Originally Posted by Firegoat7
Correction! "You" not "we" have "a problem". That is, with due respect, "we" has not been qualified/quantified/identified/classified or categorised. "You" claim to represent "we", but "we", whomever it is you claim to represent have their own voices. Therefore speak for yourself.
Furthermore, why should anybody moderating a community forum believe that "merit" is more relevant then "posters/members". Sounds like academic idealism to me.
To claim it is 'double standards' is simply absurd. Two obvious reasons stand out. a) Context and b) Relationships. Now I am NOT going to fill in the dots for you about why these reasons are important, but what I will say is this your guiding Utilitarian philosophies have almost no place on this board.
Why is this surprising to you? People don't respect you here because you continually burn bridges. You are the Outsider, its up to you to build relationships and fit in with the community.
Yes. A large number of members on this site are hostile to Chesschat and its members. It's not like unknown public knowledge, nor is the antagonistic feeling between the two sites a one way street. In fact "Toolbox" is a word that is used commonly on Chesschat.
However, flaming like Chesschat flaming is ACTIVELY discouraged in a variety of ways. This has been policy since Day One and I don't think you really understand that yet. You will find virtually no examples of such "flamewars" on this site that do not involve you or Bill Gletsos.
Kevin you are the Outsider, its up to you to learn the rules of the community that you have chosen to join, nobody else. If you don't adapt you will not survive here.
Ozchess is incredibly fair. In fact, it is light years ahead of Chesschat on this matter. I am staggered at how fair Alex and Moz have been to you.
In regards to them, from my observations its not a reciprocal relationship.
Its not our fault that you chose to ignore all the warnings about Ka-rthick and his business dealings, not to mention PROTECTED a moderation system for self interest. And we won't even begin to discuss your personal disputes as a moderator. Let's face it, if fairness is the measuring stick then you really don't have a moral leg to stand on over here!
If this was "The best way" why is it allowed on Chesschat? What makes you think Ozchess wants argumentative Chesschat posters? and, what is your real reason for coming here?
You could always start another site as your friends at Chesschat often suggested! Then you could tell those antagonistic others that when they are in Rome all rules are Roman! Its quite simple really.
cheers Fg7
Excellent post, right to the point and I agree 100%
I have a few points of my own to add to the discussion;
A one day ban on BG is not the end of the world for him and he will be back if/when he he wishes.
The ban in itself was entirely and comprehensively justified to send a clear message on what is expected here in terms of poster behaviour.
I would really hope that it will be a long time, if ever, before such action might be necessary again.
I don't know whether we do need a set of "rules" or not, too many rules perhaps just turns the site into a game to be played.
Common sense is more useful (please do not ask me to define "common" and "sense")
Here are some obvious(?) principles that i believe should guide our behaviour.
1. TRY to be as polite and courteous as possible even under the duress of heated discussion and/or provocation
2. people who enter discussion without making it clear who they are either by their signature or their profile, should expect to be treated rudely and/or ignored. It's a cowardly thing to do, in my view, and it should be discouraged.
Turn up in as many different identities as you wish but if you want to participate in discussion then state plainly who you are ion your profile ideally.
3. Despotic regimes such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Chesschat may, (and should rightly), be critisised freely.
Phil.