You have to pay people to post here?
That's pretty pathetic!

Not really. If Alex wanted to pay somebody to post on Ozchess thats his business decision. In fact, I think its a good idea in the right context. So kudos to Alex for giving it a go and recognising it didn't work.

But you know what really is pathetic. Some 2 poster clown passing judgement on him without having the guts to out their own identity. Its pretty easy to be a hater, anybody can do that, but where are your bright ideas? and where is your alternative vision available to be criticised by the masses? go back to the paddock and follow the other sheep with your pointless bleating baaaa baaaaaa


cheers,

The whole "Carrier Pigeon" idea is just another lurk devised by the Toolbox tools to create an appearance of lively discussion on an otherwise moribund site. Most recently it seems that a large proportion of the posts on the Toolbox are simply quotes from Chess Chat with some moronic comments added.

DJ

Evening girls and boys (and those who are in the process of switching)

would you come under the third group of people Bill?

how about i switch you off jaydon

no thank you Bill Just a question. I'll take it as a no.

Although I'd hold nothing against you if you were

I realise this is probably expecting to much on your part but try switching your brain on for a change

wait am I switching off or on Bill? looks like your gender isn't the only thing you're getting confused with tonight

Jaydon are you deaf or just stupid

I will not tolerate irrelevant questions about personal attributes where a false suggestion is being dropped that a member has a particular attribute that they do not in fact have. A common example on forums is someone baiting a poster with false suggestions about that poster's sexuality, and your behaviour is very similar to that.

You are directed to cease the line of trolling in question immediately or risk a substantial full-site ban.

It's been pretty quiet over there in terms of nonsensical decisions lately but obviously it couldn't last and AO has just moved Bill and me into the Admonished Users group.

He has completely failed to provide any explanation for moving me into that group.

The basis excuse for moving Bill into the Admonished Users group is that Bill has been correctly pointing out that CV has failed to hold its AGM in a timely fashion and according to AO this will have an effect "on the morale of several of our Victorian based members".

He seems to be saying that MOZ and co are so fragile they need protecting from the facts about their AGM. Well, that's his view so if they feel insulted they know who to complain to.

What is more curious is that AO justifies his decision with the following comment:

Once again I state for the record that it was Kevin Bonham himself who began the practise of punishing members on Chess Chat for actions/inactions on OzChess.

What he omits to note is that those rules we have and actions we have taken regarding behaviour elsewhere relate purely to stuff that is relevant to our site, such as:

* Quoting PMs from our site.
* Quoting from the Coffee Lounge to other sites.
* Making demonstrably false or misleading claims about this site or its administration/moderation.
* Making legal threats regarding material posted on our site.
* Defaming and banning (or allowing the defamation of) prominent members of our site for no better reason than that they are such.

Also, as noted previously, rules on such issues often existed before the Toolbox did.

Bill's comments about CV had nothing expressly to do with inter-site conflicts or the Toolbox. To "admonish" (when AO admonishes you, it can only be a compliment) users simply because what they have said might be disliked by Toolbox members is not in any way comparable and is a very foolish and poorly-considered escalation.

For instance on the basis of AO's precedent, the mods here would be entitled to permanently ban Jaydon from this site on account of the trolling of some of our members he conducted over there. We could also find more than enough rope on which to put ursogr8's increasingly pointless account out of its misery for good.

I have not done this, though, because while stooping to AO's level would provide a fine demonstration of what a foolish troll he is, it would still be, well, stooping to his level.

As further evidence that AO is indeed a foolish troll, he posts his notice re this moderation decision in a thread dealing with the financial situation of the NSWCA.

He quotes some figures at the head of that thread but they end in mid-2007 even though the figures for the financial year ending mid-2008 are far from hard to find (and do not suit his case).

Clearly he is just doing all this to troll Bill.

Quite incredibly MOZ has defended AO's action. The basis for his defence is that he was not an elected officebearer in 2007 and hence he considers Bill's comment here to be inaccurate and unfair.

But even assuming MOZ is correct, if it is appropriate for AO to restrict Bill's access to membership functions in the OzChess on account of an inaccurate comment here, then what does that say concerning how we should have been treating certain Chesschat members who were/are also ACCF, UCJ or Toolbox posters for their continuing grossly false and defamatory attacks on chess administrators posted on such sites in the past?

By the standards MOZ is employing we should have taken punitive actions against those posters here as soon as they started spouting abusive nonsense against chess administrators on those sites.

