PDA

View Full Version : CheeChee



Spiny Norman
12-05-2007, 07:54 AM
Good morning to all the mods,

I note a rather strong stench of defecating pests on the board this morning. I refer of course to "CheeChee" and the over-the-top defacing of the board with his drivel.

I'd like to offer my assistance in tracking this person down, should assistance be needed. I think a formal, written complaint to their ISP is in order, with a request that their Internet access be revoked ... their actions are a clear breach of "terms and conditions" for any normal ISP.

If you think you know who it is, would you please let me know via PM?

Thanks,

Steve

Spiny Norman
12-05-2007, 08:37 AM
I think it also possibly demonstrates a need to consider tightening the rules for those wishing to register and post. Can anyone enlighten me as to the current situation? Is a valid email address required (e.g. the board emails a link which the user must click to validate)? Should this be tightened even further?

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 10:15 AM
I think it also possibly demonstrates a need to consider tightening the rules for those wishing to register and post. Can anyone enlighten me as to the current situation? Is a valid email address required (e.g. the board emails a link which the user must click to validate)? Should this be tightened even further?

Yes, this is the current situation. Various domains are not allowed, specifically ones which have been problems with spammers, line inbox.ru and the like. One possibility is to prevent people signing up with generic web based email accounts like hotmail and yahoo. This will force most people to sign up with a work, school, uni or ISP email account which should help but it might also scare off potentially valid and valuable new users. So no action has been taken on this front as yet. Another possibility is for new users to be vetted by the mods manually. As this represents an increased workload AND potentially a decreased membership this to has not been acted on.

Spiny Norman
12-05-2007, 03:21 PM
I think you're going to have to do so unfortunately ... I would rather see possible new members slightly inconvenienced rather than ALL the current members majorly inconvenienced.

I do have an alternative suggestion which would solve this problem, but I'll save that for a PM.

Garvinator
12-05-2007, 03:26 PM
You can add skiptomyloo to this bracket too. Strong odour of being same tool ;)

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 03:50 PM
I think you're going to have to do so unfortunately ... I would rather see possible new members slightly inconvenienced rather than ALL the current members majorly inconvenienced.

At this stage the inconvenience to the general membership is pretty small. They attacks haven't even been that much work to clean up so really the threat posed by this tool is benign. The posts are obviously spam and experienced posters know to simply ignore them. So far the mod/admin have been pretty quick at removing the material once it is discovered.

An manual check of all new users is likely to be more work at this stage and still not guarantee a trouble free board. Therefore, for the time being I recommend just ignoring the spam. In the mean time we'll keep deleting the crap, banning the users and IP addresses being used to post it from until he gets sick of it or realises the futility of his actions or hopefully both.

Basil
12-05-2007, 03:57 PM
I appreciate & respect the the decision of 'Da Management'.

I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

If my belief is incorrect, then even more case to ban the IP address.

Rincewind
12-05-2007, 04:07 PM
I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

No spam has originated from a UQ IP address. If it had, I would be contacting the administrators of that domain to take action.

I have had some small success contacting administrators ni the past when I discovered spam originating from an unnamed university's domain. However, that was not related to this case.

firegoat7
13-05-2007, 02:49 PM
I appreciate & respect the the decision of 'Da Management'.

I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

If my belief is incorrect, then even more case to ban the IP address.

Honestly Duggan you are a complete reactive tool.

First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense.That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.

Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses. Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2007, 03:30 PM
First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense.That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.

Indeed. In this case the messages (95 copies of the same idiotic post) came from a proxy server and some owners of proxy servers are not particularly fussy about what is posted through them. However we may well put in a complaint anyway.


Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

We are being a lot more careful about this now having sometimes locked out potential legitimate users in the past while trying to control spam. Now an address or range is only likely to be banned if there are multiple abuses and no legitimate uses from that address. Or if there are legitimate users affected in any small way, we make sure the legitimate users are aware of the situation so they know how they can avoid the problem.


Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses.

Again, we are careful about this. But if trolls post from proxy servers we can always ban the proxy without needing to be careful because there is no reason for any legitimate user to use a proxy to post here, and we are not aware of any who do.

Rincewind
13-05-2007, 04:58 PM
Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses. Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.

Banning an IP address is not analogous to banning a road. It is more akin to blocking a particular phone number. If we get a lot of troublesome users callnig from the one street and no ligitimate ones, then we also ban the street.

firegoat7
13-05-2007, 05:28 PM
If we get a lot of troublesome users callnig from the one street and no ligitimate ones, then we also ban the street.

You do that sunshine, I am sure that 'we' all agree that 'we' all don't want troublesome 'callnigs' even if they are 'ligitimate'- kapish.

cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
13-05-2007, 06:29 PM
fg7, you may not want to hear this ... but the mods here are far more tolerant than I am in my role as site admin on another board ... I block first, and open up access upon request when a legitimate user finds themselves blocked.

I simply don't waste any time at all on people who are spammers, abusers, etc ... I often just ban them right away ... and for egregious offenses, I ban permanently for a first offense.

So ... never consider making me a mod here ... you might not like the outcome. :eek:

firegoat7
13-05-2007, 07:58 PM
fg7, you may not want to hear this ... but the mods here are far more tolerant than I am in my role as site admin on another board ... I block first, and open up access upon request when a legitimate user finds themselves blocked.

Frosty, I like you so don't take this the wrong way. Let me explain why your comments do not surprise me.

You are a Christian (further explanation is available upon request).

cheers Fg7

Basil
13-05-2007, 10:47 PM
Honestly Duggan you are a complete reactive tool.
You're saying I'm reactive to what?

Reactive to Frosty's suggestion or reactive to a general proposition of hydras? It's OK to only answer if you know what you yourself actually meant. If you start thinking about what you meant now and make up a back-story to fit, you'll be down the plug-hole before I've had my fun, which would be a shame. It's also OK if you don't understand what's at play here. In that case probably best to resort to a general statement of intelligence.


First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense. That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.
It appears you are building a case that I was reacting Frosty's suggestion. Wrongo Drongo. I supported Frosty's suggestion. I didn't react to to it. I had formed the opinion many months ago for a number of reasons. I'd share if you asked. Instead of asking though, you decided to be a 'reactive tool'.


Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.
Who says? Have you supported that proposition? No. Do you wish to discuss it? Are you capable? Do you have experience in these matters or even a rationale for consideration? Plonker.


Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses.
Refer above.


Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.
No it's not - for many reasons.
- Proportion of disadvantaged. Like most of your single brain farts, that one was disproportionate.
- It might be like saying we should close a road, because trouble-free alternatives exist for legitimate users, but closing this road stops one dangerous driver.
- Even if it is like closing a road as you suggest, you have earlier said that as a last resort, it's acceptable :clap:

Go away and come back when you're boned up, or was that the problem when you posted originally ;)

Axiom
14-05-2007, 12:18 AM
Such is my incurable curiousity:- what did chee chee actually do?

Rincewind
14-05-2007, 02:02 AM
Amazing what a difference context makes :eek: :D

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Rincewind
14-05-2007, 02:03 AM
Such is my incurable curiousity:- what did chee chee actually do?

Absolutely nothing of consequence.

Basil
14-05-2007, 02:05 AM
I call 'em like I see 'em.
Sure. But the comment was a reflection on my assessment, not your actions. Even though the two are inextricably related, they are different.

Garrett
14-05-2007, 06:55 AM
Such is my incurable curiousity:- what did chee chee actually do?

Made a whole heap of posts (>16) in differing threads trying to start a 'revolution' and having a few shots at the admins of this board.

Rincewind
14-05-2007, 10:18 AM
Made a whole heap of posts (>16) in differing threads trying to start a 'revolution' and having a few shots at the admins of this board.

