Hydras -are they no longer allowed here

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by phild707

Dear, dear , dear... up til past 3 in morning arguing over this trivial nonsense?????

Any time I can show how lame you are is time well spent.

Originally Posted by phild707

I set up the orifice account as a joke but i was already becoming bored with idea even before I was finished doing so.

Actually you were silly enough to out yourself.

Originally Posted by phild707

I made 1 or 2 fairly innocuous posts before abandoning the idea altogether.

Except you pretended yesterday that the TheOrifice was The Arbiter when you knew full well it wasnt.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I thought that The Oriface was one of Kevin's hydras actually.

That was pretty unobservant of you, given the number of times this was mentioned by Kevin and me since the account first appeared.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by phild707

Hi LostLizard.
Isn't it up to the anonymous arbiter to complain about this particular signature?

You are fooling no one.
It is quite obvious from the threads "OzChess Security - Hacker Precautions" and "Kevin Bonham's Deceptive Shell Game" that The Arbiter is Kevin Bonham.

Originally Posted by phild707

I had taken his silence on it to indicate that he/she had accepted the fact that it was a foolish question.... or have i missed a post somewhere?

The only one asking foolish questions is you.

Originally Posted by phild707

By the way allow me to introduce myself;
My name is Phil Donnelly.
I am a long time member of the Burnie chess Club and I maintain the Burnie Club website.
Who are you? Anyone I should know?

Another disingenuous query from you.

It is quite clear from firegoats and my posts that lotlizard is Kevin Bonham.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

On another matter, the question of what rules apply to hydras has now surfaced due, largely, to Kevin Bonham's penchant for hydra creation. Bill has mentioned that I have 2 hydras, Admin and Alex Toolsie. To this I say that Admin is mostly used by my mod install guy and very rarely used by myself. The Alex Toolsie account was registered, and rarely if ever posted, simply to prevent OzChess antagonists from registering that handle for themselves in an attempt to try and cause annoyance to me.

Regardless, I propose the following rules to govern hydras on OzChess:

(a) A member shall be allowed to have two accounts on OzChess, namely their main account and one active hydra;
(b) Active hydra means an account that has been logged in within the past 30 days; and
(c) A member shall be entitled to unlimited inactive hydras (accounts which have not been logged in within the past 30 days).

Accordingly, if a member is found to have more than one active hydra (and remember that an inactive hydra becomes active the moment it logs in), then the site management will give the member the choice of which 2 accounts he or she desires to use, and the others will become suspended accounts.

This seems a sensible course of action to surpress the proliferation of multiple accounts that can be registered and used on OzChess, but my Admin team needs to give these rules final sign off because OzChess is a democratic institution.

Best

AO

Given that antisense is not a hydra of Kevin's then there should be no reason why they should remain banned.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Given that antisense is not a hydra of Kevin's then there should be no reason why they should remain banned.

I've emailed Kevin Bonham and requested he forward antisense's phone number to me so that I can call him and verify (at least to some extent) that antisense is not Kevin, at which point the account would be unbanned.

I have spoken with Kevin once before a few years ago (on Australia Day where he rudely hung up on me after a brief exchange - it was very un-Australian of him), so I know what Kevin sounds like and if it would really be him on the other line.

Bill, could you please explain why Kevin has so far been reluctant to provide this number?

Best

AO

Originally Posted by phild707

Isn't it up to the anonymous arbiter to complain about this particular signature?

the point about the uncivil nature of your post is valid whoever makes it
especially if civility is being claimed as a basis for moderation

I had taken his silence on it to indicate that he/she had accepted the fact that it was a foolish question....

not a very sound inference given that the account in question was banned while a reply to your post was being composed using it

or have i missed a post somewhere?

yep. http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=131

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

I have spoken with Kevin once before a few years ago (on Australia Day where he rudely hung up on me after a brief exchange - it was very un-Australian of him), so I know what Kevin sounds like and if it would really be him on the other line.

australia day 2007
i wasnt keen to talk at that time
not surprising as i was out at a gig by my favourite band and then someone from a forum rings up to wish me a happy australia day
someone i had not got on with particularly well online
and i could not care less about australia day
seemed strange
to say the least

but no, i did not hang up the phone mid-conversation
i simply indicated it was not a good time to talk

Bill, could you please explain why Kevin has so far been reluctant to provide this number?

bill can't explain as he has been suspended
but i can
firstly it would not prove anything
a sceptic would just say i had got someone else to say they were antisense

secondly there is a simpler way
it would be easy to arrange for antisense to log on and perhaps post at a time when i was not capable of doing so
and had independent witnesses to that fact
of course, antisense has to be unbanned to post anything!

thirdly someone elses phone number is not mine to provide without their permission