Very funny Moz!


Anyways, Here is the approach I would use to remove the hydras and dormant accounts.



...

cheers,

My post was in all seriousness fg7.
As -V- notes, there is only one poster here with multiple accounts which he uses to troll, and they are all identified.

Not sure why you have introduced the additional criteria of dormant accounts and I would counsel against removal of these. For example little black cat came in from the cold last night; and we are glad he did, after a long dormancy.

As for their only being one troll, well I am far from convinced by that argument.

Would you like to suggest a second ?

Hi Everyone,


I think we need to bring up the concept of new elections. Pablito15 is going overseas and we need to clear up the hydra problem. I would like to be elected and my first piece of action would be to ban Bonham and Gletsos permanently. Next I would insist that AC and V declare their hydras privately so that we can make an informed decision on which ones to terminate under mutual agreement. Then I would precede to delete every hydra that is anyway connected to Chesschat posters who are anonymous. Davo must be deleted as should be others. It is completely ridiculous that we allow these Chesschat goons to create hydra after hydra when they wont tolerate such behaviour on their site. It is clear that it is a deliberate ploy on their behalf to attack Ozchess. I am sick to death of these hypocrite bullies.

regards,

Agreed, bring in the goat, and get harsher on the drivel arguments that constantly plague the shoutbox. Not a good look.

Also, I am on here very seldom now as i'm preparing to go overseas so am practically stood down.

Well I am going to have to disagree on that one Moz. If a poster has made 0 posts after 2 or 3 years of being inactive, well then, we ain't exactly losing much. As for their only being one troll, well I am far from convinced by that argument.

But the points are moot anyways, as the selection of the criteria is completely at the whim of the moderators. Therefore, I was merely showing a method of dealing with hydras that would be more inclusive and less ban orientated, not suggesting what the policy ought to be necessarily. It wouldn't require that much work compared to the current status quo, and it would require accountability on the hydras part to remain an active participatory member. That is the methodology would be self policing, not over policing, which is a subtle, yet significant difference in ideology .

Hi Everyone,


I think we need to bring up the concept of new elections. Pablito15 is going overseas and we need to clear up the hydra problem. I would like to be elected and my first piece of action would be to ban Bonham and Gletsos permanently. Next I would insist that AC and V declare their hydras privately so that we can make an informed decision on which ones to terminate under mutual agreement. Then I would precede to delete every hydra that is anyway connected to Chesschat posters who are anonymous. Davo must be deleted as should be others. It is completely ridiculous that we allow these Chesschat goons to create hydra after hydra when they wont tolerate such behaviour on their site. It is clear that it is a deliberate ploy on their behalf to attack Ozchess. I am sick to death of these hypocrite bullies.

regards,

Alex,

I have thought about how you should deal with the hydra issue.

1) Make a list of all the unknown hydras on the membership list.
2) Post the list and ask people to pm you if they wish to retain anonymous ownership of the hydra.
3) If nobody claims the hydra delete it.

I think this is a fair balance for maintaining site integrity ,whilst removing spam accounts and anonymous attacks on people.

cheers,

This most recent post of yours is a morph of the original >


which in summary seems to recommend action on the following
i) Ban KB and ban BG

ii) Identify a/c and -V- hydras with the view to a cull

iii) Delete all other hydras connected to chesschat posters.

iv) hydras owned by Ozchessers (not -V- and a/c). You just call it an issue and give no rationale for a cull on these. Why are these an issue? Have you been standing too close to Grant who argues there is no legitimacy in any hydra.

And then on top of all this there is your campaign to cull all dormant accounts. You don't even call 'dormant accounts' an issue. Just cull them and let them be damned. That is no way to treat esteemed Ozchessers posters who regularly login here but do not post. For example, the highly valued Shredder.

Your whole election manifesto is a vote of no-confidence in the work of Jay, and HBK, and in this you are wrong.

...

This is simply false. I believe both of them are excellent mods. The issue of hydras is about how to make their lives easier, not more difficult. They don't actually have to do anything, except receive a pm saying who owns the hydra. It is no big deal.

