Sick of CC Mods/Join the social protest! - OzChess

**Firegoat7** · 07-02-2010, 03:33 AM

Dear Mods,

After much thought I request that I be banned indefinitely from Ozchess until both Kevin Bonham and Bill Gletsos are permanently banned from this site.

My aim is to draw attention to the behavior of these people on Australian chess forums everywhere. I find that myself and a few other individuals remain constantly under psychological attack from these people and that their behavior borders on an irrationality that is most probably a psychosis.

I can no longer tolerate their tyranny in any form and wish to not interact with them in anyway.

Please join me in symbolic protest for a day or two!

cheers Fg7

**Jaydon** · 07-02-2010, 03:44 AM

I respect your decision fg and will follow the request of banning you for an indefinite period of time.
Any last words?

**Axiom** · 07-02-2010, 03:44 AM

I commend highly fg for taking this action , and understand the sheer frustration in trying to make change happen through the usual channels .
When a true warrior is faced with such blatant injustice , when he sees it day in day out , and nothing being done to help the afflicted victims so unfairly treated at the hands of these cold hard tyrants .What choice does he have , but the ultimate sacrifice of his very online self life .
No greater a sacrifice could be made . To lay down your existence for a cause so great .
The greatest of causes in fact . The causes of freedom and justice .

As soon as i consult my diary for next week , i will also pledge a period of time in which i will withdraw my services from the australian online chess community .
It will pain me to do so ,and no doubt will upset scores of followers but some cannot suffer this gross living injustice any longer without making some type of statement .

DIE ON YOUR FEET NOT LIVE ON YOUR KNEES

**Firegoat7** · 07-02-2010, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Jaydon

I respect your decision fg and will follow the request of banning you for an indefinite period of time.
Any last words?

Thanks Jaydon.

I have the up most respect for you as a human being.

May I add that I will miss my friends on Chesschat. Since I will now be underground. I ask that any negotiation be conducted through my representative Axiom. I trust that he will be able to negotiate the struggle in an official capacity, confidently and with the honor that befits a true chess warrior!

Viva La revolution!
Death to tyrants

cheers,

P.S Brazil will win the world Cup!

**JaK** · 07-02-2010, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Thanks Jaydon.

I have the up most respect for you as a human being.

May I add that I will miss my friends on Chesschat. Since I will now be underground. I ask that any negotiation be conducted through my representative Axiom. I trust that he will be able to negotiate the struggle in an official capacity, confidently and with the honor that befits a true chess warrior!

Viva La revolution!
Death to tyrants

cheers,

P.S Brazil will win the world Cup!

Ax, don't forget to remind David that he has qualified for the Victorian Championship winning the candidates last year.
Closing date for confirmation is July 5. I am very afraid that with World Cup etc interfering he will forget about it!

**Iconoclast** · 07-02-2010, 06:55 PM

Interesting!

Idea: Close the site for posting - reading still OK - for a period of 48 hours. Have a message sent to all members' PM in box stating that we are protesting against the personification of odium. We simply want BG and KB to voluntarily go.

I favour this approach because to outright ban them is
1. an anathema to freedom of speech and
2. gives them the gift of victimhood.

I want them to know that they are not welcome here and should just GO and never come back.

**Just2Good** · 07-02-2010, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

We simply want BG and KB to voluntarily go.

I favour this approach because to outright ban them is
1. an anathema to freedom of speech and
2. gives them the gift of victimhood.

I want them to know that they are not welcome here and should just GO and never come back.

I support a ban on them, regardless of whether its permanent or temporary. The stink this place up, and I fully agree with Firegoat7, I do not wish to interact with them - neither on CC nor here.

I would ask one of the three moderators to please ban these two.

And Matt, I agree - but they won't go voluntarily, so perhaps its time someone show's them the door?

**Iconoclast** · 07-02-2010, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

And Matt, I agree - but they won't go voluntarily, so perhaps its time someone show's them the door?

They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed. They will go - if they are "normal." However, if they are not normal, if they are of a psychopaths they will keep posting here.

If they do prove to be abnormal psychos by continuing to post here, then we should consider obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order.

**Zeitgeist** · 07-02-2010, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed. They will go - if they are "normal." However, if they are not normal, if they are of a psychopaths they will keep posting here.

