Firegoat7

Greetings,


Do you believe it is appropriate for a Chesschat moderator to explain Chesschat moderation policy on a site that is banned as a link?

__________________
"...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

Axiom

It's the same ethical question we struggled with ages ago ie . that of the tyrant freely re-visiting his victims .
I would favour an sb ban on kb unless he posts in thread . Then an easily accessed permanent record of the ensuing debates could be offered to the shining light of scrutiny , and maybe then a collective (!) solution could be formulated .

__________________
"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

Firegoat7

Hi,

[Today 04:50 PM] Firegoat7: I dont believe it is appropriate for a Chesschat moderator to explain Chesschat moderation policy on a site that is banned as a link

[Today 04:50 PM] Kevin Bonham: i don't care what you believe appropriate firegoat


[Today 04:50 PM] Firegoat7: Thank youfor sharing that with us Kevin Bonham


Cheers,

scoreline 1-0 in Ozchess' favor.

__________________
"...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

Firegoat7

Hi,
[Today 04:51 PM] Firegoat7: I still don't believe it is appropriate for a chesschat moderator to explain Chesschat moderation policy on a site that is banned as a link

[Today 04:53 PM] Kevin Bonham: why not, given that AC believes it is appropriate to discuss CC moderation policy here?


[Today 04:53 PM] Firegoat7: That is a different situation


[Today 04:53 PM] Kevin Bonham: no, what you're saying is that it's only appropriate that one side of the issue is told here - in effect

[Today 04:53 PM] Firegoat7: 1) Ac is allowed to link back to Chesschat on Ozchess

cheers,

Thats another score for Ozchess and an own goal from the Chesschat mod.
Scoreline Ozchess 3- Chesschat 0

__________________
"...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

MOZ

I voted NO.

I have long believed that it is both inconsistent and illogical for cc moderators to engage here with cc-banned posters on Ozchess on cc moderation-matters.

See as evidence my long established LOCATION text "Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters.", .... which attempts to highlight the inconsistency.

I guess then the implied follow-on question posed by fg7 is 'Should Ozchess Admin. do anything if enough vote NO?'
Perhaps fg7 might like to indicate the options he has in mind. Later MOZ* edit...I now see

My view has always been that hoping that a banning solution be implemented with consequence of behaviour-change-success is a demonstrated failure.


MexicanOZ

__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Firegoat7

Hi,

Game 3


[Today 04:54 PM] Firegoat7: 2) Ac is not banned from replying to your comment on Ozchess, whilst he is banned from replying to your comment on Chesschat

[Today 04:54 PM] Kevin Bonham: so? what does that have to do with your idea that the discussion should include his side and not the facts?

[Today 04:54 PM] Kevin Bonham: his ban expires in 2 weeks, he can reply all he likes then
[Today 04:55 PM] Kevin Bonham: he can reply here too, but if he gets his facts wrong in the process his ban might be extended

cheers,
That is another winning shot by me.
Followed by 3 own goals from the Chesschat mod.

Scoreline Ozchess 7- Chesschat 0

__________________
"...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

Firegoat7

Hi,


[Today 04:55 PM] Firegoat7: 3) Your moderation policy of Chesschat ought to be discussed on Chesschat

[Today 04:55 PM] Kevin Bonham: ideally i agree with that but antichrist insists on discussing it here not there where he should
[Today 04:56 PM] Kevin Bonham: if he discusses it here i choose to refute it here

cheers,
Again I make another good shot. It looks like it won't score because Bonham makes an adequate defence, but then he blames AC, thus allowing another goal.
The second point is in dispute still.
So only 1 goal here.
Ozchess 8 Chesschat 0

__________________
"...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

Axiom

but what about banning sb use as a 'prompt' to post in thread ?

__________________
"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

Firegoat7

Originally Posted by Axiom

"It's the same ethical question we struggled with ages ago ie . that of the tyrant freely re-visiting his victims .

[Today 04:56 PM] Kevin Bonham: if he discusses it here i choose to refute it here

cheers,

Nice Goal Ax

Ozchess 9 Chesschat 0

__________________
"...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

Firegoat7

Originally Posted by MOZ

I have long believed that it is both inconsistent and illogical for cc moderators to engage here with cc-banned posters on Ozchess on cc moderation-matters.

[Today 04:55 PM] Kevin Bonham: ideally i agree with that but antichrist insists on discussing it here not there where he should



Nice Goal Moz!
Ozchess 10 -Chesschat 0

__________________
"...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

Axiom

So are we to understand this correctly ?
KB sees his role to police the views of his banned members on other sites ??
What if ac was to gripe about cc mods on the comments page of the sydney morning herald , would kb be there as well ?

__________________
"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

MOZ

I don't have a problem with the moderators judicious use of the /silence function when it is clear a poster needs temporary-assistance to get out of the provocation cycle that some sophist trolls arrive here with.

For example, I am sure fg7 would not have needed to make his point so strongly in words on the evening against the extreme provocation occurred recently, if a /silence action had been taken against the provoker.

A second example is some category B posters sometimes need temporary assistance to get out of their trolling our major shouter.

I could give other examples of temporary assistance.

__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Just2Good

I like this thread, but it needs a shorter title. Can someone please offer suggestions on a short title?

__________________
.
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

~ Isaiah Berlin ~

Axiom

"Should a tyrant be allowed to freely re-visit his victims ?"


..well, its a bit shorter

__________________
"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

antichrist

In any case, he quotes a bunch of insults I directed towards him - all of which he deserved - but doesn't own up to the fact that he himself made numerous insults - including before I participated in the conversation.

Indeed the whole conversation was initiated by firegoat's completely bogus "liar" calls and bizarre fantasies about my hydras being linked to gay porn torrents.

The fact is that the only known hack-attack on Chesschat (apart from password-guessing attempts by at least two (2) banned ex-members) was before the Toolbox existed, and as I stated above, the gmail spammer flood that occurred here in October 2008 was not a hacker attack but a spam attack - at least here! It was also experienced as a spam attack rather than a hacker attack on numerous other forums. It's grossly unlikely that the Toolbox was targeted for special hacking treatment by what was just experienced as a spam attack on other forums and far more likely that these are just the deranged ravings of an incompetent, biased, clueless and paranoid ex-admin (fg7). But in any case, it is certainly fact that Chesschat and the Toolbox were not subject to simultaneous hacker attacks.

And of course, even if it was a hacker attack over there, it had nothing to do with my hydras. firegoat showed his incompetence to recognise a hacker attack the first time he banned me - he thought I was hacking the control panel when actually all that happened was that Alex was online unexpectedly. Alex admitted to this and firegoat now attempts to deny it.

So this is all just firegoat trying to retrospectively back up allowing his personal bias and frothing hotheadness as among the worst admins/mods in internet history to get the better of him instead of just admitting he was wrong.

firegoat7 (David Beaumont) is a thin-skinned hypocrite. He dishes out insults, he can't take them back, and when he gets them back he issues violence threats and asks that I be banned. What a stupid sissy sook.

By his own arguments (and mine) he should be the one banned.
__________________