Time Out For Members

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

none of this information was present in your original scenario
were you referring to a specific case you know of without making this clear?

I was making an ad hoc hypothetical. Nothing ulterior.

... how about that it ended a life that did not deserve to be ended so abruptly and prematurely?
or do you disagree with that?

Somewhere between 5 and 20% of people should be shunned to the wilderness because they are ethically and morally bankrupt. They have no place in society other than to have a lifetime with a net result of causing more grief distress and work for others.

The problems I see are:
How to decide who are in this cohort of filth to be identified.
How to get rid of them without their relatives reacting to cause a blood bath.

All of history tells us that these problems are probably unsolvable.

freedom of association implies the freedom to exclude from an association
freedom of speech on a privately owned BB implies the ability to set limitations
this has been so done to death i put a thread up on the matter
as having to continue to explain the same point was getting tedious

You can say whatever "this implies that" argument you wish. This is not physics, it is not C++, it is not a computer game, IT IS plain social interaction. What Chesschat is doing is antisocial, unethical, shameful blah blah blah. You can try to turn it into a game of logic and word definitions, but, in the end, the whole thing stinks.

*taken as the compliment it is*

I think that you keep on saying that you think my condemnations of you are compliments, because you want me to abuse you as being an idiot. Well, I will not take the bait and will continue to simply condemn you and hold your opinions on most things to be less than humanly reasonable.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Only the first highlighted sentence is correct Kevin. The second is incorrect except for the part about your unethical offer in trying to bribe me to ban a great staff member like Firegoat7 (which I would never consider by the way).

First of all, I could use a proxy server to access the CC cess pool if I wished.

You seem to misunderstand what Kevin was saying.

If poster "user1" ticks the remember me box when logging in and then if they are banned they get the banned message. If they close their browser and again access the forum they automatically are logged in and get the banned message. They get no opportunity to logout "user1" and access as a guest.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

And secondly, I have also found another way to completely 100% circumvent the ban on Miskins and access CC completely unfettered thanks entirely to Bill Gletsos (ironic as that may sound).

I suspect all you are referring to is my point that you can resolve the problem I described above by deleting the relevant cookie.

However if you are saying that you can completely access chesschat as Miskins then prove it by making a post on chesschat as Miskins.
If you are simply saying you can access chesschat as a guest and read then that is nothing special.

[Just2Good]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

You seem to misunderstand what Kevin was saying.

No, I fully understood Kevin. What you refer to below has happened to me a couple times before.

If poster "user1" ticks the remember me box when logging in and then if they are banned they get the banned message. If they close their browser and again access the forum they automatically are logged in and get the banned message. They get no opportunity to logout "user1" and access as a guest.

Agreed.

I suspect all you are referring to is my point that you can resolve the problem I described above by deleting the relevant cookie.

And how does one do that?

Best

AO

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

It just seemed that you had been offline for longer than AO implied, so I checked to see if he was correct. He wasnt and I said so.

What for? What for? WHAT FOR?

The response was given to the person who actually supplied all the memberships. That was your club president.

But it was about ME. Common courtesy would suggest that you should have contacted ME.

Is that the best you have, a spray of vindictiveness.

You seem to believe that I have it in for you, whereas in reality I just consider you a pathetic foul mouthed individual.

Has the NSWCA Pres. got some more unseemly abuse for a current NSWCA associate member?

Now I never instigated your NSWCA ban or the conditions on your membership ...

Yeah sure, but everybody knows the truth.

If I was as vindictive as you believe, I wouldnt be messing around with such trivial actions, and you would have faced legal action ages ago.
Fortunately for you I did not feel your wife and kids should suffer for your atrocious behaviour.

Don't try to present your inactions as a virtue when it was really a flash of self serving common sense to avoid catastrophic disaster.

However I reserve the right to change my mind.

OK then, you go right ahead and reserved the right to cause yourself a catastrophic disaster.

Pretending to be a junior using the handle "harry" on chesschat was highly underhanded.

You cannot be fair dinkum. A fun hydra Like that and others I have had, is not underhand. It's not like, say, agreeing to not run for the NSWCA Presidency and then doing so.

Just going back to my vindictiveness. I can wear that label when it comes to you. You are by far the most difficult person I have ever had the misfortune to know. Furthermore, I am not in anyway constrained in my enmity toward you, because you do not have wife-and-kids responsibilities - you are a loner. I would say that the reasons for me having a family and you not at your age, is a very telling indicator as to the difference in personality between you and me. You think only of yourself, I live for others. I might swear, I might blunder in chess, I might vote weirdly, I might be on the cusp of eccentric, but one thing I do know is that I am a better person than you.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

The email address is false.

wrong!

i most certainly signed up lotlizard using the email address stated
and received the signup activation email using it
naturally, i have had very little call to use it since!

looks like for all your experience of hydra-trolling you are unfamiliar with the excellent wonders of mailinator
we'll probably have to ban mailinator signups from chesschat now!

