Chess Chat Double Standards - OzChess

**Just2Good** · 03-02-2009, 01:01 PM

For those of you have been or presently are members of Chess Chat, have you ever thought to yourself - why is there one set of rules for the moderators and another for everyone else? Especially when the moderators there break their own rules when those rules become inconvenient.

The most recent case in point is this post by Kevin Bonham.

Now as we can see he is clearly in breach of this Chess Chat rule:

* While a poster is banned from chesschat it is not permitted to post on their behalf in any way, or to post links to anything they have written while banned.

Eventually, to circumvent this inconvenient rule, Kevin came up with this mumbo jumbo exception to the aforementioned rule:

Quoting of banned posters is permitted only if (i) the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced (onus is on the quoter to demonstrate this) or (ii) the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here.

Any post consisting largely of quoting of material by one or more banned posters with little or no original comment added will breach this rule, as will any post that quotes a banned user without discussing the comments quoted in relation to points being discussed on the thread. In any case all material quoted must be clearly within the site rules. If in doubt about this rule, please check your intended post with a moderator before posting it.

So, presumably a two (2) part test. Namely,

the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced; or
the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here.

As the first point clearly doesn't fit the exception to the rule, we turn our attention to Kevin's second point.

The second criteria says that the quoting must be for the purposes of 'critical discussion', although Kevin intentionally left out any clarification on what that term means. Presumably, as one cannot have a discussion with himself, several people need to discuss the banned posters remark for this exception to the rule to be enlivened

Well, here again Kevin fails as he is not discussing anything with anyone. He is simply making a blunt non-critcally discussive remark, and therefore breaking his own self professed holier than thou rules in the process.

As a result he should probably ban himself, but I won't hold my breath.

Best Regards,

AO

**Just2Good** · 05-18-2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonbot

Speaking of MOZ and his comment "with no attribution as to its source" it looks like he did exactly that himself when he did a cut and paste from Kerry Lyall's post on Chesschat here and posted it over on the toolbox without stating it came from here.

Actually this was my fault. I asked MOZ to make that post and supplied him with the material which I sourced from the swamp. I should have told MOZ that's where it came from. So if you want to finger point, please point it at me.

Thanks,

AO

**Zeitgeist** · 03-07-2010, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by kevin bonham

I lie awake at night wondering about the Compaq computer. I hope that it is safe and warm and happy. I worry about these things.

Please include in your worry beads the DGT boards, held by the ACF, that were intended to be shared with all States.

The DGT boards are no doubt safe, warm and happy; but under-utilised.

**Bill Gletsos** · 03-07-2010, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

Please include in your worry beads the DGT boards, held by the ACF, that were intended to be shared with all States.

The DGT boards are no doubt safe, warm and happy; but under-utilised.

When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out.

The DGT boards are currently held by the ACF Grand Prix Director.
They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport.

**Firegoat7** · 03-07-2010, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out.

Surely this means either the user pays the damage bill or the cost is recovered from insurance?

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

The DGT boards are currently held by the ACF Grand Prix Director.
They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport.

Pathetic. You have an asset that was donated by a sponsor. You then extort significant costs for their usage in ACF listed events, simply because your organisation cannot find a creative logistical solution. You would think that if the ACF had any sort of competent leadership it would ensure that its flagship Grand prix events had free access to DGT technology. Pathetic E- for effort and creative thinking.

cheers,

**Axiom** · 03-07-2010, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Surely this means either the user pays the damage bill or the cost is recovered from insurance?

Pathetic. You have an asset that was donated by a sponsor. You then extort significant costs for their usage in ACF listed events, simply because your organisation cannot find a creative logistical solution. You would think that if the ACF had any sort of competent leadership it would ensure that its flagship Grand prix events had free access to DGT technology. Pathetic E- for effort and creative thinking.

cheers,

excellent points

**Iconoclast** · 03-07-2010, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out.
...
They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport.

WOW, now Dodgy Bros. will will rent me damaged and shorted out DGT boards

**antichrist** · 03-08-2010, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

WOW, now Dodgy Bros. will will rent me damaged and shorted out DGT boards

Matt, that should have been "shorted-out" by the way.

I would not recommend send such electonic stuff via the mail or couriers anyway - no wonder they got wrecked. Neglect that was.

**Just2Good** · 01-05-2012, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

The ban on ursogr8 will be lifted when all unfair action against Chesschatters over there has been lifted or ceased.

Well, at least this time Kevin hasn't begged me to create a new subgroup for MOZ, so Kevin could unban him with a clear conscience.

