Hydras -are they no longer allowed here

[Bill Gletsos]

There is no published rules against the use of mulltiple accounts here yet an invisble admin/mod has suddenly decided to ban Kevin Bonhams accounts here claiming they violate some "multi account restriction".
They have even banned the antisense account which isnt one of Kevin's accounts and is not a hydra.

They have also banned the account TheOrifice which is actually a hydra of phild707 and not an account of Kevin's. phild707's main account remains aactive and is not banned.

However there have been a number of posters here using mulltiple accounts including Arrogant-One and MOZ .

Arrogant-One has the accounts Arrogant-One, Alex Toolsie and Admin.
Moz has had the accounts MOZ and Virgil. He accidently outed the virgil account back in March.
phild707 has the accounts phild707 and TheOrifice. He accidently outed himself at the start of July,

Alex can you explain why Kevins accounts have been banned whilst others with multiple accounts have not been banned at all and yet others (phild707) only had one of their accounts banned.

P.S. For the record I have never used a hydra here or anywhere else.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

There is no published rules against the use of hydras here yet an invisble admin/mod has suddenly decided to ban all of Kevin Bonhams accounts here claiming they violate some "multi account restriction".

This statement is not true. Take some time to find out the facts before making such statements.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

They have even banned the antisense account which isnt one of Kevin's accounts and is not a hydra.

How do you know that antisense has been banned? Did antisense tell you?

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

However there have been a number of posters here using mulltiple accounts including Arrogant-One, MOZ and Phild707.

Multi accounting is a privilege that is available to all posters on Ozchess. However it is not a right that is beyond moderation discretion.


cheers Fg7

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

This statement is not true. Take some time to find out the facts before making such statements.

I had changed my post prior to you posting but not prior to you obviously quoting it.
I changed it because I was aware you did not ban the lotlizard account.
Other than that perhaps you would be so kind as to explicitly point out any other errors.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

do you know that antisense has been banned? Did antisense tell you?

I can see it for myself. They list as banned.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Multi accounting is a privilege that is available to all posters on Ozchess. However it is not a right that is beyond moderation discretion.

There has been no indication by the admins here that that is the case.

In fact Alex asked the questions:

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

1. Does Ozchess have any publicly stated policy pertaining to rules regarding hydra accounts?
2. Is it mandatory to use your proper name when signing up to Ozchess?

The answer to 1. appears to be no.
If I am wrong can you please provide a link to a post that would indicate otherwise.
The answer to 2. is clearly no as there are many posters here, yourself included whose user name is not their real name.

You even stated in your post here the decision rests with Alex.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

How do you know that antisense has been banned?

well the word "banned" under a username is just a little bit of a giveaway

Multi accounting is a privilege that is available to all posters on Ozchess. However it is not a right that is beyond moderation discretion.

obviously then it is no longer available to all posters on ozchess

so much for having hydras being doing nothing wrong

all animals equal, but some more equal than others?

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

I changed it because I was aware you did not ban the lotlizard account.

What you should say here is "....You became aware that lotlizard was not banned after you had made your incorrect claim, so you then re-edited your post and completely changed it, even going so far as to add in new observations about Phil's alleged hydra that completely contradicted what you originally posted"

My it is a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive!

Bill Gletsos caught red handed back editing his posts to cover up his mistakes!
Shocking!


cheers Fg7

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

obviously then it is no longer available to all posters on ozchess

True, Your right to have hydra's has been revoked.


cheers fg7

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

What you should say here is "....You became aware that lotlizard was not banned after you had made your incorrect claim, so you then re-edited your post and completely changed it,

That part is correct.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

even going so far as to add in new observations about Phil's alleged hydra that completely contradicted what you originally posted"

This is not correct.
I added more detail regarding Phils hydra and its banning.

As for it being only an alleged hydra of Phil's then why is it banned. Surely you did not suspect it was a hydra of Kevin's.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

My it is a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive!

Bill Gletsos caught red handed back editing his posts to cover up his mistakes!
Shocking!

Your facade of civility is exposed.

My posts to you were polite.
I called you no names.

I note you have not provided any evidence to refute my claims that Ozchess appears to have no publicly stated policy pertaining to rules regarding hydra accounts and that it is not mandatory to use your proper name when signing up to Ozchess.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

This is not correct.
I added more detail regarding Phils hydra and its banning.

I beg to differ. Adding details about Phil's alleged hydra completely contradicted what you originally posted and through back editing you covered up some of your more spurious allegations that were completely false.

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

Your facade of civility is exposed.

My posts to you were polite.
I called you no names.