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

10 words or less why complainant is unhappy:

it is often necessary to explain why a post is unsuitable in substantially more detail than 10 words
200 words as a limit maybe
or is 10 words your entire attention span?

Yes/No confirmation that you have tried to resolve the dispute via PM with author of offending post:

what if they have asked you not to PM them
or if they have PM switched off?

It should also be noted that posters who submit excessive numbers of Complaints Forms, especially if there are consecutive unsuccessful Complaint Forms submitted, risk having warning points added to their own meter. Accordingly, no frivilous complaints please.

my concern is that you will judge the complaints by who they are by and who they are against
and not on their actual merits
and hence that this is nothing but a procedural charade
designed to make complaining more difficult
and thus protecting you from having to clean stuff up
except when you want an excuse to do so

certainly most of the history of complaint assessment here thus far points in that direction

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Nope, I disagree. Please tell me why should the privacy of a joke hydra account be respected?

lotlizard was a semi-joke account when it started
but through your actions that account became something else
you chose to ban the orthodox "Arbiter" account and keep the novelty smash hit
therefore i have fashioned lotlizard into something rather different
while maintaining some aspects of the original style

lotlizard was never purely a joke hydra to begin with
and is rather less of one now
you have destroyed the foundation of your own excuse!

Does a joke hydra account really have a private email address?

interestingly, in this case the answer is actually no
but i don't think you knew that when you published it

still i think you should delete the address so you can show you've learnt your lesson

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

First of all, I could use a proxy server to access the CC cess pool if I wished.

you could but they tend to be slow
and unreliable
and often there'll be issues with the shoutbox or game viewer

And secondly, I have also found another way to completely 100% circumvent the ban on Miskins and access CC completely unfettered thanks entirely to Bill Gletsos (ironic as that may sound).

hooray!
im amazed how long it took you
but if this is so, why are you still using MISKINS?

If you'd like me to tell you how, the price is lifting the ban on ursogr8 and Firegoat7 (indefinitely).

frankly m'dear, i couldn't give a ...

(although it is tempting to try to hold you to your word
by lifting their ban indefinitely and then using some random process under which they would most likely be rebanned within five minutes)

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

<snip>

so do i
but the thing is, we unpicked them
and given the level of chaos inflicted on us by the decision being imposed with zero consultation, we did so remarkably quickly

this is what i suspected
of course you are free to ask alex to disable those features at any moment
you could even choose to disable ip lookup for yourself instead of keeping it

If you want ADMIN. work done on OzChess please address it to AO.

who were the "rule testers" on accf?

I regarded BORIS' admission that his post was simply to cause a difficulty as a 'rule test'.
And I regarded the escalation of your difference of opinion with the Admin as a 'rule test.

do you enjoy trying to find ways to twist defeatist conclusions?
when these twists are so easily seen through?

the answer to this one is obvious
you are currently banned indefinitely unless the defo is cleaned up
cleaning up the defo will certainly not extend that ban
indeed if the defo is cleaned up you will be unbanned once that has occurred

That is not what Bill has posted. He has said that it is but a step.
And it is not what you have posted
"any degree of active staff support to this site however trivial now merits a ban from chesschat".
Which means that any action to assist AO is a bannable rationale.

fair enough
but matt was already anti-banning in some of his public statements
and it's quite clear now that neither you nor matt wear the policy pants round here

No. It is not clear NOW. It is the advice I have been giving you for months. You chose not to believe that advice.

and the real determinants of the movable feast of site policy are firegoat and ao
the latter of whom is servile to phild's "complaints"

Your problem apparently, not mine.
Tell it to the Complaints Manager.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

What for? What for? WHAT FOR?

For accuracy. I realise accuracy in posting is a foreign concept to you.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

But it was about ME. Common courtesy would suggest that you should have contacted ME.

Your past posts on UCJ, chesschat and here directed at Kevin, me and others show that common courtesy is something you dont practice.

You are well aware that you membership of the NSWCA is conditional on you meeting the conditions specified in the letter that was sent to you in December 2006.

You should have advised your president of this, instead of letting him submit an entry form for you to be a NSWCA member.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Has the NSWCA Pres. got some more unseemly abuse for a current NSWCA associate member?

Not abuse, just a statement of behaviour you have demonstrated over many years.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Yeah sure, but everybody knows the truth.

