Time Out For Members

[The Knife]

Originally Posted by phild707

2. people who enter discussion without making it clear who they are either by their signature or their profile, should expect to be treated rudely and/or ignored. It's a cowardly thing to do, in my view, and it should be discouraged.
Turn up in as many different identities as you wish but if you want to participate in discussion then state plainly who you are ion your profile ideally.

But the following members don't explicitly identify themselves in their sig or their profile:

MOZ
Arrogant One
Firegoat7

Is Phil really "Big Brother"?

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

It is with a heavy heart that I make this announcement.

Upon request from a valued and upstanding member of OzChess, two posts recently made by the member Bill Gletsos were referred to the Admin moderation team.

No doubt you are referring to phild707.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

The possibility of editting the posts was raised as an option to alleviate the hurtful and derisive nature of the posts. However, the poster disparraged felt this was not sufficient enough to address his concerns and the understandable distress caused to him by these two (2) posts.

Let us look at Phil's posts that I responded to here.


Phils first post that I responded to is the post where Phil responds here to a comment of mine to firegoat7.

His first sentence

Originally Posted by phild707

Dear, dear , dear... up til past 3 in morning arguing over this trivial nonsense?????

is simple trolling and uncivil.

As such my response treated it with the same degree of respect and civility.

His second sentence

Originally Posted by phild707

I set up the orifice account as a joke but i was already becoming bored with idea even before I was finished doing so.

fails to mention he actually outed himself not once but twice.

I pointed out he had outed his own hydra.
Thats seems a fairly silly act to me especially given he outed himself not once but twice.

His third sentence

Originally Posted by phild707

I made 1 or 2 fairly innocuous posts before abandoning the idea altogether.

leaves out the fact that he had pretended the day before that his hydra "TheOrifice" was the same user as "the Arbiter" when he said:

Originally Posted by phild707

Can I take this to mean that theArbiter and theOriface are one and the same person?

As Phil knew that the"TheOrifice" hydra was his and that "The Arbiter" account was not then his suggestion that they were one and the same was plainly disingenuous and aimed to mislead.



Phils second post I responded to is from the thread "Hydras -are they no longer allowed" here where in his first paragraph he refers to "The Arbiter" as anonymous.

Now Phil using his Hydra account "TheOrifice" had previously posted (post has since disappeared due to the removal of the account "TheOrifice" by Arrogant-One yesterday) in the thread "Kevin Bonham's Deceptive Shell Game" where it is clear "TheArbiter" is Kevin Bonham. It is also obvious from the thread 'Chess Security - Hacker Precautions" in which Phil has posted that "TheArbiter" is Kevin Bonham.

As such Phil's calling the "The Arbiter" anonymous was fooling no one and I said so.

In his next sentence Phil refers to "The Arbiter"'s question as foolish. His sig also calls it stupid.
I state the only one asking foolish questions is Phil.
If my statement claiming Phil's questions are foolish is uncivil, then Phils calling "The Arbiter"'s question foolish and stupid in his sig ic evenb more uncivil.

Phils final paragraph where he introduces himself to lotlizard and wonders who lotlizard is is clearly disingenuous and I say so. It is after all abundantly obvious from the discussions between firegoat7 and myself in the very thread that Phil had posted in that lotlizard was Kevin Bonham.



So as far as I am concerned phild707's original posts that I responded to were uncivil, discourteous and decidedly disingenuous.

As such I publically ask that he be banned for 24 hours for his behaviour and hopefully he can practice some reflexivity.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Accordingly, Bill Gletsos is the first non-spammer to be banned from OzChess without a security threat issue being present. His ban is for 24 hours to allow him an opportunity to reflect on his aggressive and unfriendly attitude, and hopefully to change so as to accord with the standards of civility and courteousy that OzChess is famous for.

I want to thank you for banning me as it simply highlighted what a mockery the ban was given that this board is full of uncivil comments by numerous posters including a firegoat7, phild707, iconoclast and yourself directed at Kevin, myself and others.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Virgil

Complaints to MOZ were made under the assumption on your part that MOZ had accepted a contract with the owner of the board to do moderation. A reasonable assumption on your part, given the signage on the bb. However, it is an incorrect assumption as I have advised recently.
I have taken steps to clarify by using this vanilla NICK since the point was raised by Bill.

Then Trevor, why not have Arrogant-One remove your MOZ account from the administrators, moderators and supermoderator groups. Whilst you remain in those groups you will always be suspected of using the powers granted to you by simply being in those groups that are not available to normal users.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by The Knife

But the following members don't explicitly identify themselves in their sig or their profile:

MOZ
Arrogant One
Firegoat7

Is Phil really "Big Brother"?

Good point.
But i think that they should!
Though of course that is just a personal opinion and as it happens i have to confess that before i made the post you are referring to i had to put some identity details in my profile.

I think its a good idea because for one thing chess players who are new to the board can quickly identify who these posters are.

And no, i am not big brother. if you look in my personal profile you can see exactly who i am.
But who are you?
Not another coward I hope?

