulletin board is...
But why have the ACF "ended any association with the ChessKit BB"? Just curious.

disclaimer- i am not a chesskit or acf council member, but i think i can give the answer.

tparker- if you remember back to when we used the yabb board, there was some discussion regarding legal liabilities for the acf from what was posted on the yabb board. Chesskit offered to have this board for our use and that the acf would have no association with this board. Therefore the acf cannot be held legally liable for anything posted here.

this was a point that i tried to tell arosar- but he responded that i should get a goosemaster norm for suggesting that the acf has no role or responsibilities here. :hmm: :uhoh: who is in line for a second goosemaster norm now hey :whistle: :clap:

Kerry Stead
19-04-2004, 06:47 PM
I thought it was simply a legal responsibilty rather than removing any association with it ... but then again I had to miss the ACF Council meeting, so the wording in the minutes and what the meeting actually decided may be two different things.

chesslover
19-04-2004, 06:49 PM
how come I cannot look at the ACF Bulletins from my PC???

Where are the links gone :confused: :confused:

arosar
19-04-2004, 07:00 PM
this was a point that i tried to tell arosar- but he responded that i should get a goosemaster norm for suggesting that the acf has no role or responsibilities here. :hmm: :uhoh: who is in line for a second goosemaster norm now hey :whistle: :clap:

I understand the point you're trying to make - but your response had no immediate connection to Barry's question (which is what you actually responded to). Barry simply asked if the column in question was already available in the 'Columns' link of auschess.org.au. There was no need for you to show off your know-how about liabilities between CK or ACF, etc...etc...

AR

Rincewind
19-04-2004, 07:05 PM
I understand the point you're trying to make - but your response had no immediate connection to Barry's question (which is what you actually responded to). Barry simply asked if the column in question was already available in the 'Columns' link of auschess.org.au. There was no need for you to show off your know-how about liabilities between CK or ACF, etc...etc...

Are you mistaking me for Trent now? or perhaps you have uncovered our cunning plan of swapping logins without the rest of the board noticing. ;)

Trent Parker
19-04-2004, 07:14 PM
I understand the point you're trying to make - but your response had no immediate connection to Barry's question (which is what you actually responded to). Barry simply asked if the column in question was already available in the 'Columns' link of auschess.org.au. There was no need for you to show off your know-how about liabilities between CK or ACF, etc...etc...

AR

I do not actually use the ACF link. gg's has interpreted the question correctly.


Are you mistaking me for Trent now? or perhaps you have uncovered our cunning plan of swapping logins without the rest of the board noticing.

:uhoh: :lol:

chesslover
19-04-2004, 07:17 PM
. Barry simply asked if the column in question was already available in the 'Columns' link of auschess.org.au. AR

I went to the columns link in the ACF and there is nothing there???? How do you access the ACF bulletins??????? :confused:

Alan Shore
19-04-2004, 07:46 PM
The ACF has ended any association with the ChessKit Bulletin Board.

Oh well, it doesn't mean anything in the larger scheme of things. It is a little curious but I think the ACF would want to avoid any possible legal liabilities after the Depesquale thing. Could also be that johnny on here that was threatening lawsuits *cough* :hand:

jay_vee
19-04-2004, 08:41 PM
I went to the columns link in the ACF and there is nothing there???? How do you access the ACF bulletins??????? :confused:

Try this:

http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfbt.htm

It's the "Aussie News" link in Sections

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 08:46 PM
I went to the columns link in the ACF and there is nothing there???? How do you access the ACF bulletins??????? :confused:
Why aren't you subscribed to the ACF bulletin.
That way you get it emailed to you.

Garvinator
19-04-2004, 09:55 PM
Why aren't you subscribed to the ACF bulletin.
That way you get it emailed to you.
cause then it would be easier to work out who cl is :whistle:

arosar
20-04-2004, 09:36 AM
cause then it would be easier to work out who cl is :whistle:

No it wouldn't.

AR

Lucena
20-04-2004, 03:46 PM
No it wouldn't.

AR

it wouldn't unless it was an address whose owner was known.

skip to my lou
21-04-2004, 02:47 PM
I have no idea what that line means in the bulletin.

I never knew ACF was legally responsible..

Apparently even linking to this BB is bad.

Don't know how they came to that conclusion in that meeting.

paulb has resigned.

starter and jenni were offered position as moderator.

starter declined due to lack of time.

jenni has accepted and is now a moderator.

PHAT
21-04-2004, 05:25 PM
:eek:

PHAT
21-04-2004, 05:28 PM
Now that this BB has no feeder web site. It is in danger of stagnation. I suggest we all send this BB web address to everyone we know (in chess) so that it maintains some visibility.

arosar
21-04-2004, 05:34 PM
jenni has accepted and is now a moderator.

Oh no! I gotta watch meself now.

Anyways, K, you been following DB GT man?

AR

jenni
21-04-2004, 05:46 PM
Oh no! I gotta watch meself now.



AR
:D

chesslover
21-04-2004, 06:41 PM
paulb has resigned.



why did paul resign?????????? :confused:

chesslover
21-04-2004, 06:42 PM
Now that this BB has no feeder web site. It is in danger of stagnation. I suggest we all send this BB web address to everyone we know (in chess) so that it maintains some visibility.

yes

chesslover
21-04-2004, 06:45 PM
:D

for people in this BB like me who have only met you occasionally on interstate events can you introduce yourself. Most have met Paul and Barry and kevin has been a very frequent poster in all the other BBs

diu lei
21-04-2004, 06:48 PM
why did paul resign?????????? :confused:
Because gareth set his avatar as your ugly face.

Bill Gletsos
21-04-2004, 07:41 PM
Now that this BB has no feeder web site. It is in danger of stagnation. I suggest we all send this BB web address to everyone we know (in chess) so that it maintains some visibility.
This BB is still listed on the main ACF web page.

skip to my lou
21-04-2004, 07:42 PM
This BB is still listed on the main ACF web page.

