Kevin Bonham's Deceptive Shell Game

[Arrogant-One]

Two hydra's on OzChess have been detected and will now be referred to Tribal Council for determination. I will attempt to show that these hydra's belong to one individual, Kevin Bonham.

Axiom QC, you have been selected to defend the mute poster who only seems to speak through his hyrda's. Will you accept this great undertaking Axiom?

Tribal Council will hear the evidence and Axiom's defence of Kevin. After hearing both cases they will then make a ruling on whether the accounts are in fact hydra's, and if so what punishment is to be administered.

I will argue the case on behalf of OzChess.

Firegoat7, MOZ, vagrantnomad, you 3 shall form the Tribal Council (if you all agree to).

Kevin Bonham, you have been beckoned to appear before the Council for these proceedings this week! When the above posters have agreed to their roles, I will commence the evidentiary case against Kevin Bonham and his alleged hydras!

Best

AO

[MOZ]

Reserving my position atm AO.

First, I have openly used hydras myself, and I don't regard it as a crime.

One chesschat hydra of mine was outed, without registering a posting, by a chesschat MOD and I felt aggrieved enough to complain to the chesschat ADMIN, unsuccessfully.
I am a bit anti OUTING.

Second, I suspect you mean he uses 3 nicks here, not 2?

[Axiom]

I HEREBY ACCEPT THE AFOREMENTIONED UNDERTAKING TO ACT IN DEFENCE OF A MR KEVIN BONHAM IN THE MATTER :-

OZCHESS v KBONHAM AS PER SUB SECTION OF THE FORUM COMPLIANCE BY-LAW 6-18B/17c

Ax.

[Arrogant-One]

Great!

As soon as we have at least one judge I can begin. You have your work cut out for you Axiom!

AO

[Axiom]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Great!

As soon as we have at least one judge I can begin. You have your work cut out for you Axiom!

AO

Isn't it just another garden variety hydra abuse case ?

mr bonham has advised me that he will not be contesting the matter , so it may be a matter for the court to determine his fate .
I will offer my services pro bono as defence counsel in his absence if so required,...but i understand that is a matter for the court to decide.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Axiom

Isn't it just another garden variety hydra abuse case ?

mr bonham has advised me that he will not be contesting the matter , so it may be a matter for the court to determine his fate .
I will offer my services pro bono as defence counsel in his absence if so required,...but i understand that is a matter for the court to decide.

So your client wants to plead guilty then? Before the charges are even read out? Have you advised your client that this is unwise?

Mr Axiom, one other matter before you depart for the night. Your client has attempted to contact me via Private Message, presumably in order to reach a 'quiet deal'. This is inappropriate. Please tell your client not to do so again.

Tribal Council will hear this case, and make the appropriate decisions.

[Euro-Chess]

On most forums if a hydra is detected, it gets banned and the makers of the hydra get suspended. What is the penalty for a hydra here? Also, on most forums a moderator will make all the decisions, not a council. I prefer that model. Even if you get a bad moderator, at least you have swift justice or injustice, and you know where the problem lies if there are too many poor decisions.

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

On most forums if a hydra is detected, it gets banned and the makers of the hydra get suspended. What is the penalty for a hydra here?

Arrogant-One, Iconoclast and MOZ have all had hydras on Chesschat. All have stated this to be the case.

AO and Iconoclast have both repeatedly created them while banned from that site (and have stated this to be the case).

MOZ is known to have used hydras here (he mistakenly outed his own hydra!) and AO has also admitted to using multiple accounts (and I suspect there are others he has not admitted to.

I think it's quite safe to assume that the penalty for hydras here is promotion to admin or mod.

(Incidentally having a hydra is not an offence on chesschat, but using or creating a hydra while banned is.)

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

On most forums if a hydra is detected, <snip>...


Even if you get a bad moderator, at least you have swift justice or injustice, and you know where the problem lies if there are too many poor decisions.

I appreciate your comment on how policies may differ on non-chess chat-boards.
Have you ever experienced a moderator removed?

MOZ*

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Firegoat7, MOZ, vagrantnomad, you 3 shall form the Tribal Council (if you all agree to).

Kevin Bonham, you have been beckoned to appear before the Council for these proceedings this week! When the above posters have agreed to their roles, I will commence the evidentiary case against Kevin Bonham and his alleged hydras!

Hi AO,

I am willing to listen to the dispute. But I must admit that I don't really have any strong moral opinions about hydras. It may be good for a laugh or two to hear the whole story, but I wouldn't necessarily hang the clown either. Obviously I dislike the goose, so I don't think thats really fair to him. But hey, I am if anything a fair person when it comes to social justice, so I can put personal opinions aside.

In regards to Ozchess policy, I would like to ask "Is there an official hydra policy?"

cheers,

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

On most forums if a hydra is detected, it gets banned and the makers of the hydra get suspended.

Is this claim really true?
Do we have some sort of reliable mathematical statistical analysis of online forums that verify the veracity of Eurochess' statement?
Or,
Is there a detectable historical trend that has been empirically observed by people qualified to judge such thing independently of self interest?

Or, Is Euro-Chess basing this claim on their own subjective personal experience?

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

What is the penalty for a hydra here?

Good point! I don't think there is an "official" policy. In fact, I don't even know if it is even an issue here. Let's start a thread and talk about it.

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

Also, on most forums a moderator will make all the decisions, not a council. I prefer that model.