Also, if someone making an inaccurate attack on the reputation of a chess administrator on another site justifies a penalty, then what does that say about making such attacks on the same site where the penalty is considered? Why should not Arrogant-One, firegoat7, Iconoclast et al be moved to the Admonished Users group (at the least) for their inaccurate attacks on administrators posted in the OzChess?

MOZ's position therefore seems to be a poorly considered one and yet another example of sycophancy on the run.

MOZ also writes:

I have some sympathy for Kevin Botham in that he cannot post on OzChess as he has incurred the displeasure of the Moderator.

Firstly the only Moderator in the Toolbox is Black-Wolf (an AO hydra).

Secondly my understanding is that there is currently nothing preventing me from posting over there provided I do so with my real-name account, which for reasons already discussed I have no intention of doing.

I have been threatened with a permanent ban by the world's most unsuitable person to moderate an internet forum, David Beaumont (firegoat7), if I sign up any other account.

MOZ is now accusing me of misjudging his role in "the elected CV Executive for 2007."

As I have not commented on that role in this discussion beyond noting his criticism of what Bill said, I cannot fathom the rationality of his accusation. Probably there is none to fathom.

I have noted that Bill correctly pointed out that the CV AGM had not been held, but nowhere have I stated that MOZ served on the elected Executive in 2007. (Nor do I consider it especially relevant given that MOZ has in at least one recent year served as de facto CV Treasurer without being formally elected.)

The irony is that this clearcut error by MOZ in interpreting my comments is part of a post where MOZ falsely accuses us of error in our suspending him from here for being staff over there.

Furthermore he suggests that on the basis of my failing to admit to an error I didn't actually commit, that moving me to what he euphemistically calls "to the non-special user group" is correct.

What treatment would be appropriate for his account if we applied his standards to it I leave the interested reader (if any) to determine.

He has completely failed to provide any explanation for moving me into that group.

Bill's comments about CV had nothing expressly to do with inter-site conflicts or the OzChess.

I have not done this, though, because .. stooping to AO's level would provide a fine demonstration of ... stooping to his level.

I have been threatened with a permanent ban by (firegoat7), if I sign up any other account.

Firegoat laments the lack of a national tournament circuit which may explain why so few Victorian events are entered in the ACF National Tournament circuit known as the ACF Grand Prix.

The Tool laments how the ACF deprived Libby Smith of $2000 (sic) totally ignoring the fact that the money paid by Libby was long ago refunded to her.

Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Fear and Loathing

The conflict between the Australian Chess Federation and the ACT Junior Chess League that I referenced here, has been resolved. Through sensible negotiation, through the willingness to see both sides of the story, or even through simple organisational competence? Sadly, no. It was resolved by the personal payment by former ACT Junior Chess League President Libby Smith, of the outstanding moneys. She certainly did not have to do this, but I suspect it was done because she didn't want the flourishing ACT junior chess scene hobbled by the ACF's willingness to use threats against the participation of ACT junior players in national and international events. That she would cough up almost $2000 of her own money, and that the ACF is happy to use junior players as a bargaining chip, says a lot about both parties.

Axiom signed up numerous hydras today including one with reverse swearing in the username.

It has been made clear to Axiom that he is not to sign up hydras for any reason while banned and that includes just reading the site. He can read as guest if he wants.

Axiom is now banned for a year although this ban will be reviewed if there is a period of at least six months without any further hydra signups at all.

Should there be further hydra signups the ban may be reviewed in the other direction or upgraded to indefinite or permanent.

I note in passing that the site rules on a well-regarded Australian political blog I came across recently included mandatory permanent bans for signing up hydras while banned.

... who only wanted to read their forum and not post there ....

He does not need to create a hydra to do that. He can do all that as a guest.

Bill,

Have a heart. Show some compassion to Axiom and unban him. I know this means standing up to Kevin, but that is what courage is - doing what's right even when there are consequences.

Best Regards,

AO

He does not need to create a hydra to do that. He can do all that as a guest.

This is not entirely true. As a guest Axiom wouldn't have been able to read attachments to posts.

It is regrettable and very sad that Kevin Bonham, in a typical fit of anger and bullying, decided to behave in a most un-Australian way on Australia Day. Myself and other Australians were dismayed at his heavy handed actions, and think this went beyond the pale and was completely inappropriate for him to behave in such a fashion on Australia Day over something so minor.

I ask, whatever happened to the fair go? Axiom now becomes the latest former member of Chess Chat to ask that question.



The punishment dished out to Axiom, who only wanted to read their forum and not post there, is excessive and further highlights the need for this alternative Australian chess forum.

Best Regards,

AO