According to paulb's PM, it will be taken off soon.

Bill Gletsos
21-04-2004, 07:47 PM
According to paulb's PM, it will be taken off soon.
Personally I dont see why it needs to be removed.

We have many links on the ACF web site with which the ACF has no association.

skip to my lou
21-04-2004, 07:49 PM
Personally I dont see why it needs to be removed.

We have many links on the ACF web site with which the ACF has no association.
I made the same point to both George and Paul and I still have recieved no reply.

Apparently the ACF council had done some voting at doeberl.

Bill Gletsos
21-04-2004, 07:59 PM
I made the same point to both George and Paul and I still have recieved no reply.

Apparently the ACF council had done some voting at doeberl.
I dont recall any discussion regarding removing the link.

skip to my lou
21-04-2004, 08:06 PM
Well paul didn't specifically say that removing the link was discussed.

But he said that removing any association with CK was voted by ACF and said he will be removing the link to the forum but will be happy to link to other parts of chesskit, so I assume it is an ACF decision and not a decision by paul alone.

jenni
21-04-2004, 08:29 PM
for people in this BB like me who have only met you occasionally on interstate events can you introduce yourself. Most have met Paul and Barry and kevin has been a very frequent poster in all the other BBs

See welcome new members. I have been posting for years actually, including the various old BBs

ursogr8
22-04-2004, 07:55 AM
Personally I dont see why it needs to be removed.

We have many links on the ACF web site with which the ACF has no association.

If I understand this issue correctly, enough ACF voters have gone weak at the knees from Bulletin Board postings of individuals such as Kerry Stead, Jenny Oliver, Ian Rogers, Barry Cox, Ian Rout, Shaun Press, Kevin Bonham, Robert Jamieson, Bill Gletsos, and many more (sorry guys...this is not a full roll-call of all those who make great BB contributions) and have decided to pull a pin.

So, Bill, first step, who do you think voted against us?

starter

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 01:10 PM
If I understand this issue correctly, enough ACF voters have gone weak at the knees from Bulletin Board postings of individuals such as Kerry Stead, Jenny Oliver, Ian Rogers, Barry Cox, Ian Rout, Shaun Press, Kevin Bonham, Robert Jamieson, Bill Gletsos, and many more (sorry guys...this is not a full roll-call of all those who make great BB contributions) and have decided to pull a pin.

So, Bill, first step, who do you think voted against us?

starter
The vote was unanimous.

However the actual wording of the motion passed was "that the ACF confirms that it has no legal responsibility for the Chesskit forum Bulletin Board, and that be communicated to Chesskit"

ursogr8
22-04-2004, 02:14 PM
The vote was unanimous.

However the actual wording of the motion passed was "that the ACF confirms that it has no legal responsibility for the Chesskit forum Bulletin Board, and that be communicated to Chesskit"

That is a reasonable enough motion from my view from my view, given the long thread in January (et al) that discussed ACF concerns about liability.
The motion is a probable quarantine from future liability.

In passing, it might cause us to reflect on three current threads
> 1-1 with your (NSW) Prez
>> Olympiad selections
>>> Rating system explanations.
I leave it to others to comment if there are legal risks in these three threads.

Thus it has become evident that the chess community divides into

*those individuals who believe issues are enhanced by talking about them, even though there is a tendency for some of us to rabbit-on on hobby horses. That is, US, on the bulletin board.

** other individuals in high places in chess administration who cannot be bothered justifying their decisions. As a consequence they try to choke off the visibility of debate by implementing the contrivance of a legal quarantine from the debate.

The solution was first identified by Matthew Sweeney.
(My paraphrasing is that) We systematically bombard Newsletter editors such as http://www.chessvictoria.com/CVnews_0(4)1.htm
with advice of our existence,
and ask that their newsletter display the link to
this bulletin board.
I would like 5 of us to volunteer to do this today to get the ball started.
No standard wording please; in your own style.

starter

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 02:34 PM
That is a reasonable enough motion from my view from my view, given the long thread in January (et al) that discussed ACF concerns about liability.
The motion is a probable quarantine from future liability.

In passing, it might cause us to reflect on three current threads
> 1-1 with your (NSW) Prez
>> Olympiad selections
>>> Rating system explanations.
I leave it to others to comment if there are legal risks in these three threads.

Thus it has become evident that the chess community divides into

*those individuals who believe issues are enhanced by talking about them, even though there is a tendency for some of us to rabbit-on on hobby horses. That is, US, on the bulletin board.

** other individuals in high places in chess administration who cannot be bothered justifying their decisions. As a consequence they try to choke off the visibility of debate by implementing the contrivance of a legal quarantine from the debate.
I'm not sure that that is the actual case.
I Suspect many just dont see the need to post on a BB.
If people dont like decisons they can always ask them at their associations AGM.

After all you dont find the directors of companies answering questions on Bulletin Boards. They have AGM's for that.

arosar
22-04-2004, 02:42 PM
I leave it to others to comment if there are legal risks in these three threads.

What legal risks? I swear some of youse blokes have such wild imaginations you know.


** other individuals in high places in chess administration who cannot be bothered justifying their decisions. As a consequence they try to choke off the visibility of debate by implementing the contrivance of a legal quarantine from the debate.

Mate the bas.tards are just lookin' after their own butt.s. THat's fair enough ain't it? So long as they don't harp on tellin' us we CAN'T do things, I'm sweet.


I would like 5 of us to volunteer to do this today to get the ball started.
No standard wording please; in your own style.

Alrighty mate, what's the name of that bloke down in Mexico you want us to email?

AR

Garvinator
22-04-2004, 02:54 PM
>> Olympiad selections


ill have a go at this one as I have thought about it before. Lets say that most of us on here say that six or seven players are certainities for olympiad selections. Then the five official selectors decide to select one player from outside our unofficial list.

