PDA

View Full Version : ursogr8's suspension from the Coffee Lounge



Spiny Norman
21-11-2007, 08:57 AM
ursogr8 suspended from the Coffee Lounge for quoting from the Coffee Lounge without permission. While it was only two words (being the title of a thread) he was clearly aware that he may be in breach of site rules in so doing, and has only just recovered access to the site after a suspension so doesn't seem to have learnt too much from it.
Good morning Kevin,

Its now 1 month since this suspension was applied. I have a couple of questions about it:

-- is it a permanent suspension, such as "life without possibility of parole"?

-- is it a life sentence, with possible parole conditions?
---- what would such conditions be?; and
---- when will parole be considered?

-- is it a fixed term?
---- what is the term?; and
---- is there any time off for good behaviour?

I note a propensity for martyrdom (of the online kind) amongst some former participants here. I would be disappointed if ursogr8 ended up being driven in that direction.

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 05:44 PM
The term of the suspension is indefinite but not necessarily permanent. However, as I see it there is no reason why ursogr8's Coffee Lounge access should be restored anytime especially soon - not on account of the offence (which was minor, although he now does have quite a long charge sheet) but I simply don't see any reason why he should be in there.

He hasn't posted for over a year and four months. He isn't actively part of the site community (at least not publicly) and his comments about it elsewhere are in large part hostile, frequently unfactual and teeming with misrepresentations. The Coffee Lounge is meant to be a bonus area for regulars but ursogr8 is not a typical regular on the site anymore but more of an ex-regular. Furthermore he has a serial problem with confidentiality, having not only quoted from the Coffee Lounge but also having republished text from PMs and letters not intended for the general chess public's consumption without permission.

The only reason I recall that he's given me as to why he should be let in was because naughty people might say nasty things about stuff of interest to him in there (like that the CV bid for the Australian Championships wasn't very good, oooh errr), and he might miss it. Perhaps he should also put in an application to ASIO for permission to tap phones at ACF Council hookups while he's at it?

If ursogr8 would like to make me an offer for conditions under which he would be promptly readmitted to the Coffee Lounge then I will consider it. (NB posting on other forums will not be considered to be an offer). Of course I do not have the final say, it is a group decision. I would look on his case more sympathetically if he was actually a poster here rather than a somewhat erratically behaved lurker, or if he agreed to cease discussing the contents of the Lounge elsewhere at all given his incredible ability to get it wrong.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 06:24 AM
I think you know that I'm somewhat sympathetic to various points you mention. However I really don't agree with the idea that someone's recent posting frequency should be a factor when determining a punishment. I'm appealing here to a sense of natural justice. Respectfully, when you note that access is not likely to be restored soon because:


... not on account of the offence (which was minor, although he now does have quite a long charge sheet) but I simply don't see any reason why he should be in there
I just don't buy that as a valid reason. You (and others) know full well the reasons that he doesn't post here. But he is entitled, on the basis of having made >200 posts, to read and post if he so wishes. If he chooses not to post, that is no reason to also prevent reading. There's nothing in the board rules AFAIK that says that someone who chooses not to post can be prevented from reading.

If you want to made a decision, publicly, on the basis of his actions, then do so (and I will support that). But just don't do it on the basis of non-actions (like "not posting").

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2007, 07:17 AM
He makes no actual contribution to this site whatsoever and is only using it for its PM facilities. On top of that he seems more than happy to misrepresent and obfuscate about here elsewhere (previously in the defunt telephone box and recently in the toolbox).

As such his only reason for access to the CL would be to continue his obfuscation and misrepresentation.

Therefore as far as I am concerned his loss of CL rights is entirely reasonable

In fact he should consider himself lucky that no further action has been taken against him with regards the site rule:
The moderators/admins reserve the right to take any action they deem appropriate against members who make demonstrably false or misleading claims about this site or its administration/moderation on other sites. We recommend that members having issues with administration/moderation pursue those issues on this site.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 08:52 AM
He makes no actual contribution to this site whatsoever and is only using it for its PM facilities.
Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.

If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?

I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.

So I'm requesting that the smokescreen be removed and the issue dealt with properly and publicly.

Kevin is not enforcing the ongoing punishment on the basis of any documented false or misleading claims ... its being enforced on the basis of Kevin's value judgement that he "sees no reason why he should be in there [the Coffee Lounge]".