If they do prove to be abnormal psychos by continuing to post here, then we should consider obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order.

Law proposed by members of parliament from ruling majority and opposition wins backing of centre-right government

(Reuters Paris)

The French parliament has approved a groundbreaking law that makes psychological violence an offence as part of a broader range of measures aimed at improving protection of victims of abuse.
Magistrates have criticised the bill, fearing that it will be hard to define what exactly constitutes such mental abuse. They say it will be difficult to prove in court. The law was proposed by members of parliament from both the ruling majority and the leftist opposition and won the backing of the centre-right government.
"We have introduced an important measure here, which recognises psychological violence, because it isn't just blows [that hurt] but also words," Nadine Morano, the minister for family affairs, told the lower house of parliament.
Anyone found guilty of breaking the law faces up to three years in jail and a €75,000 ($91,530) fine. The bill defines mental violence as "repeated acts which could be constituted by words or other machinations, to degrade one's quality of life and cause a change to one's mental or physical state".
Morano said witnesses could be called on to testify in such cases, and doctors' certificates detailing a patient's descent into nervous depression could be used as evidence.
"The judge could [also] take into consideration letters, SMSs or repetitive messages, because one knows that psychological violence is made up of insults," she added.

**Iconoclast** · 07-03-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

"We have introduced an important measure here, which recognises psychological violence, because it isn't just blows [that hurt] but also words,"

This is true.
I ask, is a name calling squabble the non physical equivalent to fisticuffs. In such cases, if both parties are willing participants, to coppers not charge them both with assault, they are charged with affray. Only when one is an obvious victim of excessive violence - usually the "winner" - becomes the charged legal loser.

"... repeated acts which could be constituted by words or other machinations, to degrade one's quality of life and cause a change to one's mental or physical state".

I have bolded an important point of divergence from physical/verbal analogy. The verbal acts must be:
1. repeated
2. intended to degrade
3. and success in degrading the victim

Therefore,
1. a single insult is insufficient for prosecution
2. without intent to degrade, there is no crime
3. genuine tears must be shed

If the French solution were adopted on this bulletin board, how could it impact on our discourse?

As an aside, most people do not know that telling someone truthfully that you will bash them - a threat - is considered by the courts to be assault and will see you convicted.

**Just2Good** · 07-03-2010, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed.

Just like no woman would stay in a marriage where she is being physically abused?

In case you didn't know, most women being abused in marriages have been on the receiving end of it for years, and they don't leave the relationship for years.

Bill and Kevin get off on coming here to spark fights with people. Kevin, in particular, is happy to do this until 4am in the morning. You're solution of not spanking the bratty kids is perhaps what encourages them to continue being bratty.

**MOZ** · 07-03-2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

This is true.
I ask, is a name calling squabble the non physical equivalent to fisticuffs. In such cases, if both parties are willing participants, to coppers not charge them both with assault, they are charged with affray. Only when one is an obvious victim of excessive violence - usually the "winner" - becomes the charged legal loser.

I have bolded an important point of divergence from physical/verbal analogy. The verbal acts must be:
1a. repeated
2a. intended to degrade
3a. and success in degrading the victim

Therefore,
1b. a single insult is insufficient for prosecution
2b. without intent to degrade, there is no crime
3b. genuine tears must be shed

If the French solution were adopted on this bulletin board, how could it impact on our discourse?

As an aside, most people do not know that telling someone truthfully that you will bash them - a threat - is considered by the courts to be assault and will see you convicted.

A nice decomposition of the issues by you Matt.
In answer to your question, penalties would be applied. (To both sides if they were separately both judged guilty).
You suggest an AVO.
fg7 appears to have judged himself and applied the penalty of a ban.

So, turning to the other party, your 3a appears to have been met as fg7 is deprived of his role here (albeit self-inflicted).
A concomitant ban on the other party would be equitable, under French considerations.

Remaining question is...are we French.

**Just2Good** · 07-03-2010, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

A nice decomposition of the issues by you Matt.
In answer to your question, penalties would be applied. (To both sides if they were separately both judged guilty).
You suggest an AVO.
fg7 appears to have judged himself and applied the penalty of a ban.