The player that was omitted from the official list but included on the bb list might feel like their selection was not right cause (in their opinion) the majority of posters/people believed that they should have been selected and gave clear and good reasons why. Armed with this written information, not non selected player might feel the need to resort to legal action.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2004, 03:30 PM
ill have a go at this one as I have thought about it before. Lets say that most of us on here say that six or seven players are certainities for olympiad selections. Then the five official selectors decide to select one player from outside our unofficial list.

The player that was omitted from the official list but included on the bb list might feel like their selection was not right cause (in their opinion) the majority of posters/people believed that they should have been selected and gave clear and good reasons why. Armed with this written information, not non selected player might feel the need to resort to legal action.

This is not a concern.

Firstly the player has to appeal to the ACF. Only if their appeal is rejected would they be in a position to go to court.

Secondly while they might get inspiration from an argument made on here, the fact that an argument has been made on here, and the number of posters it has been made by, would be legally utterly irrelevant whether this board was published by ACF or not. The comments are just opinions, that they appeared here would probably not even be admissable, unless they were made by an official in an official capacity.

The overriding concern of the Council by far is defamation.

A secondary concern is that some of the antics on the BB when it was ACF-run were not good for ACF's reputation.

As Bill comments, Council has made no decision regarding linkage, it is up to Paul's discretion.

I believe strongly that this board should be linked from the ACF site or the ACF weekly bulletin, with an appropriate disclaimer if necessary. It is good for Australian chess to have as many people as possible aware of it. Without it, important debate will gradually drift back to the weekly Bulletins (which was extremely unwieldy - remember the ratings debate fiasco) or else disappear entirely. It is true that a very high percentage of debate here is rubbish but that's the same everywhere on the net.

Paul resigned because he is busy with other things.

I'm personally comfortable with the current arrangement. We may have to work on publicity but, most importantly, all should remember that this is now a 100% private board. This applies particularly to problem posters whose antics may have been considered acceptable on the old ACF BBs - if you get yourselves banned here for being stupid, please remember that you no longer have any political recourse, so think before you post. :doh:

arosar
22-04-2004, 03:43 PM
Now that we no longer have anything to do with the ACF, then we should remove all moderation powers from Baz, KB, and jenni. This board should be a free-for-all. Anything goes. C'mon! We should be subject only to the CK mob.

AR

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 04:00 PM
Now that we no longer have anything to do with the ACF, then we should remove all moderation powers from Baz, KB, and jenni. This board should be a free-for-all. Anything goes. C'mon! We should be subject only to the CK mob.

AR
The point is you goose it wouldnt be a free for all at all.
More likely than not your swear word filled posts along with some others on this BB would quickly find themsleves banned by the CK mob. :whistle:

The current situation with the moderators works fine.
Lets leave it at that.

arosar
22-04-2004, 04:34 PM
Well, now that the ACF has decided to sever ties, it's hard to see how to maintain the current arrangement. As I understand it, this cordon sanitaire around 'Australian Chess' relied on ACF patronage. That's why CK agreed to our own bunch of moderators.

See, we're completely f**ked.

AR

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2004, 04:39 PM
Well, now that the ACF has decided to sever ties, it's hard to see how to maintain the current arrangement. As I understand it, this cordon sanitaire around 'Australian Chess' relied on ACF patronage. That's why CK agreed to our own bunch of moderators.

See, we're completely f**ked.

AR
I disagree.
After all Jeo just made jenni a moderator to repalce paulb.

arosar
22-04-2004, 04:46 PM
Your optimism is a surprise Bill - especially on account of your run-in with the CK mob in the New Year. I hope you are correct. We pray for your optimism.

AR

diu lei
22-04-2004, 05:10 PM
Your optimism is a surprise Bill - especially on account of your run-in with the CK mob in the New Year. I hope you are correct. We pray for your optimism.

AR
I never knew ACF was legally responsible..
Now if it was never legally responsible, what the hell is the difference between before ACF had their meeting and now?


jenni has accepted and is now a moderator.
Obviously the "CK Mob" as you put it, have no intention to interfere.

:owned:

ursogr8
22-04-2004, 05:14 PM
Your optimism is a surprise Bill - especially on account of your run-in with the CK mob in the New Year. I hope you are correct. We pray for your optimism.

AR

I think Bill's right to be optimistic.
K. is a good bloke; (it is only his dog that is a bit unpredictable).
And G. gone to small font to match his profile.
So, we are on a sound footing so long as we tackle the renewal issue that Matt posted on.


starter

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2004, 07:10 PM
Well, now that the ACF has decided to sever ties, it's hard to see how to maintain the current arrangement. As I understand it, this cordon sanitaire around 'Australian Chess' relied on ACF patronage.

Let's just say that if someone goes mindlessly provoking the admins and gets banned for it, I'll regard that as an act of self-inflicted stupidity.

It may be that there is no real change from the situation before but I'll have a chat to Paul to see if there is anything I'm not picking up here.

paulb
24-04-2004, 03:11 PM
The ACF council has voted unanimously to confirm that it has no legal responsibility for this bulletin board. As part of this, I am cutting any ties between the ACF and the Bulletin Board. I will not link directly to the board, for example. This is simply to avoid any legal ambiguity in the matter. (In law, what you say may not be decisive)

Why? I argued at the ACF workshop that there was no advantage to the ACF in running a bulletin board and plenty of disadvantages. Disadvantages include the being sued or being embarrassed by remarks posted on boards.