I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:29 AM
Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.

If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?

No, because they would not have breached the site rules relating to confidentiality repeatedly, nor would they be engaged in misrepresentation and denigration of the site elsewhere.

Given ursogr8's repeated breaches of confidentiality-type rules on this site, what guarantee do we have that if he is readmitted he will not continue to breach such rules?

If we were to readmit him would you agree that any further instance of quoting from the Coffee Lounge (even if only a few words) would justify him being permanently banned from it?


I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.

If I want a mindreader I sure won't be hiring you.

As if I could care less (or ever cared) about things ursogr8 posted on this board when the last such example of the generally harmless waffle he used to generate here was sometime before the evolution of the dinosaurs.

I am of the view that ursogr8 should show cause why he should be readmitted to the Coffee Lounge - either via an agreement or by ceasing to make misleading comments about it - and has not yet done so. Given that he now and then buzzes us with PMs about the most trivial things I am sure there would be something in my inbox (either here or in the other place) if the issue was of any greater moment to him than a pretext for increasing his postcount elsewhere with another silly metric.


I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.

What your simplistic conceptions of the defunct concept of objective morality consider defensible doesn't concern me. I'm more concerned with whether he deserves to be there and whether he can be trusted not to reoffend. Two things that of course have nothing to do with morality or ethics whatsoever. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:33 AM
By the way, I see that Arrogant-One is, on a thread supposedly devoted to whinging about alleged bullying on this site, genuinely attempting to bully me by making threats concerning hacking the access to the Coffee Lounge.

The cognitive dissonance is amazing even by his extremely dissonant standards.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 10:05 AM
Given ursogr8's repeated breaches of confidentiality-type rules on this site, what guarantee do we have that if he is readmitted he will not continue to breach such rules?
None, of course. You also have no guarantee that I, or anyone else, will not breach site rules. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I inadvertantly breached site rules myself. Bill was kind enough to draw it to my attention, and I corrected it immediately.


If we were to readmit him would you agree that any further instance of quoting from the Coffee Lounge (even if only a few words) would justify him being permanently banned from it?
That's completely up to you. As long as the conditions are clear, then its up to ursogr8 to decide whether he's prepared to accept the conditions or not.


If I want a mindreader I sure won't be hiring you.
You'll find that I was responding to Bill's comments ... he's welcome to reject my mindreading prognostications himself if I've got it wrong.


I am of the view that ursogr8 should show cause why he should be readmitted to the Coffee Lounge, and has not yet done so.
Well I can at least be pleased that my enquiries have elicited this useful piece of information. He'll be reading this post in due course and can, if he wishes, make representations to you.


Given that he frequently buzzes us with PMs about the most trivial things I am sure there would be something in my inbox (either here or in the other place) if the issue was of such great moment to him.
Perhaps now, that the conditions are known, a PM or post will be forthcoming. We shall see ... :)


What your simplistic conceptions of the defunct concept of objective morality consider defensible doesn't concern me.
That much, at least, is crystal clear ... ;)


I'm more concerned with whether he deserves to be there and whether he can be trusted not to reoffend.
That's reasonable.


Two things that of course have nothing to do with morality or ethics whatsoever. :lol:
:wall:

Basil
22-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Stephen, I do hear what you are saying and it is certainly arguable and reasonable IMO.

If the decision were mine (and it's clearly not), I would:
1. Maintain the embargo on the grounds that the board is private and that URSOGR8's access to the CL is detrimental to the users of this board, and or
2. Access to the CL is a stated privilege (not a right), and although a minimum criterion for access is 200 posts, it is not the sole criterion.

If it is a precedent which you seek, I refer to my own case where I was denied access to the CL well after reaching 200 posts.

1. I recall specifically asking Barry for a time-frame for readmittance. It wasn't given.
2. My 'crime' was
- minor
- an isolated incident
- one for which I showed immediate remorse
- one where there was no known damage to person or reputation, but simply that the possibility existed

URSOGR8's behaviour does not fit any of these categories.

Again, and with the Sweeney case, while I champion the call for transparency, I also champion the cause of miscrients to accept some bloody responsibility for the actions and not to slip and slide between bleeding heart, crying foul and wedge politics.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 10:19 AM
That's completely up to you. As long as the conditions are clear, then its up to ursogr8 to decide whether he's prepared to accept the conditions or not.

