OzChess Security - Hacker Precautions

[Firegoat7]

Thread re-opened

This thread has been re-opened to give posters a chance to ask and discuss questions in a civil way. Should the conversation revert back to its old ways of repetitive name calling, bullying, rudeness and non reflexivity, it will be closed. You have been warned!

Cheers Fg7

[Firegoat7]

Greetings,



As a side note. Kevin Bonham did pm me a complaint. Upon further examination I can categorically state that I personally won't be following up on any of his ideas. If Kevin does not object I may reprint that exchange here, not that it is really that interesting.


cheers Fg7

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

This thread has been re-opened to give posters a chance to ask and discuss questions in a civil way. Should the conversation revert back to its old ways of repetitive name calling, bullying, rudeness and non reflexivity, it will be closed. You have been warned!

1. What, in your view, is "non reflexivity"?

2. Are there any other threads displaying it on this board?

3. There are plenty of threads on this board that genuinely displaying repetitive name calling, rudeness and what you refer to as "bullying", a prime example (ironically) being the so-called "Bullying on chesschat" thread. If the presence of such aspects would justify the closure of this thread, why have you closed none of those? Do you agree that if you allow such behaviour by Ozchess regulars to persist unchecked then it is not only to be expected that critics of your conduct will criticise you harshly, but also that you have brought that on yourself and legitimised it?

4. Have you yourself ever displayed "repetitive name calling, bullying, rudeness [or] non reflexivity" (a) on this board (B) elsewhere? If so, do you apologise for and retract all cases of such behaviour unreservedly, and what are you going to do about them in order to seek their removal?

5. Why do you request that people engage on this thread by asking questions in a "civil" way when you yourself do not consistently, or even commonly, engage with others the same way online, and have frequently made one-sided abusive assertions about others on this board without discussing the relevant facts with them first?

6. Why did you ban the accounts belonging to Bill and me and the one you falsely assumed to belong to me?

7. Why did you later that night extend the bans on some of those accounts?

8. Why did you then fail to explain your behaviour, leaving it to MOZ and AO both of whom did not know enough to defend you in the way that they attempted?

9. What are the "rules" of Ozchess that you refer to in your post when you locked this thread? I can't see any.

10. Are you aware that virtually all of the threads you started to complain about moderation on Chesschat have never been locked, in contrast to you temporarily locking the very first thread in which your moderation was under fire here?

11. What do you mean by the word "civil"? Can you define it clearly in terms of other words?

12. Do you realise that if you locked the thread again on account of people not being nice enough to you, you would only invite further ridicule, and as such, as threats and warnings go, it's a particularly toothless one?

No objection to reprinting of our PM exchange provided all three PMs (my complaint, your reply, my follow-up) are quoted in full and unabridged in the same post.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Thread re-opened

This thread has been re-opened to give posters a chance to ask and discuss questions in a civil way. Should the conversation revert back to its old ways of repetitive name calling, bullying, rudeness and non reflexivity, it will be closed. You have been warned!

Cheers Fg7

FG,
This seems like a very reasonable approach on your part.
Let the arguments stand on their own merits.
Phil.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

1. What, in your view, is "non reflexivity"?

Unable to reflect.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

2. Are there any other threads displaying it on this board?

Off topic. Try starting another thread.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

3. There are plenty of threads on this board that genuinely displaying repetitive name calling, rudeness and what you refer to as "bullying", a prime example (ironically) being the so-called "Bullying on chesschat" thread. If the presence of such aspects would justify the closure of this thread, why have you closed none of those? Do you agree that if you allow such behaviour by Ozchess regulars to persist unchecked then it is not only to be expected that critics of your conduct will criticise you harshly, but also that you have brought that on yourself and legitimised it?

Theoretical and moral speculation about my action in closing this thread and subsequent argument about its correlation with other Ozchess threads is probably best served as a new thread if it really concerns you.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

4. Have you yourself ever displayed "repetitive name calling, bullying, rudeness [or] non reflexivity" (a) on this board (B) elsewhere? If so, do you apologise for and retract all cases of such behaviour unreservedly, and what are you going to do about them in order to seek their removal?

Instead of focusing on character assassination, try and direct your argument towards facts as they relate to my moderation of your temporary banning.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

5. Why do you request that people engage on this thread by asking questions in a "civil" way <snip>

Because if posters are genuinely interested in moderation policy, then the presumption ought to be that they would be interested in getting an answer from a moderator. Engagement is a two way street, therefore in the role of moderator, as opposed to normal poster, I will not allow myself to be reduced to a level where an answer is demanded from me without respect for civil openness. If posters want to assert prescient supposition as "fact" without hearing the other, let alone addressing the moderator openly, then I will let them, but I won't engage in conversation with such people.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

6. Why did you ban the accounts belonging to Bill and me and the one you falsely assumed to belong to me?

This question you pose contains elements that are not confirmed facts, as such I cannot directly answer it.
However, to be helpful, one reason I temporarily banned some accounts on Ozchess was to ascertain if the system was compromised. That is one of a plethora of reasons for temporarily banning some accounts.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

7. Why did you later that night extend the bans on some of those accounts?

Again without giving to much away, for a plethora of reasons. Again, one reason was because I wanted to be certain that some accounts did not resume normal posting until Alex had logged on.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

8. Why did you then fail to explain your behaviour, leaving it to MOZ and AO both of whom did not know enough to defend you in the way that they attempted?