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by The Knife

But the following members don't explicitly identify themselves in their sig or their profile:

MOZ
Arrogant One
Firegoat7

Is Phil really "Big Brother"?

Feel free to PM MOZ and I will give you the drum on these posters.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Lurking Lucy

The double standards here are a joke.

They certainly are.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by phild707

I don't know whether we do need a set of "rules" or not, too many rules perhaps just turns the site into a game to be played.
Common sense is more useful (please do not ask me to define "common" and "sense")
Here are some obvious(?) principles that i believe should guide our behaviour.
1. TRY to be as polite and courteous as possible even under the duress of heated discussion and/or provocation

2. people who enter discussion without making it clear who they are either by their signature or their profile, should expect to be treated rudely and/or ignored. It's a cowardly thing to do, in my view, and it should be discouraged.
Turn up in as many different identities as you wish but if you want to participate in discussion then state plainly who you are ion your profile ideally.

3. Despotic regimes such as Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Chesschat may, (and should rightly), be critisised freely.

Phil.

And two more suggestions to add to the list:

4. Don't drag up ancient history.

5. There needs to be a quota set on the actual volume of a posters text to prevent posters from dominating the thread with long and inevitably tedious diatribes. Posters should be encouraged to keep their posts short and to the point.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Then Trevor, why not have Arrogant-One remove your MOZ account from the administrators, moderators and supermoderator groups.

Bill
If you want to act as housekeeper of records then that is your business. Feel free to PM the board owner.

Whilst you remain in those groups you will always be suspected of using the powers granted to you by simply being in those groups that are not available to normal users.

I don't have a problem with using the software as allocated by the site owner.

I have made it clear that I don't have a contract with the owner to moderate posts.
I have moved to a NICK that will remind you that I am commenting as a normal poster.


You can have your suspicions, and you can have your legal threats.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

they dont add much if just assert them without argument

like this:.....

I see this post as being basically an argumentative and provocative datribe aimed at scoring points off me and devoid of any real substance however to be fair....
If any of MOZ, AO or Firegoat7, (respected members), pm's me to indicate that they feel that there would be some value in responding to it, (or puts a post to that effect here), then I will.

In the meantime i have made my views plain enough in the posts above and please feel free to exercise your democratic right to hold different ones.

Phil.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

and given that you did nothing (apart from failing to take action) to indicate otherwise at the time
at least that is the best of my recollection
i am unable to check some pms as my real-name account is still banned

Your recollection is incorrect.
When your account is next available to you should read PM exchanges before and after 06-27-2008, 08:04 PM

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

no, i recall that very recent pm and your comments in it
but i think the point came up there in quite a different context than a request from me for moderation

i was referring to several previous discussions
it may be that some are via chesschat pm as well as here

at the least, i believe that there was a period of several months (pre the "shell game" thread) over which i now and then pmd you to attempt to secure removal of something
without you indicating at any time that you were not actually serving as a moderator

if you believe this to be incorrect, feel free to PM me earlier comments of that nature

I have looked at my PMs and can find nothing; mainly due to culling on my part. My recollection of PM exchanges is that you were unhappy with comments made by someone (AO, Sweeney, fg7 probably). After the threat of legal action against me when I was a moderator on ACCF I was careful not to accept that role on OzChess. That you were misled by a screen I have not viewed is not deliberate.
Further, I am not aware of you registering formally anything via the Bad Post procedure, so your PMs were regarded by me as informal.
More legal threats against me on OzChess have led me to make clear there is no contract for me to moderate your posts or any posts.

[Firegoat7]

Temporarily closed

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

However, flaming like Chesschat flaming is ACTIVELY discouraged in a variety of ways. This has been policy since Day One and I don't think you really understand that yet. You will find virtually no examples of such "flamewars" on this site that do not involve you or Bill Gletsos.

Originally Posted by lotlizard

if that policy was even remotely serious then many of the attacks already up would be deleted
and the backpatting of attacks would cease
some of you may be trying to bite your tounges sometimes
you need to get a lot better at it before it is taken seriously

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

If you don't adapt you will not survive here.

Originally Posted by lotlizard

i have no intention of "adapting" if it means being nice to those who defame and incorrectly bait chesschat regulars on a regular basis
not until they mend their ways and their more extreme nonsense is removed from public view

I am removing a number of Kevin's posts on this thread.
I make no apologies for my actions, he was warned about his behaviour repeatedly and chose to ignore those warnings.
Kevin is now serving a two day ban, which will be doubled upon his return if he continues his senseless flaming pattern.
Please pm me if you have any real concerns about this action.

[Firegoat7]

Thread re-opened. Apologies for the inconvenience.

[The Knife]

Originally Posted by phild707

And no, i am not big brother. if you look in my personal profile you can see exactly who i am.

I suspect you didn't do this with the Orifice account, from all I've read here.

By all accounts that I see here you sought to misrepresent the views of another member using the Orifice account. Some would brand this behaviour as cowardly, uncivil or hypocritical