I'm sure the conditions of any agreement to readmit him that was made would be clear enough. However there's no point talking about them unless he shows an interest in negotiating them.


You'll find that I was responding to Bill's comments ... he's welcome to reject my mindreading prognostications himself if I've got it wrong.

If you mean Bill you should say Bill. If you say "the mods" I will assume you at least mean both of us and possibly others as well.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 10:26 AM
If you mean Bill you should say Bill. If you say "the mods" I will assume you at least mean both of us and possibly others as well.
Upon reflection, you're quite right. You were well within your rights to comment. I did say "... the mods ...". If we were in court I'm sure the judge would overrule my objection with a "Well, you opened the door counsellor".

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 10:32 AM
Gunner, I'm pursuing clarity (about the issue) and transparency (of decision-making). So far, so good, the mists are clearing.

On the other side of the equation, I heartily agree that acceptance of responsibility for one's actions is desirable (though of course, that's just my simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality in action).

This particular offence strikes me as a fragment of a straw that may have broken the proverbial camel's back.

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2007, 12:13 PM
Is there a problem with that kind of usage profile? There's a value judgement you're making there that implies that people who communicate here via PM are not making a contribution to this site when they do so, that only public posts make a contribution. I disagree with that POV.You are entitled to your POV. I do not however agree with it.

If others started doing that (communicating just via PM), would you also suggest that they ought to be banned from reading the Coffee Lounge?Quite possibly if they also repeatedly misrepresented things elsewhere.

I think this is an ad hoc argument and a post hoc justification to the ongoing ban, which is really just a smokescreen for a different issue, namely, that the mods here are upset with things that ursogr8 has posted on either this board or another board.

So I'm requesting that the smokescreen be removed and the issue dealt with properly and publicly.No smokescreen at all.
He broke the site rules when he quoted from the CL.
On top of that he has broken the rules by repeatedly misrepresenting it elsewhere.
All his access here could have been removed for his continual misrepresentation, however the only action taken so far was the indefinite removal of his CL access.

Kevin is not enforcing the ongoing punishment on the basis of any documented false or misleading claims ... its being enforced on the basis of Kevin's value judgement that he "sees no reason why he should be in there [the Coffee Lounge]".I wasnt speaking for Kevin.

I don't think that position is morally defensible, so I am trying to be helpful by steering "you" to higher moral ground.There is no higher ground when you are already at the summit, unless of course you think I should be reaching for 'heaven'. ;)

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 01:07 PM
He broke the site rules when he quoted from the CL.
Am I permitted to mention the precise nature of this infraction?

My problem is that, in doing so, I am also going to be quoting two words from the Coffee Lounge. Having recently received a warning for quoting inadvertantly, I'm not of a mind to confuse the issue by committing the same offence. The justice (or otherwise) of this particular penalty cannot be seen by many others (those who do not have access to the Coffee Loung) and therefore cannot be seen to be a just penalty (or otherwise) unless its talked about openly in the public arena.


There is no higher ground when you are already at the summit ...
Careful ... one man's summit is another man's simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality ... :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
22-11-2007, 01:39 PM
Am I permitted to mention the precise nature of this infraction?

My problem is that, in doing so, I am also going to be quoting two words from the Coffee Lounge.Then you cannot do it.

Having recently received a warning for quoting inadvertantly, I'm not of a mind to confuse the issue by committing the same offence. The justice (or otherwise) of this particular penalty cannot be seen by many others (those who do not have access to the Coffee Loung) and therefore cannot be seen to be a just penalty (or otherwise) unless its talked about openly in the public arena.The exact words he quoted are immaterial.
Why he lost access to the CL is stated in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=171557&postcount=132

firegoat7
22-11-2007, 02:56 PM
The term of the suspension is indefinite but not necessarily permanent. However, as I see it there is no reason why ursogr8's Coffee Lounge access should be restored anytime especially soon - not on account of the offence (which was minor, although he now does have quite a long charge sheet) but I simply don't see any reason why he should be in there.



Quick interpretation of this double speak nonsense. " I have the power and I will use it as I see fit, because I am an ethical and morally vacant being."




