Moderation Decisions

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Pablito15

Hi Moz,


I think it needs to be assessed case by case and in this instance reporting that Grant had received a response and that it would be discussed at the CV meeting seems to me like too paltry an issue for "privacy" to come into it.

As it has transpired, looking at the content of my private message is an irrelevancy. Grant has said that all such e-mails would probably be disclosed. Therefore the case by case suggestion has no relevance given Grant's advice.

In general I think everyone does and so do I, it's worth pointing out that we're not talking about "the privacy of people sending mail world-wide". We're talking about a specific case where a chess club president is writing to a chess victoria administrator about a public chess issue that relates to all players in Australia.

It's not a global issue of Privacy V Non-Privacy. Only a sociopath wouldn't believe that people's expectation that their emails are private is incorrect- as I said we are talking about a specific and pretty tame example. Generalising it as Privacy-believers V Non-privacy believers clouds things IMO.

Chesschat claim mature codified rules.

* Private communications of any sort, including but not limited to PMs, emails and letters, may not be posted or quoted publicly (including elsewhere in the case of PMs or emails from this site) without the written consent of the author(s) of all material being quoted. A communication is private if its author has, or may reasonably have, an expectation of confidentiality. Exceptions include tournament announcements, newsletters and some other materials with a wide circulation that are clearly not in confidence. Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise no matter how many recipients there are.

Not sure the writer of this rule would regard himself as a sociopath though.

I don't like to see anyone attacked but like I said- if you take on a position of responsibility you have to accept it. Provided it isn't senseless name-calling and the person explains it.

What worries me again and again in Australian chess administration is that there are people involved who don't put chess first. Look at the situation currently:

you have players asking for a transparent rating system and Gletsos refusing because he doesn't want to give up "his rating formula" (what comes first? Australian chess players or his rating formula? Who is being served here?)

If this is an invitation for me to defend Bill Gletsos I respectfully decline.

You have Cordover and Sandler as alternatives in Victorian chess (both of whom I respect greatly actually) but who have clear biases towards their own businesses.

If this is an invitation for me to defend the two Victorians I respectfully decline.

[Pablito15]

Moz, you haven't responded to the main point of my post:

Why should CV have the need for privacy and need to hide anything from the Victorian chess playing public. CV and the ACF should be in place to serve the players, 200-2700, in Australian chess.
...
I really need to be convinced that there is something (chess-related) that a CV official and a club president are discussing which needs to be private.
...
Basically what I'm saying is: I can't see a reason that "privacy" should even be an issue when CV is discussing Victorian chess matters. Is there something to hide?

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Pablito15

Moz, you haven't responded to the main point of my post:

I didn't reply to that part because

• it is evident that you don't believe any material could be classed as private, and so it seemed pointless to give you examples,
• it is evident that Grant thinks much the same.

My choice of a private e-mail was based on my previous experience at chesschat where the rule is
"Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise no matter how many recipients there are. "

As I have said before, if we don't have such a consensus here on Ozchess (and we clearly don't) then I will telephone instead.

[Pablito15]

Well you won't win my respect like that. The sort of evasive answer I've come to expect from CV and ACF officials. It's not pointless to give examples as if you can provide a few then i'll clearly accept that I'm wrong and that there are some issues where CV need to keep things private from the Victorian Chess playing public.
(also I've edited my post above to read only a sociopath *would* not wouldn't...)

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Pablito15

Well you won't win my respect like that. The sort of evasive answer I've come to expect from CV and ACF officials. It's not pointless to give examples as if you can provide a few then i'll clearly accept that I'm wrong and that there are some issues where CV need to keep things private from the Victorian Chess playing public.
(also I've edited my post above to read only a sociopath *would* not wouldn't...)

My choice of a private e-mail was based on my previous experience at chesschat where the rule is
"Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise ... . "
That rule was obviously written by a chesschat Moderator because he had experience of confidential and private correspondence between chess organisations.
I don't want to defend the rule, I had no part in its drafting, but simply to say I thought it would be operative here, and was surprised to find Grant's shouts left without moderation.

If you find that evasive then I respectfully return to the position on post #54.

[MOZ]

And in now in a very strange development, KB is intimating that he wished he could post on this thread.
Well, not actually this thread but a discussion thread on this topic.
And, in a strange development, KB suggests moderation action to create a new thread, while at the same time remarking "then those opposite have gone out of their way to avoid it no matter how much sense it made."