Well in all honesty, if you prefer paternalism then post on Chesschat. They have no problem catering for immature people who want decisions made for them by a Big Daddy. In my opinion, if posters can't deal with multiple,conflicting arbitration amongst there own peers, then its normally because they cannot deal with the agency issues that arise out of having to assert their own voice in a rationalised, respectful and articulated manner amongst a group of people who often hold conflicting perspectives.

But its all horses for courses. Ozchess prides itself on being democratic, in that, it openly states that it wants its members to have "voices" where they can dissent. Ozchess respects the right of an individual to have a dissenting view without being prejudged by controlling moderators. That is a good thing in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

Even if you get a bad moderator, at least you have swift justice or injustice, and you know where the problem lies if there are too many poor decisions.

Using Chesschat as a test case to your argument. There is some very bad moderation on Chesschat which has led to some incredible unjust decisions. People can see these problems, but NOTHING, has ever led to any of the moderators ever being accountable to their own membership base for their poor decisions. Therfore, knowing there is a problem and solving the problem are two separate issues. We know Chesschat suffers from bad moderation. But, the moderators there are protected from having to face their errors. Therefore none of the problems are solved.

But I digress.
Anyway the key question I want to know is this....

Why is Euro-Chess interested in moderation policy of hydra accounts on Ozchess?
Could Euro-Chess be honest with us and openly state whether he is privy to some private discussion with Mr Bonham about the issue?
Or at the very least, rationalise for the rest of us, why this sudden interest has occurred? Remember democratic participation requires active agency!

cheers,

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

I think it's quite safe to assume that the penalty for hydras here is promotion to admin or mod.

This off the cuff comment is basically a veiled attempt to deliver a backhander to Ozchess and at the same time implore a flawed moral argument that the cesspit that is "Chesschat" is beyond approach. It fails as an argument because it is empirically false!

I am a moderator on Ozchess and I do not have a hydra account here.
Therefore the argument is false.

Furthermore, I have never set up a hydra account on Chesschat, despite some of the weaker moderators vehemently claiming that I did and being taken to task repeatedly by such people for doing so. Which goes to show that if you repeat a lie often enough, even the most seemingly intelligent person can be misled by propaganda.

cheers Fg7
P.S Who is the Arbiter and why do they have such a low post count?

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I am a moderator on Chesschat

No you're not. So correcting that to "Ozchess" (not that I can recall you actually moderating anything) :

and I do not have a hydra account here.
therefore the argument is false.

This is a fundamental logical error called "affirming the consequent".

If I say "if you do X, Y happens to you" then that does not automatically imply "If Y happens to you then you must have done X"

In this case, X = having hydras
Y = being a mod/admin

P.S Who is the Arbiter and why do they have such a low post count?

I'm the Arbiter, and my post count is so low because this account has only made four posts (including this one).

Hope that helps!

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

(Incidentally having a hydra is not an offence on chesschat, but using or creating a hydra while banned is.)

This is false. The account Adam was thought to be highwayman, an account in good standing at Chess Chat. Yet Adam was banned with the direction from Kevin Bonham that he post the same position Adam had articulated as highwayman.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi AO,

I am willing to listen to the dispute.

Great! The renowned Axiom QC has agreed to appear before Tribal Council, and this will be a real treat to hear him and myself argue this exciting case!

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

But I must admit that I don't really have any strong moral opinions about hydras.

That means you are open minded and non-biased! The perfect judge!

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

In regards to Ozchess policy, I would like to ask "Is there an official hydra policy?"

No, there isn't one. But after getting banned there various times for the most ridiculous of reasons in a very dicatorship style fashion, I wanted an open council approach - where evidence can be heard, considered, and the verdict is taken out of the hands of the prosecutor. Not the usual Judge, Jury, Executioner approach Chess Chat is famous for.

I am not interested in power, I am interested in considered debate and justice.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Ozchess prides itself on being democratic, in that, it openly states that it wants its members to have "voices" where they can dissent.

And this topic is just another way that openness and transparency (which are lacking on Chess Chat) are found here. This is not to mention that OzChess is technologically superior to Chess Chat in almost every way!

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Ozchess respects the right of an individual to have a dissenting view without being prejudged by controlling moderators. That is a good thing in my opinion.

That's right, and no one has ever been banned here either! That is proof that we are more courteous and civil towards one another. We don't need bullies here.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Using Chesschat as a test case to your argument. There is some very bad moderation on Chesschat which has led to some incredible unjust decisions. People can see these problems, but NOTHING, has ever led to any of the moderators ever being accountable to their own membership base for their poor decisions.

Not even the great Axiom QC can argue against that self evident truth!

Why is Euro-Chess interested in moderation policy of hydra accounts on Ozchess?

Euro-Chess is a friend (I know his real identity but have been asked to keep it confidential so I will). He is not a CC sympathiser and is largely indifferent to, and not involved with, the inter-forum stuff. But I do agree that maybe he should clarify his position.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]This is false. The account Adam was thought to be highwayman, an account in good standing at Chess Chat. Yet Adam was banned.

Without commenting on who Adam was or wasn't, the Adam account was in breach of other chesschat rules. However the owner of the Adam account was not punished over it.

But after getting banned there various times for the most ridiculous of reasons in a very dicatorship style fashion, I wanted an open council approach - where evidence can be heard, considered, and the verdict is taken out of the hands of the prosecutor.

In other words, a kangaroo court where a former flamewar opponent of the accused is one of the judges. As a pretence to a superior model of justice, completely farcical, especially as you would be "trying" someone for conduct you clearly approve of.