The posters who posed such questions already had confirmed in their own minds that their suppositions were irrefutable facts. So there was no 'failure to explain' because invitation to open questioning was not forthcoming within their original supposition.
Both Moz and AO felt they needed to correct these suppositions, I didn't. Moz style was patient engagement. AO's was gentle persuasion. I on the other hand chose to wait for the correct moment for me to act publicly

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

.

9. What are the "rules" of Ozchess that you refer to in your post when you locked this thread? I can't see any.

Annoucements Alert!!!

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

10. Are you aware that virtually all of the threads you started to complain about moderation on Chesschat have never been locked, in contrast to you temporarily locking the very first thread in which your moderation was under fire here?

I have no interest in discussing Chesschat moderation with you in this thread. Please feel free to start a new thread about locking threads and civility if you wish, but i won't answer that question here.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

11. What do you mean by the word "civil"? Can you define it clearly in terms of other words?

Maybe in another thread, but I can't promise anything.

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

12. Do you realise that if you locked the thread again on account of people not being nice enough to you, you would only invite further ridicule, and as such, as threats and warnings go, it's a particularly toothless one?

Very strange question. I reject your supposition, so silence is the correct response.


cheers Fg7

firegoat, I was willing to give your questions game a go because I knew you wouldn't be up to it, and many of your responses aren't. So we will now move largely to the next stage you suggested (at least this is my interpretation of your extremely unclear grammar), namely discussing your answers to the questions. Some more questions will be asked along the way - if you want to avoid answering them by dodging discussion or locking the thread again you will just look even more self-protective.

Unable to reflect.

I interpret this as meaning that you use a jargonistic expression, but don't actually know what you mean by it.

Off topic. Try starting another thread.

You yourself do not have that kind of understanding of topicality or you wouldn't have been suggesting that discussion of the moderation of this thread was on-topic for it by offering to post my PMd responses here. I am simply following your own suggested lead, and ditto for your similar next answer.

Instead of focusing on character assassination, try and direct your argument towards facts as they relate to my moderation of your temporary banning.

In terms of the moderation of this thread, your inconsistencies of character are extremely relevant because they indicate that your own policy has not been consistently applied, not even to your own postings. Thus your instead/try is a false dichotomy ... oh, and much of my argument has been directed towards such facts as have been known - if you have a complaint about not every fact being covered, it's your fault for not revealing them in a situation when it was obviously pertinent to do so.

Because if posters are genuinely interested in moderation policy, then the presumption ought to be that they would be interested in getting an answer from a moderator.

It has been without rational doubt at all stages that your action in banning us was incorrect and the only question has been in what of many possible ways this was the case. Furthermore, since you don't actually answer most questions usefully when they are put to you (as I have in my most recent post) it appears that your demands for polite enquiry are just a spurious pretext for a failure to explain yourself sooner.

This question you pose contains elements that are not confirmed facts,

This assertion is false. They may not be "confirmed facts" to you but both MOZ and AO have confirmed you were responsible for the bannings and I can confirm (and if you provide me with login histories, prove) that you falsely banned an innocent account.

However, to be helpful, one reason I temporarily banned some accounts on Ozchess was to ascertain if the system was compromised.

How would banning the accounts have helped in this way?

That is one of a plethora of reasons for temporarily banning some accounts.

What were the others?

Again without giving to much away, for a plethora of reasons

This shows the utter vacuity and disingenuity of your "questions" game thus far. You invite posters to question you then give vague and more or less useless answers accompanied by excuses for failing to be informative. It is a puerile game on your part and if you want to lock the thread because you can't handle it being called such, you will only show you cannot handle criticism when you deserve it.

Again, one reason was because I wanted to be certain that some accounts did not resume normal posting until Alex had logged on.

But in that case, since you thought all the accounts were operated by either Bill or myself, why not extend the bans on all of them? And did you have any reason to believe Alex would not log on in the next 24 hours?

Annoucements Alert!!!

Those are not "rules" but are Matthew Sweeney's statement of conditions under which he is willing to be a moderator. Sweeney is currently rather inactive, and the persistent abuse of Chesschat regulars here even when they are also posters here shows that his ideas re civility have been abandoned if they were ever held in the first place. Furthermore, Sweeney only suggests the role of mod being to ask people to consider their tone. He does not suggest that their tone is limited in any way, or that it is a pretext for thread-locking.