I know KB will object to me abridging his full quote on this point; but it is worth the risk just to highlight how an abridging produces a downside in paraphrasing in that context and caveats are lost.


Onwards, to do a carrier pigeon service to KB...here is his post, with extras...my comments.

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

And now in a very strange development MOZ is saying:

Originally Posted by MOZ

My choice of a private e-mail was based on my previous experience at chesschat where the rule is
"Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise ... . "

Originally Posted by KB

If MOZ seriously expected standards based on actual "experience of confidential and private correspondence between chess organisations" to be reflected in moderation in the Toolbox then he has obviously had a very great amount of wool over his eyes for the four years he has been there.

Happy to admit to wool over my eyes. Can you give 5 examples of <confidential and private correspondence between chess organisations> on Ozchess.

Originally Posted by KB

Firstly our mods here do indeed have a great amount of experience of the internal workings of chess organisations,

Happy to agree.

Originally Posted by KB

whereas those with mod powers there generally have relatively little or else none,

Happy to agree.

Originally Posted by KB

with the exception of the supposed non-moderator MOZ himself.

Happy to agree.

Originally Posted by KB

(Iconoclast has a modest experience level but his own involvement was idiosyncratic at best, as are his views of that experience.)

Originally Posted by KB

Secondly if MOZ has paid the slightest attention there he would notice that generally if a standard has operated here, then those opposite have gone out of their way to avoid it no matter how much sense it made.

Happy to agree to being inattentive.
I had only noticed the absence of rules here rather than rules contrary to chesschat.
I plead guilty on not noticing the rules here on Ozchess.

Originally Posted by KB

Perhaps this is changing just a little very recently but it is too soon to expect that much convergence.

Jaydon's clarity on rejecting paraphrased private e-mails should be an excellent point of convergence.

Originally Posted by KB

Thirdly, the term "internal proceedings" was written mainly with regard to things like meeting minutes not released to the public, emails "around the table" and so on.

A caveat not mentioned in the rule I quoted.

Originally Posted by KB

The basis of the phrase MOZ quotes is to stop people from arguing that just because there are a dozen or more recipients means an internal email automatically isn't confidential.

A rationale not mention in the rule I quoted from the chesschat armoury.

Originally Posted by KB

From what I can gather of the discussion in question the emails between Grant and Trevor were between the MCC and CV. Assuming that Grant was writing with his MCC hat on (which it appears he was) rather than in any CV role he may concomitantly occupy

Not sure what CV role you are ascribing to Grant.

Originally Posted by KB

then the emails were not "internal proceedings" but rather were correspondence to and from CV. Still potentially covered under our rule (if there is quoting) but not that part of it.

Click here to see that CV is an Association, and that MCC is a member, hence 'internal' seems a fair representation, and thus the chesschat rule is relevant in my eyes.

Originally Posted by KB

I will also point out that CV routinely allows its minutes and agendas to be published on the Toolbox by an anonymous poster.

Happy to agree.

In these circumstances it's hard to credit that CV cares that much about the supposed privacy of these sorts of matters.

But this private mail in question was not a CV agenda, nor a CV MINUTE, it was my private advice to Grant, deliberately sent in a manner that had my expectation that it would remain private. As it transpires, there is no consensus at Ozchess that Private means Private, even though the one moderator, who saw it through independent eyes, tends to agree with the chesschat rule as it published.

In summary, the private e-mail looks very much like it fits

* Private communications of any sort, including but not limited to PMs, emails and letters, may not be posted or quoted publicly (including elsewhere in the case of PMs or emails from this site) without the written consent of the author(s) of all material being quoted. A communication is private if its author has, or may reasonably have, an expectation of confidentiality. Exceptions include tournament announcements, newsletters and some other materials with a wide circulation that are clearly not in confidence. Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise no matter how many recipients there are.

In conclusion, the publication of my private mail on chesschat is not authorised by me.




.

[Pablito15]

Suspended Tom Crass for 2 days for filling the shoutbox with rubbish/swearing

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Pablito15

Suspended Tom Crass for 2 days for filling the shoutbox with rubbish/swearing

Rubbish is OK and so is swearing. However, it is gratuitous swearing that is the problem.

[Pablito15]

Closed V's "holo-hoax" thread.

There is a minimum level of respect required.

[Pablito15]

Removed Rex's signature. You are fine to express this opinion in political/race/non-chess threads, however people shouldn't be reading it every time they open a chess thread.

Banned anonymous swearing-guy elijah for a week