The Un-Banning of Axiom - OzChess

**Just2Good** · 07-13-2009, 02:07 PM

So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat.

Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences.

Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion.

Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future.

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-13-2009, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat.

Wrong.
In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned.
Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences.

Wrong again.
Continually using hydras whilst banned is a serious offence on all competently moderated forums.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion.

Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future.

There was no mistake on our part. The mistake was Axiom's in believing that he could flout the Chesschat site rules with impunity.
Axiom has apparently seen the error of his ways.
His ban was lifted as he has agreed to obey the Chesschat rules and conditions.
If he returns to his old behaviour then he will once again find himself out in the cold.

**Just2Good** · 07-13-2009, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

... the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned.

Who expressed this view?

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-13-2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Who expressed this view?

It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat.

**Just2Good** · 07-13-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat.

No it can't because the ip address has been banned. You see the foolishness that happens with Kevin Bonham as an administrator?

**antichrist** · 07-13-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat.

Hey Bill, if I was to post the same link to this site on CC would not I be banned? It would save me being a carrier pidgeon. Are you saying there is more liberty here?

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-13-2009, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

No it can't because the ip address has been banned.

That is your own fault for spamming Chesschat on numerous occasions using hydras.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

You see the foolishness that happens with Kevin Bonham as an administrator?

The only foolish administrators I have seen are on this forum. In fact you and firegoat7 have raised foolish administration to a whole new level.

**MOZ** · 07-13-2009, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat.

Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences.

Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion.

Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future.

Just out of interest AO, do you include PM metrics in the usage-this-month stats that you post for Ozchess?
I raise this because I notice a chesschatter (who declines to post here) negotiating in a very frequent (Ozchess PM) manner with a banned stalwart 'tiger' of Ozchess. No doubt the cc'r is very welcome to use the Ozchess facility....but I do think it should count towards your ADMIN stats.

**Firegoat7** · 07-14-2009, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Wrong.
In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned.

Names of the 'majority expressed view' or it never occurred. If you don't name them I will call you a liar. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned.

Name 'them' if there was a 'them'. I am willing to bet that less 10% of your membership complained and that the decision was influenced by a minority viewpoint.
On this issue your are a liar Gletsos and I will only withdraw my charge when you show proof that you are not.

cheers,

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-15-2009, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Names of the 'majority expressed view' or it never occurred. If you don't name them I will call you a liar. Plain and simple.

You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Name 'them' if there was a 'them'. I am willing to bet that less 10% of your membership complained and that the decision was influenced by a minority viewpoint.
On this issue your are a liar Gletsos and I will only withdraw my charge when you show proof that you are not.

You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat.

**Firegoat7** · 07-15-2009, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat.

No. I simply don't click on links from sources I don't trust. Its called safe surfing. Furthermore, I don't read chesschat. I am not interested in anything that is said on that undemocratically moderated board.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat.

Let me repeat myself. I DO NOT READ CHESSCHAT. So its not a matter of observation. If you want to prove your point, produce evidence in its proper context, otherwise quit moaning and go back to Chesschat and cross link from there.

Oops sorry about that, you have the Ozchess site name censored don't you, so you can't actually reverse link to Ozchess. I temporarily forgot about your biased one street information dictatorial board policy, that seeks to monopolise chess information.

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-15-2009, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

No. I simply don't click on links from sources I don't trust. Its called safe surfing. Furthermore, I don't read chesschat.

I provided the link to the actual source. If you wont go there then tough luck.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Let me repeat myself. I DO NOT READ CHESSCHAT. So its not a matter of observation. If you want to prove your point, produce evidence in its proper context, otherwise quit moaning and go back to Chesschat and cross link from there.

The only one moaning is you. The proper context is on Chesschat because that is where Jaydon's poll was posted. If you wont go there then tough luck.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Oops sorry about that, you have the Ozchess site name censored don't you, so you can't actually reverse link to Ozchess.

Of course it is censored given the numerous times that Alex here has used hydras to spam Chesschat.

**Jaydon** · 07-15-2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Wrong.
In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned.
Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned.

I have to correct you on that one. The majority of chesschatters did not express that view, it was rather the majority of chesschatters who voted. I think it would be safe to say that at least a third of these, (or at least enough to turn the tables), would have voted "more enjoyable" simply to spite me or because they felt that's what they're "almighty leaders" would want them to do. That can not be denied.. Taking that into account there is certainly noone there who would have voted "less enjoyable" without truly meaning it and as there was only a difference of two votes it is safe to assume that the majority of chesschatters did in fact want Axiom back.

