Not true! Not true!
Mr. Axiom was most uncivil to me in the introductions thread.
He used a word that started with "F" and went downhill from there
I request that he be banned for a year or two and probably given 40 lashes for good measure.
(I can assist with the lashing if you need any help at all)

Max

KB: that is not fair Moz has pulled my bra stap!

Moz: but was only because you called me a lesbian!

BG: Ionoclast bashes up little old helpless women and only my powers can save them! And his tongue is worse than Serena William's!

AO: BG is permanently having PMS

Axiom: I don't believe any of this - it is all a conspiracy by V Bulletin mob!

Jaydon: KB, you all be careful or I will let real live Siberian tigers out of their cages!

MaxTheMaggot: Axiom needs his mouth washed out with soap and deodorant as well!

KB: Excalibur_Sapiens only wears a G string - I seen them at the Hobart championships!

Firegoat 7 (8&9): You all have to clarify what paradigm you are discussing in - postmodernism have made your perceptions redundant.

White Elephant: Ionoclast is pregnant to BG!

Moz: Gunnar has had a gender change!

BG: Mischa wears army boots and has hairy armpits

Excalibur_Sapiens : KB dumps his smelly boots under chess tables to distract the opposition.

KB retrieves his metal ruler from school bully to smach AC in a S & M session

Denis Jessop marrys leader of Trogedykes on Bikes

Hey, do you want a metric of how many times I posted that to Bill in the many months leading up to 5/8/8?
Placing it in a sig. file was just a desperation media to say the same.
It was no change.

A person who has been appointed as a moderator (however unilaterally) and has failed to indicate that they reject that appointment does not cease to be a mod just because they have told one person by PM or deep within a long thread that not all members are reading that they are not moderating. A public declaration via sigfile is a rather different matter.

MOZ is now claiming that I was told directly that he was not moderating shortly before his brief banning in July-Aug 2008. That is actually all irrelevant anyway, since my point was that if he was really not moderating he should have got Alex to remove his moderator status, or failing that clearly indicated to the forum that he would not use those powers.

But in any case what he said at the time did not rule out the use of moderator powers.

In all three links that he has posted that are meant to make his point about things he said a week before he was banned for being Toolbox staff, he indicates he had accepted no contract to moderate. That is not at all the same thing as saying one is not a moderator. One could be given the status unilaterally and then use it, without accepting any "contract". We already knew he was doing that with other statuses he had been given.

The third link goes a little further (perhaps) by saying "I was careful not to accept that role [..]"

But we know how MOZ loves to employ technicalities and engage in word games and has done so for years. Hence there is absolutely no way we would take "I was careful not to accept that role" or the legalistic disclaimer "there is no contract for me to moderate" as indicating what we were (somewhat later) after - which was a guarantee that he was not using moderator powers to assist AO in any way and would not do so.

It was all rubbish anyway.

I recall at the time that, after he made the song and dance about not using the moderation privileges, he indicated to me that he could read a post that I had made and then deleted. A moderation privelige (sic).

I feel left out of all this drama, is there any way I can constructively contribute?

I managed to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict

On 18-07-08 when banning him I noted clearly that our objectives for readmitting him were that the Toolbox be cleaned up, or else that he clearly resign or be sacked from the position he was shown as holding, or become so inactive on the site that it was safe to assume he was no longer active on it. See here. I indicated that he would be unbanned if he complied with these conditions. I did not say that we would not consider unbanning him otherwise. I decided that I would set those as acceptable conditions for readmission, and decide later whether anything else along similar lines might also be acceptable. So we certainly knew what we wanted (contrary to MOZ's false claim) - we just hadn't yet decided what we might settle for.

However, MOZ's membership of various usergroups gave him abilities he cherished (most notably the ability to snoop on people's IP addresses and use this primarily for compiling completely pointless private metrics, but now and then for the public dropping of cryptic hints about hydras). He was unwilling to ask Alex to change his statuses. The excuses he gave me for this were completely unconvincing (and some were contradicted by his previous form on this board). I believe he feared that if he made such a request, the unpredictable and untrustworthy site owner might decide he was too much trouble and remove his benefits. Also Alex was unwilling to change MOZ's statuses himself and didn't care how long MOZ was banned from CC for.

Once it became apparent that MOZ wasn't willing to comply with the conditions we had previously set for him because it was all too hard, but might be willing to do something more serious towards complying with them in spirit, I decided to see what ways around the problem could be found in terms of assurances he would give that he would not actually moderate or otherwise use his abilities to assist AO. I never considered his legalistic waffle about not having a contract to moderate convincing, for the reasons explained above - it seemed more like a term to facilitate copouts when asked to clean stuff up than an undertaking not to use powers. Many of my PMs have been lost because of firegoat7's moronic wilful vandalism of my other accounts over there but according to records in our case files, this process commenced around the start of August 08 culminating in conditional unbanning of the ursogr8 account on 5 August.

He hides behind the disingenuous excuse that he is afraid of Bill suing him, when actually Bill is one of those being most frequently defamed, and far from suing him, Bill would probably be quite grateful to him if he belatedly made use of his abilities.

copouts when asked to clean stuff up

copped out

hid behind the technicality

poor form

choosing not to exercise capability

I only ever sent MOZ one PM on the toolbox back in mid January 2008 where I as him to moderate some defamatory comments by AO on the toolbox.
I informed him that if he chose to do nothing about it that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
...I will hold you just as responsible as AO for it remaining on this site and therefore subject to any legal action I may decide to take on this matter in the future.

MOZ did not respond to the PM.

One would have thought that he would have been quick off the mark to point out to me at that time that he was not doing any moderation.

As I recall his denials regarding being a mod/admin there came months later.

As for his recent claim of
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOZ
After the experience of Bill's legal threats on ACCF,...
I would point out that I never had an account and hence never posted on the ACCF forum.

I declined to become a moderator on Ozchess because of Bill's threat of legal action against me in PMs on ACCF and on OzChess.

In that case maybe we should ban Bill Gletsos from here for actively trying to injure this site by discouraging a member to assist in OzChess moderation activities.

But that would make us as petty as them, so perhaps not.

In any event, the figures relied upon for the NSWCA financial losses thread were the one's published in the official Minutes - hence they were true - and hence any claim Bill thought he had for defamation goes up in smoke.

More than that he once threatened that Matt Sweeney would be living in a tent with his family once he got through with Matt, but last time I check Matt has pretty good digs and doesn't seem to be particularly worried.

I would argue that vexatious legal threats should be viewed very seriously by this site .