So, turning to the other party, your 3a appears to have been met as fg7 is deprived of his role here (albeit self-inflicted).
A concomitant ban on the other party would be equitable, under French considerations.

Remaining question is...are we French.

I concur with the highlighted portion.

**Axiom** · 07-03-2010, 06:23 PM

Fg is now on day 2 of his strike action .

I think it behooves us all to reflect for a moment exactly what this great freedom fighter is doing , and why he is doing it .

Do you think for one second that fg enjoys being forumless , away from his buddies , stuck out there in the wilderness ?

He is doing this for all of us ...every single online chess player .Fg is making the ultimate sacrifice to bring awareness and action to the following :

1) That chesschat is an acf front organisation
2) That chesschat is run by a despotic regime ,overseeing the brutal culling of some of the biggest names in the australian chess online forum world .
3) That chesschat can no longer disguise itself as a "private club"( a cover for the immoral treatment of online citizens ) when it plainly acts contrary to this .

Fg demands full and total amnesty now or the indefinite banning of kb and billg from this site . This demand based on the laws of natural justice , not on some imposed faux morality system .

I had a short conversation with fg today . He is holding up pretty well . He says he missed his friends here , but i could tell he had a steely resolve to see this through .

If anyone would like to pass on wishes of encouragement or just to say hi to fg , just let me know and i will forward them onto him, i'm sure he would appreciate it .

**Axiom** · 07-03-2010, 07:16 PM

There is a current push over there to have both Bill and me banned. This is supported by firegoat (who supports banning us permanently), Alex (who supports banning us temporarily or permanently), and MOZ to a degree (he appears to support banning me from the shoutbox, although he has not posted specifically on the matter yet). It is opposed by Iconoclast.

firegoat has gone to the extent of having his own account banned supposedly until such time as we are permanently banned.

But he doesn't seem able to articulate what we are supposed to have done wrong. His post calling for banning us declares that he finds himself and a few others "constantly under psychological attack from these people" and goes on to dish out a few psychiatric insults that say far more about him than they do about us.

However, what he isn't admitting to is his own part in persistently causing me to appear in the shoutbox and defend myself over there, because he insists on bitching about me even when I am not shouting at the time:
On the 29th at 6:59 PM firegoat jumped in and started another shoutbox bitch session about me (with Axiom riding sycophant as he all too often does.) At 7:07 he groundlessly accused me of having a psychiatric disorder that he knows very little about (Aspergers). Axiom tentatively agreed with this. At 7:09 he accused me of being incapable of emotional reflection. At 7:22 both of them suggested I was incapable of feeling empathy. At 7:29 firegoat called me a psychopath and then he called me a compulsive liar. At 7:31 Axiom completed the grand slam of trendy tryhard hack diagnoses used by clueless armchair psychiatrists by accusing me of NPD. Firegoat made the bizarre response "I think all chessplayers suffer that." At 7:46 in the middle of a discussion about various imprisoned criminals loosely connected to the chess community Axiom wrote "i wonder what kb gets up to ?" I was not commenting in the shoutbox during any of this rubbish.

At 5:43 pm on the 30th, completely out of nowhere, Axiom defamed me by implying I would be convicted under cyber-bullying laws when they come in.

At 1:43 am yesterday Alex wrote "Until elections are over, for the next two weeks, the elected moderators forum will be at the top of the homepage."

I whimsically responded at 4:13 am "Until elections are elections I will continue to point out that they are not elections". Someone chopped everything after "continue" without leaving a mod-edit notice. This had been my sole shout there since the exchange with firegoat and Ax on the 26th.

At 9:35 firegoat proposed that I be permanently banned and at 9:45 Axiom proposed that Bill be too. At 9:48 firegoat proposed that I be "generally ostracised" and . There was no particular basis given for any of it except that firegoat considered my criticism of Alex in the above post was unfair, though he completely failed to state the slightest reason why.

At 9:51 for the first time that evening, firegoat falsely claimed that "others" (but me) are not allowed to talk about the other place over here.

Then at 9:55 firegoat again proposed banning me permanently:

Quote:argument for: does not post here, when his comment is directed towards members

He seemed clueless to the fact that by exactly the same argument we should have permanently banned MOZ (ursogr8) from chesschat long ago.