**Just2Good** · 07-15-2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

Just out of interest AO, do you include PM metrics in the usage-this-month stats that you post for Ozchess?

These stats are available from the Admin Control Panel, and I confirm KB is an avid PM'er here on OzChess.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I temporarily forgot about your biased one street information dictatorial board policy, that seeks to monopolise chess information.

If your above sentence had been a post all by itself, I would have nominated it for post of the month Firegoat7

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Of course it is censored given the numerous times that Alex here has used hydras to spam Chesschat.

Hogwash!

The reason it is banned is simply because to allow Chess Chatters to link to OzChess would further increase OzChess' popularity.

Originally Posted by Jaydon

The majority of chesschatters did not express that view...

Exactly!

**Bill Gletsos** · 07-15-2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Jaydon

I have to correct you on that one. The majority of chesschatters did not express that view, it was rather the majority of chesschatters who voted. I think it would be safe to say that at least a third of these, (or at least enough to turn the tables), would have voted "more enjoyable" simply to spite me or because they felt that's what they're "almighty leaders" would want them to do. That can not be denied.. Taking that into account there is certainly noone there who would have voted "less enjoyable" without truly meaning it and as there was only a difference of two votes it is safe to assume that the majority of chesschatters did in fact want Axiom back.

Ah yes you is the cry of all those who lose out when polls do not go their way.

The same was true for your polls on whether Ax should be allowed to mention the SCT in the shoutbox (that vote went against him 11-4) and if he should be allowed to mention Alex Jones wbsites (infowars) in the shoutbox (that vote went against him 13-4).

The bottom line is you put up some polls and did not get the result you wanted.

07-13-2009, 02:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	The Un-Banning of Axiom So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat. Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences. Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion. Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-13-2009, 04:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat. Wrong. In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned. Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned. Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences. Wrong again. Continually using hydras whilst banned is a serious offence on all competently moderated forums. Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion. Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future. There was no mistake on our part. The mistake was Axiom's in believing that he could flout the Chesschat site rules with impunity. Axiom has apparently seen the error of his ways. His ban was lifted as he has agreed to obey the Chesschat rules and conditions. If he returns to his old behaviour then he will once again find himself out in the cold.

07-13-2009, 06:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos ... the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned. Who expressed this view? __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-13-2009, 06:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Who expressed this view? It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat.

07-13-2009, 06:56 PM	#5 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat. No it can't because the ip address has been banned. You see the foolishness that happens with Kevin Bonham as an administrator? __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-13-2009, 08:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
antichrist Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Byron Bay, NSW Posts: 2,821	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos It can be seen in Jaydon's poll here on Chesschat. Hey Bill, if I was to post the same link to this site on CC would not I be banned? It would save me being a carrier pidgeon. Are you saying there is more liberty here?

07-13-2009, 09:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One No it can't because the ip address has been banned. That is your own fault for spamming Chesschat on numerous occasions using hydras. Originally Posted by Arrogant-One You see the foolishness that happens with Kevin Bonham as an administrator? The only foolish administrators I have seen are on this forum. In fact you and firegoat7 have raised foolish administration to a whole new level.

07-13-2009, 09:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,541	Oh, the irony. Originally Posted by Arrogant-One So with enough Chess Chatters finally getting through to the thick headed bots, Axiom has now been unbanned on Chess Chat. Its about bloody time they ate some humble pie and unbanned him. Axiom was simply another in a long list of people banned from that site for nothing serious, and often trumped up nonsensical offences. Anyway, I will commend the mods on CC for finally doing the right thing, although they should have pulled their heads out and unbanned him months ago. So I'm afraid I can only award partial points on this occasion. Nevertheless I m glad to see they are admitting they were wrong for a change. Let's hope they build on that and continue to come clean regarding their mistakes and indiscretions in the future. Just out of interest AO, do you include PM metrics in the usage-this-month stats that you post for Ozchess? I raise this because I notice a chesschatter (who declines to post here) negotiating in a very frequent (Ozchess PM) manner with a banned stalwart 'tiger' of Ozchess. No doubt the cc'r is very welcome to use the Ozchess facility....but I do think it should count towards your ADMIN stats. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

07-14-2009, 11:40 PM	#9 (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 Wrong. In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned. Names of the 'majority expressed view' or it never occurred. If you don't name them I will call you a liar. Plain and simple. Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned. Name 'them' if there was a 'them'. I am willing to bet that less 10% of your membership complained and that the decision was influenced by a minority viewpoint. On this issue your are a liar Gletsos and I will only withdraw my charge when you show proof that you are not. 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

07-15-2009, 12:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Names of the 'majority expressed view' or it never occurred. If you don't name them I will call you a liar. Plain and simple. You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Name 'them' if there was a 'them'. I am willing to bet that less 10% of your membership complained and that the decision was influenced by a minority viewpoint. On this issue your are a liar Gletsos and I will only withdraw my charge when you show proof that you are not. You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat.