The truth is the way I described, irrespective of whatever misinformative spin you try and put on it.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Don't try to present your inactions as a virtue when it was really a flash of self serving common sense to avoid catastrophic disaster.


OK then, you go right ahead and reserved the right to cause yourself a catastrophic disaster.

And what catastrophic disaster would that be.
Surely you are not threatening physical violence?

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

You cannot be fair dinkum. A fun hydra Like that and others I have had, is not underhand.

Bulletin boards and chat rooms take an extremely dim view of adults pretending to be juniors as it presents many dangers.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

It's not like, say, agreeing to not run for the NSWCA Presidency and then doing so.

I never agreed not to run.
Lyons just assumed that was the case.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Just going back to my vindictiveness. I can wear that label when it comes to you. You are by far the most difficult person I have ever had the misfortune to know.

And you would be one of the most abusive, foul mouthed and the user of some of the vilest language I have encountered.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Furthermore, I am not in anyway constrained in my enmity toward you, because you do not have wife-and-kids responsibilities - you are a loner.

Yes, you have used similar excuses for your behaviour in your abuse of Kevin.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I would say that the reasons for me having a family and you not at your age, is a very telling indicator as to the difference in personality between you and me. You think only of yourself, I live for others.

Dont give up your day job because as a psychologist you have no future.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I might swear, I might blunder in chess, I might vote weirdly, I might be on the cusp of eccentric, but one thing I do know is that I am a better person than you.

You are also deluded.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

He isnt just giving access to "premium software functionality". He has given you access to the administrator and modcp control panels.

As noted previously if all you want is to be able to view the ip address's of other users, you do not need to be an admin or moderator to do so if the use of usergroups are correctly setup to handle it.

Bill
If you want administrative changes made to this bb please direct them to the board owner.
I am not about to second-guess how he sets up his board.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

i am not disputing that there is no formal contract to perform specific tasks

Took a long time for you to admit to this.

what kinds of tacit agreements might be reasonably inferred is another matter

I think you are obliged to list your speculated alleged agreements.

[Just2Good]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Bill Gletsos is banned for 24 hours for making a deliberately false and misleading statement.



Having spoken with Peter Parr in the past on multiple occasions, I know Bill's statement to be completely untrue.

The deception was further compounded when Bill then used a technicality at the AGM to preclude both Peter and Jason from acquiring NSWCA membership in time to run, thus allowing Bill to run a Zimbabwe style one man presidential election - which of course he won.

Further to the post quoted above, and on the off chance that I was wrong, I decided to go to the horses mouth and see if there was an element of truth to Bill Gletsos' assertion that Jason Lyons was under a mistaken impression.

I was told by Peter Parr that there was a very clear understanding and arrangement in place whereby Bill Gletsos had agreed to not seek re-election as NSWCA President, thus making Bill's latest comment a complete fabrication.

Best

AO

[MOZ]

1. I supported the banning of BG, KB, an associated hydras when the rationale (however misjudged) was 'perceived security issues'.
2. However, the banning of BG for a difference in stories on the NSWCA president election, and
   
3. the banning of KB for paraphrasing his view of the text in the posts of others

is not beneficial to the free speech of this forum.

Banning is an action that admits defeat in an argument.
An action that admits defeat and a recourse to using power.


It is de rigueur for chesschat.
It solves no problems,
It resolves no issues.

Thus, the appearance of banning on OzChess has knocked it off its higher moral ground and is closer to the swamp.
The swamp is not a place for higher values to grow.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

For accuracy.

What for. Why is 2 verses 4 weeks inactivity so important that accuracy must be persued by searching and correcting. EXACTLY WHAT possible difference does correcting such utter TRIVIA make?

Your past posts on UCJ, chesschat and here directed at Kevin, me and others show that common courtesy is something you dont practice.

Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right?

Not abuse, just a statement of behaviour you have demonstrated over many years.

Abuse.

And what catastrophic disaster would that be.
Surely you are not threatening physical violence?

You wish.

Bulletin boards and chat rooms take an extremely dim view of adults pretending to be juniors as it presents many dangers.

No danger on this side of the fence. But society always views an older bloke who never forms a family as sus.

And you would be one of the most abusive, foul mouthed and the user of some of the vilest language I have encountered.

You must not have got out much in the last forty years.

Don't give up your day job because as a psychologist you have no future.
You are also deluded.

Narr, I just touched a raw nerve and you are squirming in your chair wondering how many people will come to your funeral in a few decades. That is an understandable concern since mostly, people just dislike you.

[MichaelBaron]

Is there a chance for ozchess and chesschat to stop banning each other?