After all this at 9:56 firegoat suggested the ban should be until I learned to discuss things "civilly". Civilly like his behaviour above?

At 10:01 pm firegoat made another mental illness insinuation directed at both of us, and more of the same at me at 10:07.

Several dozen more shouts of frothing and moaning, then firegoat for the second time made his false claim about other members not being allowed to post about the other place on here.

At this point I jumped in and was exchanging shouts with them for 3 hrs 31 minutes.

During this time, firegoat:
* falsely accused me of lying 20 times, not getting anywhere near to substantiating any of them
* repeatedly misquoted me without taking the slightest care to ensure he only put quote marks around things I'd actually said
* made another 9 false claims about the level of restriction of posting about the other place here - all completely inexcusable since he had been clearly corrected in our discussion on the 26th
* again accused me of having Aspergers
* accused me at least six times of lacking "basic intelligence" (or similar) but never made any real attempt to explain how this was true
* claimed that this was "genetic"
* claimed this was "a cycle that is repeated in [my] personal life" but couldn't say what the cycle was, or how it was repeated, or indeed explain this fizzer of a claim at all despite saying it as if it was some kind of catastrophic relevation to me
* resorted to the ultimate in withering crude schoolboy abuse - a certain six-letter insult beginning with W.
* tried to pass his psych-hack garbage off as an example of "academic technique" from the field of "anthropology"
* wrote "as I repeat not being a ruthless human being I never bothered accessing Kevin Bonhams freedom of information file" thus trying to insinuate the government had files on me he could access through FOI that would contain sordid details about me. It turned out even Axiom couldn't prove such files existed.
* wrote "i reckon if i had to spend any real time with you i would just beat u up".

During this time, Alex (Just2Good):
* falsely accused me of lying
* drifted into irrelevant abuse about my areas of expertise and lack of a driver's licence, and amount of time spent online (which he managed somehow to exaggerate)
* accused me of being mentally ill just because I do not have a driver's licence and spend a large amount of time on CC without getting paid for it
* implied I was severely depressive
* suggested someone should sent screenshots of my posts to my mother
* wrote the charming line: "You know KB, if you behaved the way you do in Brisbane, Sydney, or Melb - someone would probably put you in the hospital"
* misrepresented the situation in which he was permanently banned from here by falsely alleging I asked the site owner to perm-ban him (It was, in fact the other way around)
* falsely claimed he was the operator of the Scorpio account taken over by Axiom. Not a very good job of fibbing by AO, this one, he even gave the name of the person who may have been originally operating the account - but got it wrong!

Ax and Moz were also in on it to a minor degree. Ax accused me of lying five times, with no attempt to substantiate any, dabbled vaguely with the psychiatric hackery to a lesser degree than firegoat and accused me of being delusional without making any real attempt to demonstrate the delusion.

MOZ accused me without evidence of "misbehaviour" and claimed that:

Quote:To improve in this area I think ******* admins should create a new User-group that encourages permanency of important contributions being made to be made into a thread. That is, a User-Group that does not give s/b access at all. KB could be promoted [sic] to this new UG.

MOZ probably knows full well that if they tried to intimidate me into posting using my own name over there it would not have the intended effect; I would not post over there unless allowed to employ hydras, but would continue taking out the trash here.

After I left the discussion Axiom and firegoat continued bitching about me along similar lines to the above for over an hour.
I document the above in such detail to make a simple point. If firegoat thinks he and others are under "psychological attack" from us then what the hell does all their nonsense as noted above constitute?

I commend Jaydon on banning firegoat, not for the reason requested by firegoat but because firegoat's behaviour as above deserves it and would receive the same on any well-run forum.

I also commend him on not caving in to the shoutbox lynch mob even though he was a bit abusive in the process.

With the main offender banned at his own request and the likelihood of banning the site owner for as long as his behaviour deserves low, I reckon it should all just be left as it is now.