03-02-2009, 01:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Chess Chat Double Standards For those of you have been or presently are members of Chess Chat, have you ever thought to yourself - why is there one set of rules for the moderators and another for everyone else? Especially when the moderators there break their own rules when those rules become inconvenient. The most recent case in point is this post by Kevin Bonham. Now as we can see he is clearly in breach of this Chess Chat rule: * While a poster is banned from chesschat it is not permitted to post on their behalf in any way, or to post links to anything they have written while banned. Eventually, to circumvent this inconvenient rule, Kevin came up with this mumbo jumbo exception to the aforementioned rule: Quoting of banned posters is permitted only if (i) the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced (onus is on the quoter to demonstrate this) or (ii) the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here. Any post consisting largely of quoting of material by one or more banned posters with little or no original comment added will breach this rule, as will any post that quotes a banned user without discussing the comments quoted in relation to points being discussed on the thread. In any case all material quoted must be clearly within the site rules. If in doubt about this rule, please check your intended post with a moderator before posting it. So, presumably a two (2) part test. Namely, the material quoted was written before the poster's current ban commenced; or the quoting is clearly for the purposes of critical discussion (not necessarily negative) rather than deliberately helping the banned poster to circumvent their ban by having their comments appear here. As the first point clearly doesn't fit the exception to the rule, we turn our attention to Kevin's second point. The second criteria says that the quoting must be for the purposes of 'critical discussion', although Kevin intentionally left out any clarification on what that term means. Presumably, as one cannot have a discussion with himself, several people need to discuss the banned posters remark for this exception to the rule to be enlivened Well, here again Kevin fails as he is not discussing anything with anyone. He is simply making a blunt non-critcally discussive remark, and therefore breaking his own self professed holier than thou rules in the process. As a result he should probably ban himself, but I won't hold my breath. Best Regards, AO __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

05-18-2009, 03:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	My Mistake - Sorry Originally Posted by Kevin Bonbot Speaking of MOZ and his comment "with no attribution as to its source" it looks like he did exactly that himself when he did a cut and paste from Kerry Lyall's post on Chesschat here and posted it over on the toolbox without stating it came from here. Actually this was my fault. I asked MOZ to make that post and supplied him with the material which I sourced from the swamp. I should have told MOZ that's where it came from. So if you want to finger point, please point it at me. Thanks, AO __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-07-2010, 07:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zeitgeist Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 35	Originally Posted by kevin bonham I lie awake at night wondering about the Compaq computer. I hope that it is safe and warm and happy. I worry about these things. Please include in your worry beads the DGT boards, held by the ACF, that were intended to be shared with all States. The DGT boards are no doubt safe, warm and happy; but under-utilised.

03-07-2010, 08:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Zeitgeist Please include in your worry beads the DGT boards, held by the ACF, that were intended to be shared with all States. The DGT boards are no doubt safe, warm and happy; but under-utilised. When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out. The DGT boards are currently held by the ACF Grand Prix Director. They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport.

03-07-2010, 11:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out. Surely this means either the user pays the damage bill or the cost is recovered from insurance? Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos The DGT boards are currently held by the ACF Grand Prix Director. They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport. Pathetic. You have an asset that was donated by a sponsor. You then extort significant costs for their usage in ACF listed events, simply because your organisation cannot find a creative logistical solution. You would think that if the ACF had any sort of competent leadership it would ensure that its flagship Grand prix events had free access to DGT technology. Pathetic E- for effort and creative thinking. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

03-07-2010, 11:11 PM	#6 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Surely this means either the user pays the damage bill or the cost is recovered from insurance? Pathetic. You have an asset that was donated by a sponsor. You then extort significant costs for their usage in ACF listed events, simply because your organisation cannot find a creative logistical solution. You would think that if the ACF had any sort of competent leadership it would ensure that its flagship Grand prix events had free access to DGT technology. Pathetic E- for effort and creative thinking. cheers, excellent points __________________ "Sometimes the obligation of the intelligent is to restate the obvious. None more important than emphatically stating that there is a : ' Naked Emperor Elephant in the Room' " Axiom

03-07-2010, 11:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos When the boards were being held by individual states the boards ended up being damaged and shorted out. ... They can be hired by Grand Prix tournament organisers for a usage fee and the cost of transport. WOW, now Dodgy Bros. will will rent me damaged and shorted out DGT boards __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-08-2010, 04:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Iconoclast WOW, now Dodgy Bros. will will rent me damaged and shorted out DGT boards Matt, that should have been "shorted-out" by the way. I would not recommend send such electonic stuff via the mail or couriers anyway - no wonder they got wrecked. Neglect that was.

01-05-2012, 05:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	No Unfairness Towards Chesschatters or Anyone Else Originally Posted by Kevin The ban on ursogr8 will be lifted when all unfair action against Chesschatters over there has been lifted or ceased. Well, at least this time Kevin hasn't begged me to create a new subgroup for MOZ, so Kevin could unban him with a clear conscience. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: