Time Out For Members

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

i will believe it is not accurate with regards ip information if you can convince me that you do not share, have never shared, and will never share any information obtained or conclusions drawn from your scrutiny of ip addresses with any of the mods or admins here

including through public comments

Yes it appears that may well have been the case here which led directly to this.

[Just2Good]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Yes it appears that may well have been the case here which led directly to this.

So what you are trying to say is that Kevin was the Lotlizard hydra?

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

at one stage i think it was the case that chesschat premium users could see ip addresses in some contexts
but this ceased to be the case
possibly because it was an unintended oversight
and it is certainly not the case now
it is therefore irrelevant

Actually, I meant generic premium.
I can see the the use of premium may mean to the literalist 'exactly chesschat premium'
I accept responsibility for your confusion.
If it helps I will use 'special user' in future to describe access to "extra software functionality".

i will believe it is not accurate with regards ip information if you can convince me that you do not share, have never shared, and will never share any information obtained or conclusions drawn from your scrutiny of ip addresses with any of the mods or admins here

Pass for the following reason.

You appear to want to equate 'I could moderate posts that are defamatory in your (KB) view' with 'I should moderate posts posts that are defamatory in your (KB) view'. This appears to be behind your rationale for a lifetime banning.
The 'should' has been dispelled by AO's certification of no contract in the past nor now.
If you are banning on the basis of 'could', but not 'should', then you will have to learn to live with that seeming lack of obligation.

Otoh if you are banning for wider obligations than defamation moderation,then there may be a dialogue that is necessary to understand the extent of your intent.

including through public comments

?

i am not disputing that there is no formal contract to perform specific tasks
what kinds of tacit agreements might be reasonably inferred is another matter

Tacit agreements is a null set from my view.
You apparently have other views.
It looks like a case of ban first and ask questions later.
I honestly have no idea of what you are thinking I advise AO.

V

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I meant to say there isn't instead of there is. I trust there was no confusion.

There was no confusion in my view.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So what you are trying to say is that Kevin was the Lotlizard hydra?

What I am saying is that MOZ was using what is usually a admin/mod function.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Yes it appears that may well have been the case here which led directly to this.

The case you quote was humourous at the time for the total disconnect between AO's reading of my cryptic post and my intent in the cryptic post.
It was never tidied up. I didn't PM him a clarification.

However, KB is the banning MOD from chesschat, not you. I have posted a question here as to whether his life-time ban (on ursogr8) is connected to confusing 'should mod' with 'could mod' on OzChess. If he comes back and says that it is solely on the basis of defamation then your post 7675 will be ignored by me.

Originally Posted by Virgil

If it helps I will use 'special user' in future to describe access to "extra software functionality".

if you wish
however "staff" is more succinct
and succintness must be a great virtue
since phil says it is

You appear to want to equate 'I could moderate posts that are defamatory in your (KB) view' with 'I should moderate posts posts[sic] that are defamatory in your (KB) view'. This appears to be behind your rationale for a lifetime banning.

you are putting words into my mouth
which will no doubt cause phil to call for you being banned

firstly in the mod thread i noted the bans were indefinite
and listed conditions under which they would be removed
i did not say they were necessarily permanent if those conditions are not met
though there is certainly no intention to remove them without compliance any time soon
alas the banning software does not allow for a ban to be designated "indefinite" rather than "permanent"
but my statement on the mod thread was quite clear about this matter

secondly the connection's not as simple as you think
yes we think the staff here should remove all defamatory material
but we are not necessarily rebuking you specifically for your failure to do so
rather we are rebuking anyone who provides active staff-role support for this site while it is not cleaned up
and given the behaviour coming from here in the past
whatever kind of staff role they may have

though a full defo cleanup would be sufficient to have the bans listed, defo is not the only reason for the bans

i well appreciate you may be personally unwilling to clean up all the defo on this site
perhaps for legal reasons or lack of sufficient knowledge of defamation
but in that case we will settle for you ceasing to perform any staff role
while you are still staff here, you're complicit

Otoh if you are banning for wider obligations than defamation moderation,then there may be a dialogue that is necessary to understand the extent of your intent.

i actually thought this was pretty clear in the statement of reasons on the moderation thread
(if you can't see that post, feel free to read as guest from a proxy server
if you can find one we haven't banned because of AO using it
or i can pm it to you)

Tacit agreements is a null set from my view.
You apparently have other views.
It looks like a case of ban first and ask questions later.

no, the ban and its reasons were carefully considered for some time in advance
it was only the unfair bannings here that finally removed the last remaining defence against that action
because before that it could be said you were at least allowing free debate
whether it was being engaged in or was not

I honestly have no idea of what you are thinking I advise AO.

you could advise him that you wish to no longer perform any role other than ordinary poster here and want to be removed from all the specified usergroups
or you could advise him to stop the double-standard bannings and clean up his act re defamatory material
though progress on the former is not necessary for your ban to be lifted

more than welcome to discuss further via pm if you desire
or email should i get banned from here again
though you might or might not find the experience frustrating

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Virgil

However, KB is the banning MOD from chesschat, not you.