He hasn't posted for over a year and four months. He isn't actively part of the site community (at least not publicly) and his comments about it elsewhere are in large part hostile, frequently unfactual and teeming with misrepresentations. The Coffee Lounge is meant to be a bonus area for regulars but ursogr8 is not a typical regular on the site anymore but more of an ex-regular. Furthermore he has a serial problem with confidentiality, having not only quoted from the Coffee Lounge but also having republished text from PMs and letters not intended for the general chess public's consumption without permission.


I do believe they are still searching for WMD's in Iraq. Lets hope Netlogistics find their WMD's before they eradicate their whole membership.

cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 03:01 PM
Then you cannot do it.
The exact words he quoted are immaterial.
Why he lost access to the CL is stated in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=171557&postcount=132
:wall:

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 03:03 PM
Quick interpretation of this double speak nonsense. " I have the power and I will use it as I see fit, because I am an ethical and morally vacant being."

Wow, an ethics and morality lesson from a troll whose online potty mouth was one of the causes of the Coffee Lounge becoming semi-moderated. If someone like you calls me "ethically and morally vacant" I can only take it as a compliment. And where's the double-speak? I'm being quite upfront about what I mean, and if I was into capricious banning I could have kicked ursogr8 off the site altogether ages ago.


I do believe they are still searching for WMD's in Iraq. Lets hope Netlogistics find their WMD's before they eradicate their whole membership.


The only person searching for WMDs in this debate was ursogr8 dredging the Lounge in search of items to needlessly panic about and subsequently misrepresent. :hand:

firegoat7
22-11-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm being quite upfront about what I mean, and if I was into capricious banning I could have kicked ursogr8 off the site altogether ages ago.


There are no fair legitimate reasons for his banning. Only your unelected dictatorial substantiations , for what has occurred. That is not reason, its simply your will.




The only person searching for WMDs in this debate was ursogr8 dredging the Lounge in search of items to needlessly panic about and subsequently misrepresent. :hand:

Keep making your ridiculous assertions. The sanctions are not working as you keep producing bogus WMD claims for the Netlogistics site.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 03:45 PM
There are no fair legitimate reasons for his banning.

Come off it, even by your trolling standards this is at the desperate end of the barrel. He clearly, clearly knowingly and very unambiguously breached the site rules by quoting from the Lounge without permission.


Keep making your ridiculous assertions. The sanctions are not working as you keep producing bogus WMD claims for the Netlogistics site.

Unsubstantiated lame fiction that fails to address my point.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 03:52 PM
Am I permitted to mention the precise nature of this infraction?

Do you mean the thread title that ursogr8 quoted without my permission as author of the title in question?

I'll save you the bother and do it myself.

The thread title was '"Toolbox Watch"?' That is to say, the title included quote marks and a question mark, much as the title of Dylan's "Love & Theft" album includes the quote marks (which are quite significant to its meanings).

The purpose of the thread was to discuss, with other experienced posters, whether there should be a specific thread started in the non-chess area dealing with refuting some of the total junk that is continually posted on the Toolbox, or whether it would be preferable to continue raising such junk on the threads that at least tenuously relate to it. The rather small number of regulars who responded and cared were fairly evenly split between those who were happy with the present arrangement and those who thought the other place should simply be ignored entirely.

ursogr8 quoted the title, without my permission, in a post elsewhere in which he wrote:


Well AO, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the moment I reproduce a word of the Coffee LOUNGE here they will high-jump me for another 3 weeks or so.

Later in the same post he wrote:


Sorry, AO, you can't read the other side of this 'conversation' unless their thread is moved to open forum. Perhaps this lack of transparency is what chesschat MODS and the ACF want. After all, their thread is titled "Toolbox Watch"? (Hope this quote does not get me into the high jump), and ....

So having expected that he will be banned for about three weeks if he reproduces "a word" from the Coffee Lounge, he proceeds to reproduce two words from said Lounge within the same post. Obviously, he knows he's breaking the rules and is doing so deliberately, he expects he could get pinged for it, yet when he is only turfed from the Coffee Lounge indefinitely rather than banned from the site altogether as he feared, he was still to be found whinging about the situation before the three weeks he expected (since it was two words, let's say six weeks :lol: ) is even up!