Your response shows you have absolutely no understanding of the concept "rule".

I have no interest in discussing Chesschat moderation with you in this thread. Please feel free to start a new thread about locking threads and civility if you wish, but i won't answer that question here.

Invitation noted and shall be considered - again I was only following your own apparent indifference to the concept of topicality.

Very strange question. I reject your supposition, so silence is the correct response.

Reject it all you like. That would only make it more amusing for me.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

It seems you're not familiar with the simple concept of a regular automated backup.

Actually, this site uses a daily automated backup. The problem is that such automated backups are onsite backups, meaning they are potentially vulnerable to hacker attacks.

So you, like MOZ, are another one wading boldly into the defence of the so often indefensible firegoat, without actually having much clue about why he did what he did.

Another incorrect assumption on your part. I had a giant piece of the puzzle no one else had. Like I said the whole thing was 100% my fault for not communicating properly. You want to hound MOZ and Dave about it, you should be asking me for an apology. I will give it because I should have informed them about something which would have cleared up any concern.

By this stage if there is a hacker then the hacker is already logged in as admin, and banning any other accounts they may have used to reach that position won't make a speck of difference; they are already "inside".

My experience suggests this is untrue. I have been logged into the Admin CP before, accidentally logged Arrogant-One out of the forum (not the Admin CP), and then the Admin CP made me log back in, and I couldn't use the Admin CP functions until I did.

Best

AO

ps- I don't ordinarily log in as Admin but had some things to tend to with this account this morning.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

11. What do you mean by the word "civil"? Can you define it clearly in terms of other words?

A very sad query. It reveals the asker, whoever he/she is, to be a person without an adequate education.

Fo his/her benefit I provide the following link to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
which may be useful?

Phil.

[phild707]

This discussion is of course a cat 1 cyclone in a very small tea cup.
I haven’t ploughed through all the tedious detail, (nor do I intend to!), however it appears some people got barred for a short (?) period of time but have now been fully reinstated?
If so then I don’t believe that such a short period of involuntary exile from an internet community chat forum will have had a serious impact on their lives, their reputations, their mental well-being and/or that of their families or etc etc
Also, locking a discussion topic seems a sensible precaution when it looks like getting out of hand.

What does interest me though is the discussion where it touches on what is or is not an appropriate way to conduct a debate.
The majority of discussions on ChessChat are quite civil however in a minority of cases discussions have degenerated into a slanging match. Most often this appears to have arisen when a poster has disagreed with one of the two governing moderators there.

Because these moderators are personally involved in a dispute it is hardly surprising that they are unable to be objective and rational in their decisions and as a result people are barred from further participation basically for expressing a different point of view.

The model here is infinitely more conducive to the spirit of free speech and open and productive discussion. Although the moderators may not have quite worked out their “rules”, their intention is clearly to present a more healthy alternative to the ChessChat “flamewar”.
People should not demean that intention as a desire, on the part of the moderators, to be “nice” as this wrongly implies that there is a weakness or lack of rigour in this approach. Instead there is here an alternative to the “flamewar” discussion and people should really give it a fair trial.

My advice to protagonists is:-

You can’t move forward when you are looking backward; so don’t get bogged down dragging up ancient history.

If you are not genuinely committed to resolving differences and finding at least a civilised agreement to differ in opinion, then you shouldn’t be contributing to this discussion.

Phil.

Originally Posted by phild707

A very sad query. It reveals the asker, whoever he/she is, to be a person without an adequate education.

Wrong. My point is that while the word has a reasonably clear meaning in ordinary discourse, its usage on this site is deeply peculiar and utterly inconsistent, and therefore I am asking firegoat what he means by it.

However, if you want to uncivilly (and that's as the word is normally used!) attack my education on a spurious pretext feel free to lay out all your relevant credentials in the field of linguistics, professional and otherwise.

Originally Posted by Admin

Actually, this site uses a daily automated backup. The problem is that such automated backups are onsite backups, meaning they are potentially vulnerable to hacker attacks.

Offsite backups are possible if you're really serious about it.

Another incorrect assumption on your part. I had a giant piece of the puzzle no one else had.

You did have a piece of the puzzle but you have admitted you did not have full knowledge of firegoat's reasons. Firegoat himself now, instead of simply referring to the perceived hack possibility as the reason, refers to a "plethora of reasons". His reluctance to itemise them only increases the likelihood that some are vindictive and invalid.

Like I said the whole thing was 100% my fault for not communicating properly.

It was partly your fault and I accept your apology for that part. It was clearly partly firegoat's fault since at the least he acted cluelessly. It was not MOZ's fault, although his communications about the issue took firegoat's side to an excessive extent given what facts were known to him.

