OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**Just2Good** · 07-17-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

... how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't allow free voicing of opinion? is this really necessary?

Hi FF

Does the free voicing of opinion entitle one to shout "Fire, Fire" in a crowded place so as to create a panic when in fact there is no fire? Does it extend to defaming, slandering, and harrassing others? In my respectful view, the answer to both questions is no. There is a lot of history you may not be aware of between many posters and Bill and Kevin. In this instance a valued poster complained and action was therefore required.

Originally Posted by lotlizard

so do these reflect "civility and courteousy[sic]" or "aggressive and unfriendly attitude"? :
this thread about bill called "coward"

this post by phild707

this post by firegoat7

Firstly, what was done to Matt was underhanded and therefore Matt had good cause to voice his complaint. Secondly, the interaction between Phil and yourself is largely a Tasmanian affair which doesn't include others (nor should it). Thirdly, Firegoat7 was very tame with a ferocious kitten that was trying to bite him. I think he deserves commendation for how he dealt with the situation.

Just because somebody complains does not mean you have to apply a ban.

Perhaps not, but in this case it was appropriate.

Especially not when the board is awash with worse stuff about the same person that was there before.

I don't know what person you are referring to.

... and banning on such slender and arbitrary pretexts is destroying your credibility to complain about any of the bans on chesschat.

What pretext? There was no pretext at all. Banning Bill Gletsos was something I did with a heavy heart, I am sure the same way a parent sometimes has to discipline an unruly child even though the parent would rather not. A complaint was made (not by a staff member), that complaint was discussed with the poster in open dialogue which respected that poster's anonymity. Solutions other than banning were explored. There was nothing arbitrary about it, and some level of due process was afforded before action was taken. This is in addition to the fact that several warnings were provided to the poster beforehand.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to open my inbox and find an email from Bill Gletsos to the effect of:

---------------------
Dear Alex,

I have given it some thought. I think you were correct in banning me because I was out of line. I would like to apologize and will try hard to ensure that a repeat of such behaviour does not occur in the future.

Yours Sincerely,

Bill
-----------------------------

Best

AO

07-17-2008, 01:14 PM	#13 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Dialogue and Fairness in Bannings Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan ... how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't allow free voicing of opinion? is this really necessary? Hi FF Does the free voicing of opinion entitle one to shout "Fire, Fire" in a crowded place so as to create a panic when in fact there is no fire? Does it extend to defaming, slandering, and harrassing others? In my respectful view, the answer to both questions is no. There is a lot of history you may not be aware of between many posters and Bill and Kevin. In this instance a valued poster complained and action was therefore required. Originally Posted by lotlizard so do these reflect "civility and courteousy[sic]" or "aggressive and unfriendly attitude"? : this thread about bill called "coward" this post by phild707 this post by firegoat7 Firstly, what was done to Matt was underhanded and therefore Matt had good cause to voice his complaint. Secondly, the interaction between Phil and yourself is largely a Tasmanian affair which doesn't include others (nor should it). Thirdly, Firegoat7 was very tame with a ferocious kitten that was trying to bite him. I think he deserves commendation for how he dealt with the situation. Just because somebody complains does not mean you have to apply a ban. Perhaps not, but in this case it was appropriate. Especially not when the board is awash with worse stuff about the same person that was there before. I don't know what person you are referring to. ... and banning on such slender and arbitrary pretexts is destroying your credibility to complain about any* of the bans on chesschat.* What pretext? There was no pretext at all. Banning Bill Gletsos was something I did with a heavy heart, I am sure the same way a parent sometimes has to discipline an unruly child even though the parent would rather not. A complaint was made (not by a staff member), that complaint was discussed with the poster in open dialogue which respected that poster's anonymity. Solutions other than banning were explored. There was nothing arbitrary about it, and some level of due process was afforded before action was taken. This is in addition to the fact that several warnings were provided to the poster beforehand. I wouldn't be at all surprised to open my inbox and find an email from Bill Gletsos to the effect of: --------------------- Dear Alex, I have given it some thought. I think you were correct in banning me because I was out of line. I would like to apologize and will try hard to ensure that a repeat of such behaviour does not occur in the future. Yours Sincerely, Bill ----------------------------- Best AO __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~ Last edited by Just2Good : 07-17-2008 at 05:41 PM Reason: Spelling correction.