Yes, he is the one who issued the ban, but the decision to ban was a joint decision.

Originally Posted by Virgil

I have posted a question here as to whether his life-time ban (on ursogr8) is connected to confusing 'should mod' with 'could mod' on OzChess.

No confusion as far as I am concerned.
Losing your access to the admin and moderator control panels would be a step in the right direction.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

if you wish
however "staff" is more succint
and succintness must be a great virtue
since phil says it is

Ohk. Special user it is.

you are putting words into my mouth
which will no doubt cause phil to call for you being banned

I was asking for clarification.
Which you now provide below.

firstly in the mod thread i noted the bans were indefinite

This is what ursogr8 sees
You have been banned for the following reason:
staff member of defamatory incompetently modded site

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

and listed conditions under which they would be removed

?
I thought never was clear.

i did not say they were necessarily permanent if those conditions are not met
though there is certainly no intention to remove them without compliance any time soon

?
I thought never was clear.

alas the banning software does not allow for a ban to be designated "indefinite" rather than "permanent"

A software bug?

I looked at the spelling of modded and came to the conclusion that you could choose the message to be displayed. Never then rather looked like never, in that context.

but my statement on the mod thread was quite clear about this matter

secondly the connection's not as simple as you think
yes we think the staff here should remove all defamatory material
but we are not necessarily rebuking you specifically for your failure to do so
rather we are rebuking anyone who provides active staff-role support for this site while it is not cleaned up
and given the behaviour coming from here in the past
whatever kind of staff role they may have

When I worked, this was called the ' catch-all phrase when someone is in the gun'.
At its weakest it is similar the debate in the Coffee Lounge about association with known undesirables. I was quite taken with your post there.
Just a pity you have recanted.

i well appreciate you may be personally unwilling to clean up all the defo on this site
perhaps for legal reasons or lack of sufficient knowledge of defamation

Correct.

but in that case we will settle for you ceasing to perform any staff role
while you are still staff here, you're complicit

If this is your rationale for banning then it is a blank cheque for you to fill in the amount.

Just let's say simply, 'banned for associating with known undesirables', and be done with it.

i actually thought this was pretty clear in the statement of reasons on the moderation thread
(if you can't see that post, feel free to read as guest from a proxy server
if you can find one we haven't banned because of AO using it
or i can pm it to you)

To be honest I have no idea what a proxy server is or how to use one.

no, the ban and its reasons were carefully considered for some time in advance
it was only the unfair bannings here that finally removed the last remaining defence against that action
because before that it could be said you were at least allowing free debate
whether it was being engaged in or was not

So, the charge is MOZ is not allowing free debate?

And yet the owner certifies MOZ has no contract (no obligation, no authority) to modify posts nor poster-status.

you could advise him that you wish to no longer perform any role other than ordinary poster here and want to be removed from all the specified usergroups
or you could advise him to stop the double-standard bannings and clean up his act re defamatory material
though progress on the former is not necessary for your ban to be lifted

You have misread.

The question I intended is "what advice do you think I have been giving him that warrants a life-time banning?".

more than welcome to discuss further via pm if you desire
or email should i get banned from here again
though you might or might not find the experience frustrating

From my view it is a case of
simply, 'banned for associating with known undesirables'.

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

<snip>
No confusion as far as I am concerned.
Losing your access to the admin and moderator control panels would be a step in the right direction.

Now that KB has responded, it is clear that the banning is for actions wider than defamation non-moderation.
As you will see in the post I have responded to (for KB), that is the worst and gloomiest outcome for me.
Negotiation would appear to be fruitless from my view.

Originally Posted by Virgil

Ohk. Special user it is.

phil will be so furious!

This is what ursogr8 sees
You have been banned for the following reason:
staff member of defamatory incompetently modded site

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

?
I thought never was clear.

i have already explained that
the banning field cannot distinguish between an indefinite and a permanent ban
however i have altered the ban reason field to indicate that the ban is indeed indefinite
and not necessarily permanent
i have not bothered doing so in firegoat's case given that he claims to have left
and has not logged in in ages

also a link to the announcement was posted here by firegoat
early in the so-called "intimidation" thread
and i think if you click on that the post will be visible
but you will not be logged in
(at least this is what happens for me
let me know if it is different)

A software bug?

no, merely a limitation

I looked at the spelling of modded and came to the conclusion that you could choose the message to be displayed. Never then rather looked like never, in that context.

we can choose the message but we cannot set the ban period to "indefinite"
actually i thought there might be a limit on the length of the ban field so i kept it short
but i have found there is room to include the word "indefinite"

When I worked, this was called the ' catch-all phrase when someone is in the gun'.
At its weakest it is similar the debate in the Coffee Lounge about association with known undesirables. I was quite taken with your post there.
Just a pity you have recanted.

aaaah, but i haven't
association with known undesirables is one thing
active support and assistance is quite another
as i stated in that thread

So, the charge is MOZ is not allowing free debate?