Your whole election manifesto is a vote of no-confidence in the work of Jay, and HBK, and in this you are wrong.

Agreed, the misbehaviours of
KB,
BG,
DJ (elsewhere)
and TPL's many hydras
are irritating, but your election manifesto is nowhere near a solution.

FG, I would like to know what you think we are trying to achieve here at OzChess?

Within the constraints of "freedom to speak," there is little we can do about hydra accounts that misbehave. Just treat them in the way befitting of their behaviour.

Ottogoat's been at it again, launching a tirade after I pointed out the stupidity of a post of his that conflated his zeal for banning Bill and me with hydra issues, and blamed us for hydras we have nothing to do with.

Firstly goatboy completely missed that this was the main point of my objection to his post. My primary issue with it was not his well-known arbitrary zeal for banning us but that he was mixing us up in the hydra issue in a way that falsely blamed us for it.

Some of the nonsense in his irrelevant spray:

Quote:
On ******* we try to be democratically inclusive of almost everybody who is interested in chess.

Ah yes, so that would be why people aren't included in your sham elections unless they have more than a certain number of posts with their main account, thus excluding everyone who chooses not to boost the Toolbox's postcount from what you pass of as "democracy".

Quote:
To actively participate in this democratic inclusiveness posters need to be made to feel welcome, without having these negative people constantly attacking the site.

Mostly what we are attacking is actually negative attacks on us by you and your similarly frothy friends, firegoat. If you want to stop us responding, stop making the attacks in the first place. If you can't stop attacking us, ask the mods over there to ban you. Problem solved.

Quote:
How can a poster feel welcome and secure within the community when KB and BG constantly crap on about Chesschat and why people are not allowed to post there

Actually it is Toolbox users constantly bringing up this stuff that makes it a subject of discussion and firegoat is one of the major moaners about it.

Quote:
or, even worse, keep moaning about the site in their Detox thread.

And this should make people feel unwelcome and insecure over there?

Quote:
We ought to ban these negative characters permanently because the site needs to get rid of being consumed with things from Chesschat.

Well that's funny because the place's origins are as a site for people banned from (or having fled) CC to bitch and moan about it together. If you really want to get rid of the obsession with all things CC from the Toolbox then instead of banning people, regulate the subject. Start by deleting the whole "Adventures At Chess Chat" section. Then the next time firegoat, -V- or Alex launches a diatribe about CC in the shoutbox, have the mods delete it and ban them for a day before Bill and I can even respond. The so-called problem will very quickly go away.

Of course firegoat's unwillingness to push such a solution shows he's just looking for a shallow rationalisation for banning us and isn't really interested in solving the claimed problem. And his claimed solution shows what I have said all along: that firegoat's approach to modding is about the person and not the behaviour.

Firegoat has come up with this silly proposal:

Quote:
Ban everybody on Chesschat who is a moderator of the site. Use that banning as a negotiation starting point for 1) Direct linking of ******* posts 2) An agreement not to police [sic] Chesschat matters on ******* 3) An agreement not to hassle [sic] banned Chesschat posters who post on ******* over here.

I can tell firegoat that if someone over there does take that action there will be no negotiation of any such points in return for unbanning as we will not compromise the quality of this site in order to recover rights over there, and nor will I agree to lopsided conditions in which idiots can bait me or make false statements about CC but I am not allowed to respond.

Rather, if he is reappointed mod and imposes an unjust ban on any valued CC member of any duration he will be immediately banned from here and I will never revoke that ban. Furthermore if firegoat's reappointment leads to a serious ban regime against CC members, then dual members who hold the power to reverse the situation will be expected to use it.

The best solution to 2) and 3) if they are really such big problems is for the existing mods to delete all whinging about Chesschat and prominent Chesschat members, thus leaving us nothing to respond to.

As for 1) as Alex is completely untrustworthy I'd suggest that if he wants the URL block lifted he should pay us in advance for the nuisance value of cleaning up after him when he spams and the block needs to be reimposed.