My experience suggests this is untrue. I have been logged into the Admin CP before, accidentally logged Arrogant-One out of the forum (not the Admin CP), and then the Admin CP made me log back in, and I couldn't use the Admin CP functions until I did.

If you were logged into admin CP as Arrogant-One this is hardly surprising.

Originally Posted by phild707

This discussion is of course a cat 1 cyclone in a very small tea cup.

I agree that Ozchess is a "very small tea cup". As for the cyclone, it has only developed because those responding have persisted in whipping up the wind with silly answers and a progression of blunders which I have been having a lot of fun exposing!

If so then I don’t believe that such a short period of involuntary exile from an internet community chat forum will have had a serious impact on their lives, their reputations, their mental well-being and/or that of their families or etc etc

You are quite correct here; indeed the incorrect banning served to provide me with quite a deal of laughter and the way the locals have tied themselves in knots in their damage control attempts continues to do so!

Also, locking a discussion topic seems a sensible precaution when it looks like getting out of hand.

Should we have locked all threads on chesschat where you started getting extremely abusive? Some of them would not have made it past post 1 if so!

The majority of discussions on ChessChat are quite civil however in a minority of cases discussions have degenerated into a slanging match. Most often this appears to have arisen when a poster has disagreed with one of the two governing moderators there.

Quite true, especially when that poster has been abusive in so doing and therefore been rightly called on their conduct.

Because these moderators are personally involved in a dispute it is hardly surprising that they are unable to be objective and rational in their decisions

Non sequitur, and unsubstantiated.

and as a result people are barred from further participation basically for expressing a different point of view.

Unsubstantiated and empirically false.

Although the moderators may not have quite worked out their “rules”, their intention is clearly to present a more healthy alternative to the ChessChat “flamewar”.

The blatant inconsistency in application of standards (including the frequent and often defamatory and/or crude abuse of chesschat regulars by most of the site staff as posters) makes their intentions rather less clear than you claim (to put it mildly).

You can’t move forward when you are looking backward; so don’t get bogged down dragging up ancient history.

The above is written by a person who has himself been known to drag up "ancient history" from 2002 when attempting to have a go at me. He has not yet admitted that behaviour was unproductive or attempted to move away from it.

If you are not genuinely committed to resolving differences and finding at least a civilised agreement to differ in opinion, then you shouldn’t be contributing to this discussion.

A person who persistently uses the word "orifice" to refer to somebody else is in no position to comment on such concepts, and is probably trolling.

[Euro-Chess]

Originally Posted by Phild707

This discussion is of course a cat 1 cyclone in a very small tea cup.

I agree with this observation quoted. In fact, ordinarily I try to avoid these types of pointless threads, but as this seems to be the most actve thread in the past fortnight, I'll throw my two cents worth in.

I think, simply enough, that the bannings were probably done as an over reaction to a security threat that ultimately turned out not to be a real security threat. Why those who were banned want to go on and on about it seems to show that their motives are counterfeit and ungenuine, and their participation in this thread is mostly to make a spectacle out of the issue than for genuine information seeking purposes.

But that's just my viewpoint, however it may be received.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

I agree with this observation quoted. In fact, ordinarily I try to avoid these types of pointless threads, but as this seems to be the most actve thread in the past fortnight, I'll throw my two cents worth in.

I think, simply enough, that the bannings were probably done as an over reaction to a security threat that ultimately turned out not to be a real security threat. Why those who were banned want to go on and on about it seems to show that their motives are counterfeit and ungenuine, and their participation in this thread is mostly to make a spectacle out of the issue than for genuine information seeking purposes.

But that's just my viewpoint, however it may be received.

That's interesting. Usually you are tripping over yourself to support the bots. For a while I even thought you were a Bill Gletsos hydra but your spelling and grammar always seemed to indicate otherwise. Anyway, I'm glad you've accurately assessed the situation this time EC.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

My point is that while the word has a reasonably clear meaning in ordinary discourse, its usage on this site is deeply peculiar and utterly inconsistent, and therefore I am asking firegoat what he means by it. etc etc...

A very dreary explanation for what remains nevertheless an exceedingly SILLY question.

And it gets sillier stilll. This person who is anonymous (I believe?), is now taking offence at aspersions cast on his/her education!
How on earth can he/she be offended if he/she is anonymous?!

Originally Posted by The Arbiter

A person who persistently uses the word "orifice" to refer to somebody else is in no position to comment on such concepts, and is probably trolling.

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

No there was no trolling going in that post. It was intended to attempt to point a way to a more useful discussion but even as I was writing it I knew it was probably waste of time so ...

[Firegoat7]

Thread closed

Despite being warned, the tone of some posters thread has not improved. Therefore I have decided to close the thread.



cheers Fg7