Please note that I am not claiming the bulletin boards are not useful: of course they are. I simply say it is not in the ACF's interests to run one or take responsibility for one. (It might be different if there were no BBs around, but there are plenty)

I've conveyed this information to Jeo along with best wishes for the future of his various projects. Please note that the decision is in no way a criticism of ChessKit; I still hope to co-operate with ChessKit over various things in future. But not the BB.

xxx

Also, I've resigned as moderator for two reasons. First and foremost, I lack the time to do the job properly. Better to get someone else who can do it properly. Second, having an ACF VP act as moderator here might wrongly convey the impression that this is an ACF board.

cheers - paulb

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2004, 03:44 PM
I will not link directly to the board, for example. This is simply to avoid any legal ambiguity in the matter. (In law, what you say may not be decisive)

Can't it be linked with a disclaimer? I'd assume that under such circumstances, and provided the link was taken down if anyone complained because of a specific incident, the possibility of being sued over a link to it really would be negligible. Sounds a lot like innocent publication to me, just as if the ACF were to be discovered to be linking to some chess club's webpage that contained defamatory content. But I'm no expert.

I do believe there is an advantage to the ACF in having the board well known within the chess community, just so long as it is completely clear that it is not an ACF board.

Garvinator
24-04-2004, 04:52 PM
Why? I argued at the ACF workshop that there was no advantage to the ACF in running a bulletin board and plenty of disadvantages. Disadvantages include the being sued or being embarrassed by remarks posted on boards.

No advantages, sorry paul, cant agree with you here. One of the biggest issues the acf has in relation to the ordinary chess folk is relevance and transparency. As has been raised before, the acf is seen by the ordinary chess folk as elitist. this perception may not be correct, but it is the perception.

This bb when linked with the acf board, allows the ordinary folk to ask questions about how things are run in relation to any issue. I can say for certain that without this board, i would not be aware of about 99% of the stuff I am aware of now.

I think these issues of public chess information about how ratings are derived etc are more important than concerns of legal issues. As Kevin has said, a clear cut disclaimer is good enough. Paul, you said that having yourself as acf vp and then moderator could give rise to concerns that this is an acf bb, well then the same point would have to apply to kevin as a moderator and acf council member.

Alan Shore
24-04-2004, 04:59 PM
Can't it be linked with a disclaimer? I'd assume that under such circumstances, and provided the link was taken down if anyone complained because of a specific incident, the possibility of being sued over a link to it really would be negligible. Sounds a lot like innocent publication to me, just as if the ACF were to be discovered to be linking to some chess club's webpage that contained defamatory content. But I'm no expert.

I do believe there is an advantage to the ACF in having the board well known within the chess community, just so long as it is completely clear that it is not an ACF board.

Exactly, it baffled me why you needed to completely disassociate with the BB rather than simply have a legal disclaimer on the site.. they're extremely common, even on staff pages at my university there's a disclaimer that the university is no legally responsible for the contents of the staff member's page.

PHAT
24-04-2004, 07:30 PM
I think I might start an E-mail attack on every member of the ACF council. We can send them shitloads of huge files from lots of Yahoo, Hotmail et cetera email address accounts. This "ACF page No link to Chesskit" policy is totally unacceptable. I will send 10Mb+ to every one of them every day until this stupidy is reversed. President:

This is an edited old list of Council:


George Howard georgeshoward@hotmail.com
Treasurer: Norm Greenwood normg@bigpond.com
Webmaster: Paul Broekhuyse broekhuysep@bigpond.com
FIDE Ratings Officer: Gary Bekker gbekker@mira.net
National Ratings Officer: Bill Gletsos 76702.3153@compuserve.com
Tournament Coordinator:Michael Baron michael_baron@hotmail.com
Grand Prix Supervisor: David Cordover cordover@chessworld.com.au
Publicity Officer: Ashley Rambukwella arambuk@ozemail.com.au
Public Officer: Denis Jessop denis.jessop@netspeed.com.au
Director of Coaching: David Cordover cordover@chessworld.com.au
Junior Selection Coord: Kerry Stead kerrys@ihug.com.au

Corporate Relations: Peter Wallman peter.wallman@springglobal.com
FIDE Delegate: Phil Viner vinerp@matp.newsltd.com.au

Medals Coordinator: Gary Wastell gwastell@netspace.net.au

Bill Gletsos
24-04-2004, 07:49 PM
I think I might start an E-mail attack on every member of the ACF council. We can send them shitloads of huge files from lots of Yahoo, Hotmail et cetera email address accounts. This "ACF page No link to Chesskit" policy is totally unacceptable. I will send 10Mb+ to every one of them every day until this stupidy is reversed.
Hey Matt you moron.
Did you not read Paul's post.
It is his decision not to link from the ACF web page not the ACF Councils.
The only decision the Counil took was the motion I posted previously.

As for sending shitloads of unsolicitated email to people, you need to be careful or you could find yourself in trouble due to new spam laws.
Also a number of the people you mention are not Council members.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2004, 08:18 PM
This is an edited old list of Council:

Oh no it isn't. :doh:

Those people are/were the exec + other officebearers.

Not all Councillors are officebearers and not all officebearers are Councillors.

The plot thickens.

PHAT
25-04-2004, 07:29 AM
Hey Matt you moron.
Did you not read Paul's post.
It is his decision not to link from the ACF web page not the ACF Councils.
The only decision the Counil took was the motion I posted previously.


Is that right. But, PB says:


The ACF council has voted unanimously to confirm that it has no legal responsibility for this bulletin board. As part of this, I am cutting any ties between the ACF and the Bulletin Board. I will not link directly to the board, for example.

Let's assume the above quote is a true account - I believe it is. So what does "... as art of this [decission] ..." mean? You said previously that:


This BB is still listed on the main ACF web page.

If by this you are implying that the BB will retain a link from the ACF page, clearly, Bill, you and council don't have a f.....g clue what is going on!

ursogr8
25-04-2004, 10:04 AM
Hey Matt you moron.
Did you not read Paul's post.
It is his decision not to link from the ACF web page not the ACF Councils.
The only decision the Counil took was the motion I posted previously.