What is also notable is that his post completely misrepresented the reasons why I called the thread '"Toolbox Watch?"' even though these were crystal clear even beyond the reach of the most blatant obfuscator in my opening post to that thread. It had nothing to do with any waffle about the CV bid for the Australian Championships (criticism of the many shortcomings of which seems to be an extreme sore spot for him), which simply happened to appear several posts into the thread as a result of thread-drift of a kind I would have had to read between the ears of firegoat7 to anticipate.

Misrepresentation of the purpose of the thread continued with this (and other such nonsense was uttered several times later) :


But the use of two words 'Toolbox Watch', a thread name used basically to describe this Forum (*******), is not allowed to be uttered in public?

Only one of the words "Toolbox" and "Watch" was used to describe the other forum. Had the thread name simply been "Toolbox" ursogr8 may have had a point, but it was not. While the thread title was only two words long, its meaning was not "Toolbox" but "Should there be a thread called "Toolbox Watch"?"

I'm entitled as a poster to start threads on issues like that in the Coffee Lounge if I want to - sometimes it's a useful place to see what experienced regulars think about ideas before attempting them on the main site. ursogr8 knew that if he wanted to use my thread title openly he required my permission, yet did not seek it.

I would have let that go if he had managed to be accurate in his comments on the meaning of the thread name. However, I feel that if he has to clearly knowingly quote me from a private area to another site without my permission, then the least he could do is get his facts right about what I was saying by my use of those two words. Because he did not, I decided he was being far beyond ridiculous, and reported him, not because his conduct was in any way severe as in the only previous case I have reported as a poster, but because while the offence was trivial, he was just being far too ludicrous for words.

eclectic
22-11-2007, 03:57 PM
I'd be sorely tempted to request that ursogr8's indefinite coffee lounge suspension be upgraded to a permanent ban from the whole board to feel at one with MS, AO and PD but alas I'm not in the mood presently to be so cruel. :P

Disclaimer:

My present avatar which contains a circle motif in no way implies a world viewpoint similar to firegoat! :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 04:21 PM
I'd be sorely tempted to request that ursogr8's indefinite coffee lounge suspension be upgraded to a permanent ban from the whole board to feel at one with MS, AO and PD but alas I'm not in the mood presently to be so cruel. :P

Indeed. If we banned ursogr8 permanently, firegoat7 would feel very left out and would suffer an inferiority complex from not having been as much of a troll as them. Which would be very harsh indeed, since goatboy has been much worse than ursogr8 in terms of what he has actually posted here.

Axiom
22-11-2007, 05:13 PM
Indeed. If we banned ursogr8 permanently, firegoat7 would feel very left out and would suffer an inferiority complex from not having been as much of a troll as them. Which would be very harsh indeed, since goatboy has been much worse than ursogr8 in terms of what he has actually posted here.
And then, what about me ?
I mean, look at the heinous crimes i've committed here ! :eek: ;) :lol:

Basil
22-11-2007, 05:19 PM
And then, what about me ?
I mean, look at the heinous crimes i've committed here ! :eek: ;) :lol:
You didn't commit crimes. You were just a serial pest! ;)

Axiom
22-11-2007, 05:23 PM
You didn't commit crimes. You were just a serial pest! ;)
well, im glad you can make the distinction ! ;)

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:45 PM
By the way, I see that Arrogant-One is, on a thread supposedly devoted to whinging about alleged bullying on this site, genuinely attempting to bully me by making threats concerning hacking the access to the Coffee Lounge.

Oh. He now claims he wasn't really threatening us but only threatening to threaten us. Quite aside from that not actually invalidating my statement above, I'm sure that makes an enormous difference to any assessment of his character.











































Not.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:59 PM
And ursogr8's still not serious about this, as he claims that the 651 words in my previous post were all connected with the ? in my thread title, which is total nonsense, since many words in that post were not concerned directly with the meaning of my thread title, but rather with the history of his infraction and suspension.

And furthermore I am not saying ursogr8 should have been able to work out what the thread title meant just from the "?", but rather that had he read the first post then the meaning would have been clear even to him. And since he loves the Lounge almost as much as he loves the Shoutbox, I know he would have read at least every second word just in case someone said something like:


the octopus CV lemming bid otter for aardvark the weasel Australian squirrel championship trout was walrus actually zebra a wombat heap pangolin of armadillo steaming fruitbat womble. :P

(Not that anyone would say that of course. There are fragile egos at stake.)