Oh, concerning my much vaunted match with firegoat. It is now a match condition that firegoat plays in a straightjacket in view of his violence threat against me.
__________________

07-02-2010, 03:33 AM	#1 (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	Sick of CC Mods/Join the social protest! Dear Mods, After much thought I request that I be banned indefinitely from Ozchess until both Kevin Bonham and Bill Gletsos are permanently banned from this site. My aim is to draw attention to the behavior of these people on Australian chess forums everywhere. I find that myself and a few other individuals remain constantly under psychological attack from these people and that their behavior borders on an irrationality that is most probably a psychosis. I can no longer tolerate their tyranny in any form and wish to not interact with them in anyway. Please join me in symbolic protest for a day or two! cheers Fg7 __________________ "...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

07-02-2010, 03:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Strike For Justice ! I commend highly fg for taking this action , and understand the sheer frustration in trying to make change happen through the usual channels . When a true warrior is faced with such blatant injustice , when he sees it day in day out , and nothing being done to help the afflicted victims so unfairly treated at the hands of these cold hard tyrants .What choice does he have , but the ultimate sacrifice of his very online self life . No greater a sacrifice could be made . To lay down your existence for a cause so great . The greatest of causes in fact . The causes of freedom and justice . As soon as i consult my diary for next week , i will also pledge a period of time in which i will withdraw my services from the australian online chess community . It will pain me to do so ,and no doubt will upset scores of followers but some cannot suffer this gross living injustice any longer without making some type of statement . DIE ON YOUR FEET NOT LIVE ON YOUR KNEES __________________ "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 Last edited by Axiom : 07-02-2010 at 04:47 AM

07-02-2010, 03:51 AM	#4 (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 Jaydon I respect your decision fg and will follow the request of banning you for an indefinite period of time. Any last words? Thanks Jaydon. I have the up most respect for you as a human being. May I add that I will miss my friends on Chesschat. Since I will now be underground. I ask that any negotiation be conducted through my representative Axiom. I trust that he will be able to negotiate the struggle in an official capacity, confidently and with the honor that befits a true chess warrior! Viva La revolution! Death to tyrants cheers, P.S Brazil will win the world Cup! __________________ "...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

07-02-2010, 06:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
JaK Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 391	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Thanks Jaydon. I have the up most respect for you as a human being. May I add that I will miss my friends on Chesschat. Since I will now be underground. I ask that any negotiation be conducted through my representative Axiom. I trust that he will be able to negotiate the struggle in an official capacity, confidently and with the honor that befits a true chess warrior! Viva La revolution! Death to tyrants cheers, P.S Brazil will win the world Cup! Ax, don't forget to remind David that he has qualified for the Victorian Championship winning the candidates last year. Closing date for confirmation is July 5. I am very afraid that with World Cup etc interfering he will forget about it!

07-02-2010, 06:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Interesting! Idea: Close the site for posting - reading still OK - for a period of 48 hours. Have a message sent to all members' PM in box stating that we are protesting against the personification of odium. We simply want BG and KB to voluntarily go. I favour this approach because to outright ban them is 1. an anathema to freedom of speech and 2. gives them the gift of victimhood. I want them to know that they are not welcome here and should just GO and never come back. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

07-02-2010, 03:44 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jaydon SCTC Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Queensland, Gold Coast Posts: 1,101 ICC Handle: Aussieboy007 FICS Handle: Bermusia	I respect your decision fg and will follow the request of banning you for an indefinite period of time. Any last words?

07-02-2010, 08:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast We simply want BG and KB to voluntarily go. I favour this approach because to outright ban them is 1. an anathema to freedom of speech and 2. gives them the gift of victimhood. I want them to know that they are not welcome here and should just GO and never come back. I support a ban on them, regardless of whether its permanent or temporary. The stink this place up, and I fully agree with Firegoat7, I do not wish to interact with them - neither on CC nor here. I would ask one of the three moderators to please ban these two. And Matt, I agree - but they won't go voluntarily, so perhaps its time someone show's them the door? __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-02-2010, 09:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Just2Good And Matt, I agree - but they won't go voluntarily, so perhaps its time someone show's them the door? They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed. They will go - if they are "normal." However, if they are not normal, if they are of a psychopaths they will keep posting here. If they do prove to be abnormal psychos by continuing to post here, then we should consider obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