Bill

I think there is some merit in Matt's idea.
I would anticipate that the ACF whatever-they-are called members would be the ones who could direct that a link exist between the ACF web-page and CK's BB. So they are the ones we want to influence/convince.

Not sure about Matt's tactic though; 10Mb of annoyance. I think we should be softer and just ask them nicely to make sure the link is in place. I will be doing this.

starter

Rincewind
25-04-2004, 11:35 AM
Not sure about Matt's tactic though; 10Mb of annoyance. I think we should be softer and just ask them nicely to make sure the link is in place. I will be doing this.

Good idea, Trev.

As a NSWCA member, who should I be talking to? ;)

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2004, 01:44 PM
Good idea, Trev.

As a NSWCA member, who should I be talking to? ;)
Me. ;)

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2004, 01:45 PM
Is that right. But, PB says:



Let's assume the above quote is a true account - I believe it is. So what does "... as art of this [decission] ..." mean? You said previously that:



If by this you are implying that the BB will retain a link from the ACF page, clearly, Bill, you and council don't have a f.....g clue what is going on!
What I was saying was the Council made no decision to remove the link.
Any such decision was Paul's alone.

ursogr8
25-04-2004, 05:05 PM
Good idea, Trev.

As a NSWCA member, who should I be talking to? ;)

Baz

My intention is the same as the speculated idea of Matt. Just e-mail each of these in Matt's list; and say nicely
a) the chess community gains a lot from discussion of chess topics
b) a link from the ACF web-site should be in place to direct interested parties to where the best discussion takes place...on the CK BB
c) please ensure it continiues.

I aim one per day to each on the list. Got nothing to do with being a NSWCA member.

regards
starter

Garvinator
25-04-2004, 05:08 PM
Baz

My intention is the same as the speculated idea of Matt. Just e-mail each of these in Matt's list; and say nicely
a) the chess community gains a lot from discussion of chess topics
b) a link from the ACF web-site should be in place to direct interested parties to where the best discussion takes place...on the CK BB
c) please ensure it continiues.

I aim one per day to each on the list. Got nothing to do with being a NSWCA member.

regards
starter

starter, i would recommend you use a more correct list than the one matt has published.

Bill Gletsos
25-04-2004, 05:09 PM
Baz

My intention is the same as the speculated idea of Matt. Just e-mail each of these in Matt's list; and say nicely
a) the chess community gains a lot from discussion of chess topics
b) a link from the ACF web-site should be in place to direct interested parties to where the best discussion takes place...on the CK BB
c) please ensure it continiues.

I aim one per day to each on the list. Got nothing to do with being a NSWCA member.

regards
starter
Start sending unsolicited emails one per day and you might get accused of spam.
Perhaps a more intelligent approach would be to first email paulb.
It was after all his decision.

Rincewind
25-04-2004, 05:36 PM
Start sending unsolicited emails one per day and you might get accused of spam.
Perhaps a more intelligent approach would be to first email paulb.
It was after all his decision.

I objective, so many strategies to choose from.

My thinking was for everyone to approach their state assoc., reps and get the issue of the link on the next ACF council agenda. The council could then thell Paul that they think the benefits of the link outweigh the small risk.

PHAT
25-04-2004, 06:18 PM
The ACF executive can make directives ad hoc. They have the power to do so and George Howard and Garry Wastel et al. can do a quick email vote and tell PaulB to keep/put the link on. Easy peasy, But will it happen? The ACF might show that it has the chess community as its priority and just do what has to be done. On the other hand, it might just do nothing.

Nice little test, eh.

Gandalf
26-04-2004, 01:02 AM
I think Bill's right to be optimistic.
K. is a good bloke; (it is only his dog that is a bit unpredictable).
And G. gone to small font to match his profile.
So, we are on a sound footing so long as we tackle the renewal issue that Matt posted on.


starter
Just to clarify, I'm here working on the site and forum almost as frequently as Jeo, and will be here even more frequently as he heads off to concentrate on his other work. My relatively scant posting habits are no reflection of what I see and do not see in the forum.

As for policy changes, I will not be making any for some time. We still aim at making ChessKit a site for development of younger chess players (as was the original plan) and eventually I'll have to put a stop to the language filter evasion. For now, though, I'll continue to let it pass. Please try not to be excessive, since there will be more and more children here amongst you. We wouldn't want to let their parents think badly of chess players, would we? :)

I share your concerns with the severing of links from ACF, since that was our primary contact with the Australian Chess Community. I won't give my opinion on the matter, but if anyone feels they can help by publicising this site and forum amongst the community we would be very grateful. Your influence with our peers is much greater than my own.

PHAT
26-04-2004, 06:46 AM
Gander,

If you start messing with filters, I will explode. I will make it my business to find/make another BB and take the whole current BB population there. You will not have adult contributors on CHESSKIT.COM. You are already proving to be a <bad> manager, and you will become a loser too. :hand:

Rincewind
26-04-2004, 11:22 AM
If you start messing with filters, I will explode. I will make it my business to find/make another BB and take the whole current BB population there. You will not have adult contributors on CHESSKIT.COM. You are already proving to be a <bad> manager, and you will become a loser too. :hand:

I would suggest that ChessKit is providing a free service and there is nothing controversal about introducing filters to dis/encourage any demographic. If you believe there is a demographic which is losing out, start up a BB and let people vote with their browsers.

Blitzer
26-04-2004, 11:39 AM
By all means let Swiney make his own BB-- let's hope he stays there.....

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2004, 04:41 PM
If you start messing with filters, I will explode. I will make it my business to find/make another BB and take the whole current BB population there. You will not have adult contributors on CHESSKIT.COM.

If you leave over an issue as petty as that (unless it's really excessive) I won't follow you and I can think of several others who I'm pretty sure won't either. Actually I doubt I'd ever show my head on a BB run by you unless you ran it an official (and hence accountable) capacity. Toning down the language in order to provide an environment which all parents can feel comfortable allowing junior contributors on seems reasonable to me.