Yeah, that is the long version. See my previous reply for the short one. :)

Spiny Norman
14-05-2007, 10:28 AM
Frosty, I like you so don't take this the wrong way. Let me explain why your comments do not surprise me. You are a Christian (further explanation is available upon request).
Please do explain. Here's the board:

http://forums.unwired.com.au

Feel free to provide examples from there where I have moderated posts in a way that is reflective of my religious beliefs.

Feel free also to take into account that, despite the fact that I am the board administrator, I have in fact delegated mod responsibilities to three (3) other individuals there. If you can determine their religious status, you're doing better than me ... because despite them being in that role for up to 2 years, I have never had cause to even ask them about religious affiliations.

Lastly, feel free to refer to the bulletin board rules posted there and see if you can demonstrate any connection to my religious beliefs ... unless, perhaps, you are of the view that my admiration for the operation of the Whirlpool bulletin board (from which we [the mods], not I [the board administrator]) took the bulk of the rules, is somehow because Whirlpool is dominated by Christians.

If you're looking for reasons why a clear majority of people disapprove of the sort of behaviour that often gets moderated on bulletin boards, may I suggest you start by looking at the behaviour and ATTITUDE of those moderated, not the behaviour and attitude of the [overly patient IMO] Chess Chat mods/admins, or other board mods/admins.

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 10:35 AM
I wanna say that he started posting about *******s :doh:

WhiteElephant
14-05-2007, 10:09 PM
So anyways....

Two missionaries were captured by a savage African tribe. They were bound up and brought before the chief.
'Make choice,' said the chief, 'Death or CheeChee'
The older missionary wanted to set an example to his compatriot and loudly called out, 'I choose CheeChee!'
The tribesmen ran around whooping and hollering, then proceded to bugger him into unconsciousness.
The chief looked the second missionary straight in the eye and said, 'Make choice. Death or CheeChee
The second missionary, having watched the fate of his friend in horror, could only stammer, 'Death.'
'Good choice,' said the chief, 'Death by CheeChee!'

Axiom
14-05-2007, 10:54 PM
So anyways....

Two missionaries were captured by a savage African tribe. They were bound up and brought before the chief.
'Make choice,' said the chief, 'Death or CheeChee'
The older missionary wanted to set an example to his compatriot and loudly called out, 'I choose CheeChee!'
The tribesmen ran around whooping and hollering, then proceded to bugger him into unconsciousness.
The chief looked the second missionary straight in the eye and said, 'Make choice. Death or CheeChee
The second missionary, having watched the fate of his friend in horror, could only stammer, 'Death.'
'Good choice,' said the chief, 'Death by CheeChee!'
..reminds me of a 'Futurama' episode :)

Axiom
14-05-2007, 10:55 PM
I wanna say that he started posting about *******s :doh:
..dont we all....:( :eek: :eh: :) :D :cool:

WhiteElephant
14-05-2007, 11:09 PM
Hey Axiom, did I by any chance meet you during my foray to MCC a couple of weeks ago? C'mon spill :)

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2007, 11:15 PM
Made a whole heap of posts (>16) in differing threads trying to start a 'revolution' and having a few shots at the admins of this board.

I think it was 95 posts actually, all copies of the same one.

What the moronic little dupe doesn't realise is that it is extremely easy on this board for mods to delete the last n messages by the one poster (where n is any number you care to mention) and therefore it probably took him at least 20 times longer to make the mess than it did for us to clean it up.

Axiom
14-05-2007, 11:16 PM
Hey Axiom, did I by any chance meet you during my foray to MCC a couple of weeks ago? C'mon spill :)
With due respect WE , it is not for me to tell :)

WhiteElephant
14-05-2007, 11:18 PM
I think it was 95 posts actually, all copies of the same one.