07-15-2009, 04:02 AM	#11 (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 You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat. No. I simply don't click on links from sources I don't trust. Its called safe surfing. Furthermore, I don't read chesschat. I am not interested in anything that is said on that undemocratically moderated board. Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos You really are not very observant as my post #4 above links to the relevant poll on chesschat. Let me repeat myself. I DO NOT READ CHESSCHAT. So its not a matter of observation. If you want to prove your point, produce evidence in its proper context, otherwise quit moaning and go back to Chesschat and cross link from there. Oops sorry about that, you have the Ozchess site name censored don't you, so you can't actually reverse link to Ozchess. I temporarily forgot about your biased one street information dictatorial board policy, that seeks to monopolise chess information. __________________ "...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

07-15-2009, 12:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 No. I simply don't click on links from sources I don't trust. Its called safe surfing. Furthermore, I don't read chesschat. I provided the link to the actual source. If you wont go there then tough luck. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Let me repeat myself. I DO NOT READ CHESSCHAT. So its not a matter of observation. If you want to prove your point, produce evidence in its proper context, otherwise quit moaning and go back to Chesschat and cross link from there. The only one moaning is you. The proper context is on Chesschat because that is where Jaydon's poll was posted. If you wont go there then tough luck. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Oops sorry about that, you have the Ozchess site name censored don't you, so you can't actually reverse link to Ozchess. Of course it is censored given the numerous times that Alex here has used hydras to spam Chesschat.

07-15-2009, 01:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos Wrong. In fact the majority of Chesschaters expressed a view that their time on Chesschat had been more enjoyable with Axiom banned. Therefore if we had listened to them he would still be banned. I have to correct you on that one. The majority of chesschatters did not express that view, it was rather the majority of chesschatters who voted. I think it would be safe to say that at least a third of these, (or at least enough to turn the tables), would have voted "more enjoyable" simply to spite me or because they felt that's what they're "almighty leaders" would want them to do. That can not be denied.. Taking that into account there is certainly noone there who would have voted "less enjoyable" without truly meaning it and as there was only a difference of two votes it is safe to assume that the majority of chesschatters did in fact want Axiom back.

07-15-2009, 01:18 PM	#14 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Bill's Floundering Arguments Originally Posted by MOZ Just out of interest AO, do you include PM metrics in the usage-this-month stats that you post for Ozchess? These stats are available from the Admin Control Panel, and I confirm KB is an avid PM'er here on OzChess. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 I temporarily forgot about your biased one street information dictatorial board policy, that seeks to monopolise chess information. If your above sentence had been a post all by itself, I would have nominated it for post of the month Firegoat7 Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos Of course it is censored given the numerous times that Alex here has used hydras to spam Chesschat. Hogwash! The reason it is banned is simply because to allow Chess Chatters to link to OzChess would further increase OzChess' popularity. Originally Posted by Jaydon The majority of chesschatters did not express that view... Exactly! __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-15-2009, 03:10 PM	#15 (permalink)
Bill Gletsos Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 653	Originally Posted by Jaydon I have to correct you on that one. The majority of chesschatters did not express that view, it was rather the majority of chesschatters who voted. I think it would be safe to say that at least a third of these, (or at least enough to turn the tables), would have voted "more enjoyable" simply to spite me or because they felt that's what they're "almighty leaders" would want them to do. That can not be denied.. Taking that into account there is certainly noone there who would have voted "less enjoyable" without truly meaning it and as there was only a difference of two votes it is safe to assume that the majority of chesschatters did in fact want Axiom back. Ah yes you is the cry of all those who lose out when polls do not go their way. The same was true for your polls on whether Ax should be allowed to mention the SCT in the shoutbox (that vote went against him 11-4) and if he should be allowed to mention Alex Jones wbsites (infowars) in the shoutbox (that vote went against him 13-4). The bottom line is you put up some polls and did not get the result you wanted.

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