For the record I'm already moderating just a few of the more gratuitous cases of language filter evasion.

chesslover
26-04-2004, 05:05 PM
If you leave over an issue as petty as that (unless it's really excessive) I won't follow you and I can think of several others who I'm pretty sure won't either. Actually I doubt I'd ever show my head on a BB run by you unless you ran it an official (and hence accountable) capacity. Toning down the language in order to provide an environment which all parents can feel comfortable allowing junior contributors on seems reasonable to me.



I agree :clap:

why do people swear. you can just as well make a point by not swearing

Rincewind
26-04-2004, 05:42 PM
why do people swear. you can just as well make a point by not swearing

I think there would always be swearing. If people didn't utter the current swag of "swear-words" then the goal-posts would change and saying "by gosh!" for example, would be considered taboo.

Anyway, I think in written expression swearing is not really necessary. And in verbal communication in the presence of juniors it should also be avoided.

After all, doesn't making taboo commonplace take all the fun out of it? I say, take the time to make you point without gratutious swearing.

Gandalf
27-04-2004, 10:59 PM
Matthew, I've read the deleted posts before this one and can confidently say that I don't care what you think context justifies. There are some things I will never allow to appear here, and fully support the Moderators' actions. I warn you now to stop provoking them.

PHAT
27-04-2004, 11:25 PM
I warn you now to stop provoking them.

You realy are a git. A "public warning" is a tool of an immature arragant tosser.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2004, 11:30 PM
You realy are a git. A "public warning" is a tool of an immature arragant tosser.
Yes, he would be better off to forget about the warnings and just ban the continual offender who goes out of his way to provoke a response.

Gandalf
27-04-2004, 11:34 PM
And you have done nothing of any value for this forum in a very long time. Provoking Moderators and Administrators is neither intelligent nor appealing, it just reveals a desire for attention and someone to argue with. You are in no position to be calling me an "immature, arrogant tosser". Take this as your second and final warning.

edit: the above is a reply to Matthew, not Bill. I would like to at least give him a chance to stand down before I consider anything so drastic. Let no-one say I was not even-handed.

Trent Parker
28-04-2004, 12:00 AM
just an unrelated question. Gandalf, could you please increase the font on your posts? just for those who already have bad eyesight. :D

Gandalf
28-04-2004, 12:05 AM
just an unrelated question. Gandalf, could you please increase the font on your posts? just for those who already have bad eyesight. :D
Yes, alright, I acquiesce. I'm beginning to feel the effects myself, this late at night. How does Size 2 look? If it's normal I'll be a bit irritated, but it'll mean no more tags.

Gandalf
28-04-2004, 12:05 AM
Damn, it is.

Oh well, normal size from now on then. Feel free to pop the corks.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2004, 12:35 AM
A "public warning" is a tool of an immature arragant tosser.

Unfortunately warnings, public or private, are often necessary when dealing with those who simply refuse to "get it".

If you don't warn them they then blab about actions being draconian and say "at least you could have given me a warning".

I wouldn't suggest banning Matt but I'll just be laughing if he gets the odd few hours or maybe days in the sin-bin every now and then. Sometimes I'd swear he's trying to get himself suspended.

skip to my lou
28-04-2004, 12:54 AM
Unfortunately warnings, public or private, are often necessary when dealing with those who simply refuse to "get it".

If you don't warn them they then blab about actions being draconian and say "at least you could have given me a warning".

I wouldn't suggest banning Matt but I'll just be laughing if he gets the odd few hours or maybe days in the sin-bin every now and then. Sometimes I'd swear he's trying to get himself suspended.

Apparently Matt has left CK BB.

Read the deleted post in General Chess Chat.

Paul S
28-04-2004, 01:13 AM
Read the deleted post in General Chess Chat.

:confused: How can one read a deleted post? :confused: :eh: :doh:

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2004, 01:33 AM
:confused: How can one read a deleted post? :confused: :eh: :doh:

K's comment was addressed to me. Mods and admins can read deleted posts and threads.

Sweeney did indeed announce, in his usual intemperate and hence deservedly deleted fashion, that he was leaving the building. Trent and Bill both saw and replied to his goodbye post. We don't know how tanked he was when he wrote that, and he may well cool off, change his mind or return in another disguise. I'd give it a couple of weeks before assuming for sure that he's gone.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 11:45 AM
Apparently Matt has left CK BB.

Read the deleted post in General Chess Chat.
I saw it before it was deleted so I am aware of its contents.
Can someone explain why it was deleted.
It wasnt offensive, just a dummy spit.

skip to my lou
28-04-2004, 01:41 PM
I saw it before it was deleted so I am aware of its contents.
Can someone explain why it was deleted.
It wasnt offensive, just a dummy spit.

Read the second line. If thats not offending, then... :?

Its useless; no one cares; and its off topic.

skip to my lou
28-04-2004, 02:38 PM
Hes back already and I'm not suprised

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2004, 02:52 PM
I saw it before it was deleted so I am aware of its contents.
Can someone explain why it was deleted.
It wasnt offensive, just a dummy spit.

I wasn't the one who deleted it but I have a very low tolerance for posters wishing each other dead, or in that case, ill.

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 03:02 PM
I wasn't the one who deleted it but I have a very low tolerance for posters wishing each other dead, or in that case, ill.
Yes you are correct. When I said offensive I was thinking of swearing.
I just figured that two word comment could have been edited out and the rest of the post where he says he is leaving remained.

chesslover
28-04-2004, 08:47 PM
Matt is a treasure and I wish people will give him some tolerence.

He means well and his heart is in the right place. He is a sweet sensitive man, and despite all the gruff exterior and rude remarks, underneath he is a nice caring and loving man

I wish people do not ban him and exhibit some tolerence for him. we all know he does not mean well and when he drinks he is unbearable, but his thoughts and intentions are pure and true

I hope that Matt is not devastated by this banning and threats and continues to post here. Talent like Matt should nbe nurtured and developed, not banned and threatened.

All great thinkers are controversial and eccentric, and matt is no exception. Please guys, give Matt a fair go, and give him some space

skip to my lou
28-04-2004, 09:17 PM
Matt is a treasure and I wish people will give him some tolerence.

He means well and his heart is in the right place. He is a sweet sensitive man, and despite all the gruff exterior and rude remarks, underneath he is a nice caring and loving man

I wish people do not ban him and exhibit some tolerence for him. we all know he does not mean well and when he drinks he is unbearable, but his thoughts and intentions are pure and true

I hope that Matt is not devastated by this banning and threats and continues to post here. Talent like Matt should nbe nurtured and developed, not banned and threatened.

All great thinkers are controversial and eccentric, and matt is no exception. Please guys, give Matt a fair go, and give him some space

No one got banned

He left by himself

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2004, 10:09 PM
Matt is a treasure and I wish people will give him some tolerence.

He means well and his heart is in the right place. He is a sweet sensitive man, and despite all the gruff exterior and rude remarks, underneath he is a nice caring and loving man

I wish people do not ban him and exhibit some tolerence for him. we all know he does not mean well and when he drinks he is unbearable, but his thoughts and intentions are pure and true

I hope that Matt is not devastated by this banning and threats and continues to post here. Talent like Matt should nbe nurtured and developed, not banned and threatened.

All great thinkers are controversial and eccentric, and matt is no exception. Please guys, give Matt a fair go, and give him some space
When it comes to swearing and being vulgar I think Matt has been given more than his fair share of chances.

As for drinking the posts in question showed no signs of him being inebriated. For one thing his spelling and sentences were his usual as opposed to his garbled posts when he is full as a boot.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2004, 03:38 AM
No, the only one posting while clearly drunk around here lately has been BroadZ. :rolleyes:

(Not sure if he'll remember what he typed but he certainly won't be able to find it. )

CL - Jeo is correct, Matt was never banned or even suspended. Gandalf warned him, he spat the dummy and said he was leaving.

I don't mind editing the odd bit of low-level Sweeney swearing and other colour but the constant deliberate envelope-pushing has obviously got him even more offside with the admins and I have to say that his problems are self-inflicted.

[EDIT: This did say "come back and take the bait" but I see that he's back already.]

Bill Gletsos
29-04-2004, 11:36 AM
No, the only one posting while clearly drunk around here lately has been BroadZ. :rolleyes:

(Not sure if he'll remember what he typed but he certainly won't be able to find it. )

CL - Jeo is correct, Matt was never banned or even suspended. Gandalf warned him, he spat the dummy and said he was leaving.

I don't mind editing the odd bit of low-level Sweeney swearing and other colour but the constant deliberate envelope-pushing has obviously got him even more offside with the admins and I have to say that his problems are self-inflicted.

[EDIT: This did say "come back and take the bait" but I see that he's back already.]
Although he is back it appears he is only back as a reader and not as a poster because so far he has not posted since he "left".

jenni
29-04-2004, 12:43 PM
Although he is back it appears he is only back as a reader and not as a poster because so far he has not posted since he "left".

He won't be able to resist forever - eventually something will annoy him enough to make him want to post. :)

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2004, 07:46 PM
Although he is back it appears he is only back as a reader and not as a poster because so far he has not posted since he "left".

I thought I saw just one post last night where he flamed chesslover, and then there were some "good to see the old Matt back" type posts in reply. Perhaps I had the date wrong and these were earlier posts where the context was confusing to me.

chesslover
29-04-2004, 09:08 PM
i thought matt was warned but I was obviously wrong

he had a dummy spit, and said that he will never return to this BB

but he has returned, but just watches without posting

so Matt is just a voyeur now? he watches without participating?

watching...watching...watching....watching...watch ing

ursogr8
29-04-2004, 09:31 PM
i thought matt was warned but I was obviously wrong

he had a dummy spit, and said that he will never return to this BB

but he has returned, but just watches without posting

so Matt is just a voyeur now? he watches without participating?

watching...watching...watching....watching...watch ing

Is it just me, or is there a slightly humourous tone creeping into ChessLovers' posts? Something we have not seen before. Has another body crept into the love-nest?

starter

ps Note; not an errant apostrophe.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2004, 11:29 PM
CL's got a very corny sense of humour sometimes. His jokes about Optus and Telstra on the off-topic section were a previous example of this sort of thing.

ursogr8
30-04-2004, 08:35 AM
CL's got a very corny sense of humour sometimes. His jokes about Optus and Telstra on the off-topic section were a previous example of this sort of thing.

Kevin
I must admit to filtering on that thread, so I did not notice.
And is your apostophe errant? :eek: I have called for Barry's opinion to settle. :)

starter

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2004, 06:33 PM
"CL's" was short for "CL has". The apostrophe's OK, the grammar may or may not be.

It's an odd one actually because "CL has got ..." is unnecessary; just "CL has ..." would be sufficient. Yet you wouldn't see "CL's a very corny sense of humour sometimes"; it would be too liable to be mistaken for "CL is ...".

Gandalf
01-05-2004, 11:27 PM
"Got" is an ugly word, but has become increasingly necessary in contemporary English (especially since proper grammar is only ever taught to university students - the closest a high school student can hope to get is introductory Latin, and that's only instruction by proxy).

All the above are valid, though they each have their varying levels of potential for confusion. :)

Anyway, back to the current topic. I must admit that CL's posts in Matt's defence caused me to laugh out loud. At this point I have seen absolutely nothing, not a single pixel, coming from Matt to convince me that he is anything approaching even the glimmering shadow of a "great mind".