So long as he continues posting frivolous uncomprehending nonsense re his suspension elsewhere instead of posting here or PMing a mod here to negotiate, I'll be assuming he is just playing his usual silly word games about nothing remotely connected to reality and has no interest in having his CL access restored.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2007, 05:36 AM
There are no fair legitimate reasons for his banning.
:hand: Apparently that's just your simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality ... :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 08:38 AM
:hand: Apparently that's just your simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality ... :whistle:

No, it's just him being a clueless troll. I give you more credit than that. :lol:

However, you did say you thought my actions were morally indefensible. That means not just that you do not agree with them, but that you do not think they can be defended. They can be defended and are, but you simply don't agree with the differing moral (or in my case para-moral) assumptions underlying them.

eclectic
23-11-2007, 09:14 AM
One thing I found interesting was seeing AO over there boasting that he had three 200+ post hydras with appropriate access rights.

You'd think he'd have some compassion for you know who and loan him one!

:rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2007, 09:36 AM
One thing I found interesting was seeing AO over there boasting that he had three 200+ post hydras with appropriate access rights.

You'd think he'd have some compassion for you know who and loan him one!

:rolleyes:

:lol:

He claims to have two, not three.

It's utter nonsense. If he starts reproducing stuff from the Lounge to try to prove it's true, all that would really prove is that other people with access to the Lounge were passing it to him or letting him use their accounts. And I do have a contingency plan should anything like that ever happen. :lol:

Rincewind
23-11-2007, 09:39 AM
One thing I found interesting was seeing AO over there boasting that he had three 200+ post hydras with appropriate access rights.

You'd think he'd have some compassion for you know who and loan him one!

:rolleyes:

AO doesn't have three 200+ post hydras on this board. That claim is just silly. What he probably is claiming is that he knows the userid and password of three accounts on here who do have CL access. In which case the security problem is not with this board but just the personal security standards of his associates.

Spiny Norman
23-11-2007, 03:24 PM
No, it's just him being a clueless troll. I give you more credit than that. :lol:
Which bit? The clueless bit? Or the troll bit? Or both? (It'd be nice if it were both ... feel free to be generous!). ;)

Kevin Bonham
30-12-2007, 10:24 PM
Which bit? The clueless bit? Or the troll bit? Or both? (It'd be nice if it were both ... feel free to be generous!). ;)

It was indeed both. Apologies for taking so long to reply; I was going to do so earlier but it slipped my mind.

Spiny Norman
31-12-2007, 06:36 AM
Thanks Kevin! ... and a Happy New Year was had by all ... (except ursogr8, who is still banned) ... =8^)

Kevin Bonham
31-12-2007, 11:38 AM
He isn't missing much.

He's had over a month to put in an application for release from his ban from the CL and hasn't done so.

As it happens I was considering supporting releasing him sometime about now, but because he has endorsed a post containing false and idiotic attacks on my personal life elsewhere, I have been forced to withdraw from considering his treatment on account of personal bias against him, until such time as he reconsiders his endorsement of certain parts of Matthew's latest pitiful display. [edit 1/1, 8pm: the offending section has been removed from the quoted text so this is resolved to my satisfaction]

His fate is now in the hands of the other mods here who lack any reason to be personally biased against him. I am sure he will be much reassured by that. :lol:

ER
02-01-2008, 11:43 AM
Just in case we have a wrong identity situation, his name is Trevor Stanning, not David Hicks! :)
Cheers, good luck and a very happy new year to all!

Spiny Norman
02-01-2008, 12:24 PM
I note that the ban is now revoked ... spirit of good will ... hands across the sea ... all that rot ... you see, I have a dream (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm):


And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, [over here and over there] will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2008, 07:52 PM
Just in case we have a wrong identity situation, his name is Trevor Stanning, not David Hicks! :)

Indeed; Hicks was never actually found guilty. :lol:

ER
03-01-2008, 10:48 AM
Indeed; Hicks was never actually found guilty. :lol:

Thank God, Trevor didn't have to serve his sentence in Van Diemen's Land then! ::clap: :))
Cheers and good luck!