What the moronic little dupe doesn't realise is that it is extremely easy on this board for mods to delete the last n messages by the one poster (where n is any number you care to mention) and therefore it probably took him at least 20 times longer to make the mess than it did for us to clean it up.

Was it someone who knows the admins and had posted here as someone else or just some random troll?

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2007, 11:20 PM
Was it someone who knows the admins and had posted here as someone else or just some random troll?

It was someone who is permanently banned from this site and whose first name and surname both do not begin with M.

WhiteElephant
14-05-2007, 11:20 PM
With due respect WE , it is not for me to tell :)

Well there was really only Bill, Ascaro and Colin hanging around and I know you're not Ascaro or Bill :) Oh well, back to the drawing board....

WhiteElephant
14-05-2007, 11:22 PM
It was someone who is permanently banned from this site and whose first name and surname both do not begin with M.

So it wasn't MS or AM, which really only leaves one person :owned:

Basil
14-05-2007, 11:24 PM
So it wasn't MS or AM, which really only leaves one person :owned:
An' he ain't the sharpest one in the shed! Although quite possibly the biggest ;)

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2007, 11:36 PM
So it wasn't MS or AM, which really only leaves one person :owned:

You might very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Axiom
14-05-2007, 11:36 PM
Well there was really only Bill, Ascaro and Colin hanging around and I know you're not Ascaro or Bill :) Oh well, back to the drawing board....
WE i respect your quest,.......but it is timely i remind you of the difficulty in quantifying a spirit.
Axiom is an entity, an idea, a collective subconscious of the 'chessplayer' , a free voice, i am here merely to serve.

Desmond
15-05-2007, 02:45 AM
It was someone who is permanently banned from this site and whose first name and surname both do not begin with M.Grammatically speaking, this does not eliminate a person who has one but not both initials beginning with M. Or does it? :hmm:

Garrett
15-05-2007, 06:56 AM
Grammatically speaking, this does not eliminate a person who has one but not both initials beginning with M. Or does it? :hmm:

spoken like a true computer geek..

Love it Brian !

firegoat7
15-05-2007, 02:46 PM
Feel free to provide examples from there where I have moderated posts in a way that is reflective of my religious beliefs.

Hi Steve,

Before you go into attack mode, please let me qualify my statement. It was a general statement, not user specific. I will simply reiterate that your response does not surprise me, no judgement of you personally.

cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
16-05-2007, 06:29 AM
Before you go into attack mode, please let me qualify my statement. It was a general statement, not user specific. I will simply reiterate that your response does not surprise me, no judgement of you personally.
fg7, it wasn't a general statement ... you referred specifically to my religious beliefs (no point backing away from that now) when you wrote:


Frosty, I like you so don't take this the wrong way. Let me explain why your comments do not surprise me. You are a Christian (further explanation is available upon request).

Can you "pleez explain", as you offered to do (unprompted by me or anyone else), exactly how my religious beliefs are relevant and give an example of where they were relevant in the way I administer the Unwired public forums.

Or else, if you are unable to do so, please retract your unwarranted remark.

firegoat7
16-05-2007, 05:30 PM
fg7, it wasn't a general statement ... you referred specifically to my religious beliefs (no point backing away from that now) when you wrote:


Trust me Frosty my comments were indeed general. Just re-read what I said generally and then hopefully you will get the perspective I intended.




Can you "pleez explain", as you offered to do (unprompted by me or anyone else), exactly how my religious beliefs are relevant and give an example of where they were relevant in the way I administer the Unwired public forums.

Ok. I would prefer to explain them to you in private at ACCF, but if you want me to explain my statement publically here, then I will if that is what you really want.



Or else, if you are unable to do so, please retract your unwarranted remark.
I am capable of doing so. Even after I explain my position in depth I will retract my statement if it really annoys you.

cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
17-05-2007, 11:04 AM
I would prefer to explain them to you in private at ACCF ...
Any mechanism would be fine ... there or here ... privately via email (stephen.frost@croydonchess.com) would suit me.