Perhaps this can lead to a new postulate regarding the identity of the ChessLover[s]? ;)

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2004, 01:07 AM
Anyway, back to the current topic. I must admit that CL's posts in Matt's defence caused me to laugh out loud. At this point I have seen absolutely nothing, not a single pixel, coming from Matt to convince me that he is anything approaching even the glimmering shadow of a "great mind".

I do think Matt's bright, but that rarely saved anyone from being a slave to their predelictions. I used to think Matt could control his trolling act and turn it on and off at will, but now I'm not so sure about his self-control.


Perhaps this can lead to a new postulate regarding the identity of the ChessLover[s]? ;)

Not likely. There's not too many regulars here who haven't been victims of CL's over-the-top flattery act.

Gandalf
02-05-2004, 07:46 PM
Oh, brightness and greatness are entirely seperate things.

As for ChessLover[s]' flattery acts...you make a good point. I wouldn't mind finding his shop and dropping by though. :)

Rincewind
02-05-2004, 09:36 PM
Kevin
I must admit to filtering on that thread, so I did not notice.
And is your apostophe errant? :eek: I have called for Barry's opinion to settle. :)

I concur with Kevin, the usage of "CL's got" is obviously abbreviated of "CL has got". The apostrophe would have also been OK for possessive, so the only case that springs to mind where the apost., would have been errent is plural. Given the hyradic nature of CL that may have been understandable but even then it is not uncommon for people pluralising abbreviations to also use apostropes in place of the letter being lost in the abbreviation. Not necessarily good form, but understandable in some cases.

Garvinator
02-05-2004, 11:48 PM
i just thought that starter was implying that by having the apostrophe after the cl that he was saying there is more than one cl.

ursogr8
03-05-2004, 08:09 AM
I concur with Kevin, the usage of "CL's got" is obviously abbreviated of "CL has got". The apostrophe would have also been OK for possessive, so the only case that springs to mind where the apost., would have been errent is plural. Given the hyradic nature of CL that may have been understandable but even then it is not uncommon for people pluralising abbreviations to also use apostropes in place of the letter being lost in the abbreviation. Not necessarily good form, but understandable in some cases.

Baz
Ruling accepted.
Yes, I was drawing attention to the hydra influence.

BTW, is your errent errant?

starter

Rincewind
03-05-2004, 10:34 AM
BTW, is your errent errant?

Yes. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

ursogr8
03-05-2004, 12:37 PM
Yes. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Hmm
Well, I not so sure about mercy.
It is the second case of grammar/spelling infraction to come before the court today. (See apostrophe misunderstanding by starter).
Perhaps it is time to make an example of some-one. :D

starter

Rincewind
03-05-2004, 12:51 PM
Well, I not so sure about mercy.
It is the second case of grammar/spelling infraction to come before the court today. (See apostrophe misunderstanding by starter).
Perhaps it is time to make an example of some-one. :D

Perhaps I miscalculated. Still I think I could sell the movie rights to Mel Gibson. We could call it The Passion of Baz - Crucified for an Errant Vowel. :eek:

ursogr8
03-05-2004, 01:12 PM
Perhaps I miscalculated. Still I think I could sell the movie rights to Mel Gibson. We could call it The Passion of Baz - Crucified for an Errant Vowel. :eek:

WAKE UP, BARRY

You have been dreaming son.
Jeo offered that you become MODERATOR of the Bulletin Board, not MODERATOR of churches of the world. :rolleyes: ;)

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2004, 11:38 PM
Given the hyradic nature of CL

I think the word you're looking for there is "hydroid", but all are welcome to impress me greatly by proving me wrong.

Rincewind
04-05-2004, 12:00 AM
I think the word you're looking for there is "hydroid", but all are welcome to impress me greatly by proving me wrong.

I believe you are correct. However, after consulation with my OED, I think hydropic might also be appropriate. (When taken in the jocular sense and figuratively w.r.t. conversation threads) ;)

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2004, 12:10 AM
:D I like it.

Not only for the suggestion of a being with many heads, all of them shortsighted (cf. Greg's "dunderheaded hydra") but also for the similarity to "hydroponic". (Not that I'm reading anything into the latter, though.)

ursogr8
04-05-2004, 01:06 PM
:D I like it.

Not only for the suggestion of a being with many heads, all of them shortsighted (cf. Greg's "dunderheaded hydra") but also for the similarity to "hydroponic". (Not that I'm reading anything into the latter, though.)

I like this sudden outbreak of trivial accuracy. It gives us a chance to housekeep a few aspects of CLs profile until a serious topic appears on the board.

Now I have been wondering about Kevin's title of CK Goosemaster. Does he know something about CL identities that is yet to be revealed to others? Or is it just a generic title awarded for certain behaviours?
In the mean-time perhaps could the clique agree to use CK Gandermaster; the masculine form? :idea:

starter

Lucena
04-05-2004, 03:34 PM
I like this sudden outbreak of trivial accuracy. It gives us a chance to housekeep a few aspects of CLs profile until a serious topic appears on the board.

Now I have been wondering about Kevin's title of CK Goosemaster. Does he know something about CL identities that is yet to be revealed to others? Or is it just a generic title awarded for certain behaviours?
In the mean-time perhaps could the clique agree to use CK Gandermaster; the masculine form? :idea:

starter

What's good for the goose is good for the gander eh?

Trent Parker
31-05-2004, 02:34 PM
I notice that ACF has put a link in to these forums now. At least people will know that it exists now.

ursogr8
26-06-2004, 11:46 AM
I notice that ACF has put a link in to these forums now. At least people will know that it exists now.

For a long while I thought the ACF distanced itself from the BB to limit its liability in view of some vexatious posters.

But in essence it just gave an excuse for some EXECUTIVE members to cease responding to issues raised on the BB. (Obviously those with a sizeable post counts are not the point of my comment).

starter