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2008, 10:26 PM
Indeed; Hicks was never actually found guilty. :lol:
Didn't he confess?:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
04-01-2008, 05:40 PM
Discussion about David Hicks moved here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7397)

Desmond
07-01-2008, 11:59 PM
I note that the ban is now revoked ... spirit of good will ... hands across the sea ... all that rot ... you see, I have a dream (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm):
We all await Trevor's meaningful contribution to the subforum, I am sure.

ER
08-01-2008, 04:56 PM
We all await Trevor's meaningful contribution to the subforum, I am sure.

Hi Boris and happy new year to you and the family!
For the last four days, I had the honour and the pleasure to witness Trevor and the other incredibly energetic committee members and volunteers of the Box Hill / Canterbury Juniors Chess Club aw they overworked themselves in order to achieve a successful tournament! And what a success the 2008 Canterbury Open was! He will be doing the same tomorrow for the Victorian Lightning Chess Championship. In addition to that, however, I agree with you that Trevor's meaningful contribution in his gifted writing style is always welcomed and eagerly anticipated by all.
Cheers and good luck!

MichaelBaron
10-01-2008, 11:41 AM
and a Happy New Year was had by all ... (except ursogr8, who is still banned) ... =8^)

I am sure being banned from ChessChat is not going to stop anyone from having a Happy New Year :)

Rincewind
10-01-2008, 02:13 PM
I am sure being banned from ChessChat is not going to stop anyone from having a Happy New Year :)

He wasn't banned from all of Chess Chat, just one forum. So there is even less impediment to having a happy New Year.

ElevatorEscapee
11-01-2008, 08:31 PM
He wasn't banned from all of Chess Chat, just one forum. So there is even less impediment to having a happy New Year.

... and given that the forum he was banned from was full of nonsense, he has been given even more reason to celebrate a Very Happy New Year! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2008, 08:33 PM
... and given that the forum he was banned from was full of nonsense, he has been given even more reason to celebrate a Very Happy New Year! :lol:

Which raises the question: why did he care?

ElevatorEscapee
11-01-2008, 09:14 PM
To be honest, I am not sure that he did particularly care.

Of course, being denied from seeing something that you think is probably nonsense, is different from viewing it and evaluating it as nonsense for your self!

However, he may well have seen it as indicative of a greater control / "hypocritical double standard" thingamajig behaviour issue typical of those who could prevent him from viewing such a forum.

But that's just my supposition. If he wishes to explain his objections, he is clearly free to do so on any chess forum... (including here)!

I would argue that the ability to do just that must be a boon, and shed a positive light on this current chess forum. :) (It's when you unfarily stop people from having a say for spurious reasons that they feel the need to voice their objections elsewhere.)

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2008, 11:03 PM
To be honest, I am not sure that he did particularly care.

It is difficult to be sure of any form of meaning of words where that particular poster is concerned. but his protests about it seemed suitably passionate at times, if haphazard and ineffective in their direction.


(It's when you unfarily stop people from having a say for spurious reasons that they feel the need to voice their objections elsewhere.)

He wasn't stopped from having a say at all; he was merely stopped from reading a particular section for the time being.

And the idea that we unfairly stop him from having a say is quite ludicrous when he (fairly or otherwise) stopped himself from doing so a year and a half ago. Probably if he was actually contributing anything public here we would have considered his case a little differently.

Meanwhile I see he's responded to your post elsewhere, characterising it as a "question" although it neither asks nor contains one.

Here he provides a list of posts in a particular CL thread (all of them by Denis and me) that he considers to be "trolling", completely ignoring the fact that both of us were making those comments in response to extremely blatant trolling by firegoat7 (which came out of nowhere as a me-too to a non-trolling post by another poster). So basically his main reason for wanting CL access is so he can see if people are saying nasty things about him in there.

I am not sure which part of my desire to put down firegoat's trolling is so foreign to ursogr8 that my motives are beyond his understanding. My own comments about ursogr8 on that thread were confined to my view of him as a poster, plus there is something I said that could be interpreted along the lines of: however good an organiser he is, that does not place him head and shoulders above others of the kind that firegoat7 dislikes. I made no attack on his organisational skills whatsoever.