07-02-2010, 11:23 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zeitgeist Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 35	France outlaws psychological violence in attempt to tackle abuse Originally Posted by Iconoclast They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed. They will go - if they are "normal." However, if they are not normal, if they are of a psychopaths they will keep posting here. If they do prove to be abnormal psychos by continuing to post here, then we should consider obtaining an Apprehended Violence Order. Law proposed by members of parliament from ruling majority and opposition wins backing of centre-right government (Reuters Paris) The French parliament has approved a groundbreaking law that makes psychological violence an offence as part of a broader range of measures aimed at improving protection of victims of abuse. Magistrates have criticised the bill, fearing that it will be hard to define what exactly constitutes such mental abuse. They say it will be difficult to prove in court. The law was proposed by members of parliament from both the ruling majority and the leftist opposition and won the backing of the centre-right government. "We have introduced an important measure here, which recognises psychological violence, because it isn't just blows [that hurt] but also words," Nadine Morano, the minister for family affairs, told the lower house of parliament. Anyone found guilty of breaking the law faces up to three years in jail and a €75,000 ($91,530) fine. The bill defines mental violence as "repeated acts which could be constituted by words or other machinations, to degrade one's quality of life and cause a change to one's mental or physical state". Morano said witnesses could be called on to testify in such cases, and doctors' certificates detailing a patient's descent into nervous depression could be used as evidence. "The judge could [also] take into consideration letters, SMSs or repetitive messages, because one knows that psychological violence is made up of insults," she added.

07-03-2010, 11:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Zeitgeist "We have introduced an important measure here, which recognises psychological violence, because it isn't just blows [that hurt] but also words," This is true. I ask, is a name calling squabble the non physical equivalent to fisticuffs. In such cases, if both parties are willing participants, to coppers not charge them both with assault, they are charged with affray. Only when one is an obvious victim of excessive violence - usually the "winner" - becomes the charged legal loser. "... repeated acts which could be constituted by words or other machinations, to degrade one's quality of life and cause a change to one's mental or physical state". I have bolded an important point of divergence from physical/verbal analogy. The verbal acts must be: 1. repeated 2. intended to degrade 3. and success in degrading the victim Therefore, 1. a single insult is insufficient for prosecution 2. without intent to degrade, there is no crime 3. genuine tears must be shed If the French solution were adopted on this bulletin board, how could it impact on our discourse? As an aside, most people do not know that telling someone truthfully that you will bash them - a threat - is considered by the courts to be assault and will see you convicted. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

07-03-2010, 01:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Iconoclast They will go voluntarily. No normal person would stay were they are so universally unwelcomed. Just like no woman would stay in a marriage where she is being physically abused? In case you didn't know, most women being abused in marriages have been on the receiving end of it for years, and they don't leave the relationship for years. Bill and Kevin get off on coming here to spark fights with people. Kevin, in particular, is happy to do this until 4am in the morning. You're solution of not spanking the bratty kids is perhaps what encourages them to continue being bratty. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-03-2010, 03:05 PM	#12 (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	Originally Posted by Iconoclast This is true. I ask, is a name calling squabble the non physical equivalent to fisticuffs. In such cases, if both parties are willing participants, to coppers not charge them both with assault, they are charged with affray. Only when one is an obvious victim of excessive violence - usually the "winner" - becomes the charged legal loser. I have bolded an important point of divergence from physical/verbal analogy. The verbal acts must be: 1a. repeated 2a. intended to degrade 3a. and success in degrading the victim Therefore, 1b. a single insult is insufficient for prosecution 2b. without intent to degrade, there is no crime 3b. genuine tears must be shed If the French solution were adopted on this bulletin board, how could it impact on our discourse? As an aside, most people do not know that telling someone truthfully that you will bash them - a threat - is considered by the courts to be assault and will see you convicted. A nice decomposition of the issues by you Matt. In answer to your question, penalties would be applied. (To both sides if they were separately both judged guilty). You suggest an AVO. fg7 appears to have judged himself and applied the penalty of a ban. So, turning to the other party, your 3a appears to have been met as fg7 is deprived of his role here (albeit self-inflicted). A concomitant ban on the other party would be equitable, under French considerations. Remaining question is...are we French. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