And yet the owner certifies MOZ has no contract (no obligation, no authority) to modify posts nor poster-status.

no, the charge is that the site whose admins/mods you have been known to actively assist is not offering completely free debate
but rather is imposing one-sided bans for things that are business as normal amongst its regulars

of course, that is just the final item on the charge sheet

The question I intended is "what advice do you think I have been giving him that warrants a life-time banning?".

again, indefinite not life
in our view any degree of active staff support to this site however trivial now merits a ban from chesschat
until such time as this site is cleaned up and the attacks on chesschat and chesschatters coming from it cease
or the individual offering the active support has clearly desisted from that role
or we decide otherwise

From my view it is a case of
simply, 'banned for associating with known undesirables'.

this is false
we have not banned anyone for associating with them
we have not banned axiom
we have not even banned ourselves
again this was clearly explained in the post to the moderation thread
(which i could repost here but suspect i would be thrown off for doing so)

the ban is not for association but for voluntarily providing support

Originally Posted by Virgil

Now that KB has responded, it is clear that the banning is for actions wider than defamation non-moderation.

it is about much more than that, but a successful cleanup of the defo on this site would be sufficient to see the ban lifted

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

phil will be so furious!



i have already explained that
the banning field cannot distinguish between an indefinite and a permanent ban
however i have altered the ban reason field to indicate that the ban is indeed indefinite
and not necessarily permanent
i have not bothered doing so in firegoat's case given that he claims to have left
and has not logged in in ages

also a link to the announcement was posted here by firegoat
early in the so-called "intimidation" thread
and i think if you click on that the post will be visible
but you will not be logged in
(at least this is what happens for me
let me know if it is different)



no, merely a limitation



we can choose the message but we cannot set the ban period to "indefinite"
actually i thought there might be a limit on the length of the ban field so i kept it short
but i have found there is room to include the word "indefinite"



aaaah, but i haven't
association with known undesirables is one thing
active support and assistance is quite another
as i stated in that thread



no, the charge is that the site whose admins/mods you have been known to actively assist is not offering completely free debate
but rather is imposing one-sided bans for things that are business as normal amongst its regulars

of course, that is just the final item on the charge sheet



again, indefinite not life
in our view any degree of active staff support to this site however trivial now merits a ban from chesschat
until such time as this site is cleaned up and the attacks on chesschat and chesschatters coming from it cease
or the individual offering the active support has clearly desisted from that role
or we decide otherwise



this is false
we have not banned anyone for associating with them
we have not banned axiom
we have not even banned ourselves
again this was clearly explained in the post to the moderation thread
(which i could repost here but suspect i would be thrown off for doing so)

the ban is not for association but for voluntarily providing support

Yeh.
Right.
Ambiguity reigns.
Thanks for engaging.

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yeh.
Right.
Ambiguity reigns.
Thanks for engaging.

i would be happy to set a minimum length on the bans in the absence of compliance with the waiver conditions if that made things any less ambiguous

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

what standard of proof would you accept?

A sworn affidavit

secondly because of the idea that you can "ridicule" someone in public without "telling them off"
good luck defending that one!

I am not defending it. I am saying it is true. You prove that to "ridicule" is the same as "telling off."

sheesh, when i split hairs a thousand times coarser than that one i get people like you trying to call me a pedant

I am not splitting hairs at all. The two things are different. In fact, "civil" and "uncivil" are as different as "legal" and "illegal" or "social" and "antisocial."

I am being civil to you but I hold you in contempt.

the howard card is so last year

The "so last year/season/yesterday/five-minutes-ago" line is so [dare I say it?] last century.

*yawns again*

YUK! You know yeast infections are easily curable

i am not sure which parts are actually meant to be insulting
so i shall take them all as compliments

Derr. Not only is it nonsensical, it is not even funny. Try harder try-hard.

that is what makes it all so funny
it was so hilarious when you came out with your bravado about how i would receive civil treatment when i started posting here
but was supposedly fair game for insults and abuse until then
when in reality, i was already posting
you just didn't know it

You laugh alone.

as for disconnect between actions and stated intentions, a fascinating topic
often in flamewars i have found people say they are leaving the thread for good and then come back a few days later
are there any of those around here?

Are you winking or twitching at the incongruity of your proposition. My "leaving the thread" is, as any normal person knows, no more than a person's attempt to extricate themselves from obnoxious company. OTOH, your clear and emphatic declarations that you would not ever be posting on a board where I had moderator powers is in the records. You might fool yourself that you are scoring points, but you have lost a huge chunk of credibility. Oops, mistake: You cannot lose a magnitude more than you had.