07-03-2010, 05:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ A nice decomposition of the issues by you Matt. In answer to your question, penalties would be applied. (To both sides if they were separately both judged guilty). You suggest an AVO. fg7 appears to have judged himself and applied the penalty of a ban. So, turning to the other party, your 3a appears to have been met as fg7 is deprived of his role here (albeit self-inflicted). A concomitant ban on the other party would be equitable, under French considerations. Remaining question is...are we French. I concur with the highlighted portion. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

07-03-2010, 06:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	F G 's Strike FOR JUSTICE - DAY 2 Fg is now on day 2 of his strike action . I think it behooves us all to reflect for a moment exactly what this great freedom fighter is doing , and why he is doing it . Do you think for one second that fg enjoys being forumless , away from his buddies , stuck out there in the wilderness ? He is doing this for all of us ...every single online chess player .Fg is making the ultimate sacrifice to bring awareness and action to the following : 1) That chesschat is an acf front organisation 2) That chesschat is run by a despotic regime ,overseeing the brutal culling of some of the biggest names in the australian chess online forum world . 3) That chesschat can no longer disguise itself as a "private club"( a cover for the immoral treatment of online citizens ) when it plainly acts contrary to this . Fg demands full and total amnesty now or the indefinite banning of kb and billg from this site . This demand based on the laws of natural justice , not on some imposed faux morality system . I had a short conversation with fg today . He is holding up pretty well . He says he missed his friends here , but i could tell he had a steely resolve to see this through . If anyone would like to pass on wishes of encouragement or just to say hi to fg , just let me know and i will forward them onto him, i'm sure he would appreciate it . __________________ "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 Last edited by Axiom : 07-03-2010 at 07:17 PM

07-03-2010, 07:16 PM	#15 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	From Kb There is a current push over there to have both Bill and me banned. This is supported by firegoat (who supports banning us permanently), Alex (who supports banning us temporarily or permanently), and MOZ to a degree (he appears to support banning me from the shoutbox, although he has not posted specifically on the matter yet). It is opposed by Iconoclast. firegoat has gone to the extent of having his own account banned supposedly until such time as we are permanently banned. But he doesn't seem able to articulate what we are supposed to have done wrong. His post calling for banning us declares that he finds himself and a few others "constantly under psychological attack from these people" and goes on to dish out a few psychiatric insults that say far more about him than they do about us. However, what he isn't admitting to is his own part in persistently causing me to appear in the shoutbox and defend myself over there, because he insists on bitching about me even when I am not shouting at the time: On the 29th at 6:59 PM firegoat jumped in and started another shoutbox bitch session about me (with Axiom riding sycophant as he all too often does.) At 7:07 he groundlessly accused me of having a psychiatric disorder that he knows very little about (Aspergers). Axiom tentatively agreed with this. At 7:09 he accused me of being incapable of emotional reflection. At 7:22 both of them suggested I was incapable of feeling empathy. At 7:29 firegoat called me a psychopath and then he called me a compulsive liar. At 7:31 Axiom completed the grand slam of trendy tryhard hack diagnoses used by clueless armchair psychiatrists by accusing me of NPD. Firegoat made the bizarre response "I think all chessplayers suffer that." At 7:46 in the middle of a discussion about various imprisoned criminals loosely connected to the chess community Axiom wrote "i wonder what kb gets up to ?" I was not commenting in the shoutbox during any of this rubbish. At 5:43 pm on the 30th, completely out of nowhere, Axiom defamed me by implying I would be convicted under cyber-bullying laws when they come in. At 1:43 am yesterday Alex wrote "Until elections are over, for the next two weeks, the elected moderators forum will be at the top of the homepage." I whimsically responded at 4:13 am "Until elections are elections I will continue to point out that they are not elections". Someone chopped everything after "continue" without leaving a mod-edit notice. This had been my sole shout there since the exchange with firegoat and Ax on the 26th. At 9:35 firegoat proposed that I be permanently banned and at 9:45 Axiom proposed that Bill be too. At 9:48 firegoat proposed that I be "generally ostracised" and . There was no particular basis given for any of it except that firegoat considered my criticism of Alex in the above post was unfair, though he completely failed to state the slightest reason why. At 9:51 for the first time that evening, firegoat falsely claimed that "others" (but me) are not allowed to talk about the other place over here. Then at 9:55 firegoat again proposed banning me permanently: Quote:argument for: does not post here, when his comment is directed towards members He seemed clueless to the fact that by exactly the same argument we should have permanently banned MOZ (ursogr8) from chesschat long ago. After all this at 9:56 firegoat suggested the ban should be until I learned to discuss things "civilly". Civilly like his behaviour above? At 10:01 pm firegoat made another mental illness insinuation directed at both of us, and more of the same at me at 10:07. Several dozen more shouts of frothing and moaning, then firegoat for the second time made his false claim about other members not being allowed to post about the other place on here. At this point I jumped in and was exchanging shouts with them for 3 hrs 31 minutes. During this time, firegoat: * falsely accused me of lying 20 times, not getting anywhere near to substantiating any of them * repeatedly misquoted me without taking the slightest care to ensure he only put quote marks around things I'd actually said * made another 9 false claims about the level of restriction of posting about the other place here - all completely inexcusable since he had been clearly corrected in our discussion on the 26th * again accused me of having Aspergers * accused me at least six times of lacking "basic intelligence" (or similar) but never made any real attempt to explain how this was true * claimed that this was "genetic" * claimed this was "a cycle that is repeated in [my] personal life" but couldn't say what the cycle was, or how it was repeated, or indeed explain this fizzer of a claim at all despite saying it as if it was some kind of catastrophic relevation to me * resorted to the ultimate in withering crude schoolboy abuse - a certain six-letter insult beginning with W. * tried to pass his psych-hack garbage off as an example of "academic technique" from the field of "anthropology" * wrote "as I repeat not being a ruthless human being I never bothered accessing Kevin Bonhams freedom of information file" thus trying to insinuate the government had files on me he could access through FOI that would contain sordid details about me. It turned out even Axiom couldn't prove such files existed. * wrote "i reckon if i had to spend any real time with you i would just beat u up". During this time, Alex (Just2Good): * falsely accused me of lying * drifted into irrelevant abuse about my areas of expertise and lack of a driver's licence, and amount of time spent online (which he managed somehow to exaggerate) * accused me of being mentally ill just because I do not have a driver's licence and spend a large amount of time on CC without getting paid for it * implied I was severely depressive * suggested someone should sent screenshots of my posts to my mother * wrote the charming line: "You know KB, if you behaved the way you do in Brisbane, Sydney, or Melb - someone would probably put you in the hospital" * misrepresented the situation in which he was permanently banned from here by falsely alleging I asked the site owner to perm-ban him (It was, in fact the other way around) * falsely claimed he was the operator of the Scorpio account taken over by Axiom. Not a very good job of fibbing by AO, this one, he even gave the name of the person who may have been originally operating the account - but got it wrong! Ax and Moz were also in on it to a minor degree. Ax accused me of lying five times, with no attempt to substantiate any, dabbled vaguely with the psychiatric hackery to a lesser degree than firegoat and accused me of being delusional without making any real attempt to demonstrate the delusion. MOZ accused me without evidence of "misbehaviour" and claimed that: Quote:To improve in this area I think ***** admins should create a new User-group that encourages permanency of important contributions being made to be made into a thread. That is, a User-Group that does not give s/b access at all. KB could be promoted [sic] to this new UG. MOZ probably knows full well that if they tried to intimidate me into posting using my own name over there it would not have the intended effect; I would not post over there unless allowed to employ hydras, but would continue taking out the trash here. After I left the discussion Axiom and firegoat continued bitching about me along similar lines to the above for over an hour. I document the above in such detail to make a simple point. If firegoat thinks he and others are under "psychological attack" from us then what the hell does all their nonsense as noted above constitute? I commend Jaydon on banning firegoat, not for the reason requested by firegoat but because firegoat's behaviour as above deserves it and would receive the same on any well-run forum. I also commend him on not caving in to the shoutbox lynch mob even though he was a bit abusive in the process. With the main offender banned at his own request and the likelihood of banning the site owner for as long as his behaviour deserves low, I reckon it should all just be left as it is now. Oh, concerning my much vaunted match with firegoat. It is now a match condition that firegoat plays in a straightjacket in view of his violence threat against me. __________________ __________________ "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** Last edited by MOZ : 07-03-2010 at 08:54 PM Reason: Please do not feed the sophist troll. Instead support fg7 in his personal campaign.

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