I am being polite and I respect the fact that you are being polite as well. Where exactly did I call you names in this thread?

cheers Fg7

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

True, Your right to have hydra's has been revoked.

Under what published rule on this site was his right to have hydra's revoked.

[Bill Gletsos]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I beg to differ. Adding details about Phil's alleged hydra completely contradicted what you originally posted and through back editing you covered up some of your more spurious allegations that were completely false.

I corrected one allegation that was false, that being that all of Kevin's accounts were banned. My additional comments regarding Phils hydra did not contradict what I originally posted at all.

If you insist on making that claim please back it up with actual facts rather than making broad statements.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I am being polite and I respect the fact that you are being polite as well. Where exactly did I call you names in this thread?

You called me deceptive.
I realised my post regarding the banning of all of Kevin's accounts was incorrect, so i corrected my post.
I felt that was far better than leaving the incorrect claim.
I also added more details regarding Phils hydra.
Again I did this because I felt it benefited any third parties reading my post.
I do not consider any of that deceptive.

I notice you are still evading answering my question as to why Phil's hydra was banned.

You also have not explained why antisense who is not a hydra is banned.

[phild707]

Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos

As for it being only an alleged hydra of Phil's then why is it banned. Surely you did not suspect it was a hydra of Kevin's.

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

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

I made 1 or 2 fairly innocuous posts before abandoning the idea altogether.
If the account has not been removed would someone please do so now.

Phil.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by phild707

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

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

I made 1 or 2 fairly innocuous posts before abandoning the idea altogether.
If the account has not been removed would someone please do so now.

Phil.

I thought that The Oriface was one of Kevin's hydras actually. In any event, I will do as you have requested.

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

[Firegoat7]

Hi,


I don't really have a problem with anybody having hydra accounts, except in regards to democratic voting. My only real issue in relation to this thread is about whether that right can be temporarily forfeited for poor behaviour and conduct. If a poster is continually warned by a moderator to be reasonable and civil in their dealings with others and then continuously ignores those warnings, then I believe some sanctioning ought to occur.

But, this is only my belief and it really is up to the community to decide. The reason I hold this belief is because I don't want this forum to be like Chesschat. In fact, I would go so far to say that on Chesschat the moderation is abysmal and it is the KEY reason I left that site. I think a number of posters here hold a similar view. Basically, I do not want to waste any of my time arguing with people who bully and harass other posters when fulfilling the role of moderator.

However, obviously Kevin ought to have the right to post here. But that doesn't mean he has the right to bully people with his minority opinion. So what this conversation comes down to is the difference between democratic expression and democratic participation. Sure, its ok to disagree with a moderation decision and have the merits of the facts discussed. After all moderators are human beings who make errors. But is it really ok to keep expressing personal agenda as fact without attempting to ever resolve issues? Isn't that just minority tyranny?

Which brings me to my final point. This forum is privately owned by Alex, so ultimately he is the benevolent dictator. Nevertheless, democratic openness requires participation. So I think that Kevin Bonham and Bill Gletsos should both be allowed to potentially be moderators. However I will qualify this rather radical statement. a) As long as there are democratic elections for moderators
b) As long as there is a democratic apparatus that allows them to be replaced.

Of course I would no longer post here if they did become moderators, but hey democratic participation is more important then the wishes of an individual and lets face it, the Ozchess membership ought to participate in its own future.

In conclusion, hydra's are ok, rights can be removed, expression is different from participation and mechanisms need to be developed to explore these type of issues.

cheers Fg7

arrogant-one's solution is a good one, if adopted

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

If a poster is continually warned by a moderator to be reasonable and civil in their dealings with others and then continuously ignores those warnings, then I believe some sanctioning ought to occur.

there are two problems with this -
firstly, you havent defined what you mean by "civil" and you seem to use the word very differently from most people
your idea of "reasonable" is also not one all others would share
of course we could ask, but would the answer be informative to us?

the second is that if you are going to have such a standard you must apply it consistently if it is to be justified or fair
and there is all kinds of clearly uncivil (by any normal definition) abuse all over this board that has never been moderated or been the subject of a warning

However, obviously Kevin ought to have the right to post here. But that doesn't mean he has the right to bully people with his minority opinion.

minority here perhaps, but not elsewhere

and isn't "bully" just a yes minister style irregular verb:

"i exercise my right to individual thought in this capitalist society
you have some eccentric ideas
he/she/it bullies people with a minority view"

?

furthermore, your use of the word "bully" is uncivil
phild's sig is also uncivil

But is it really ok to keep expressing personal agenda as fact without attempting to ever resolve issues?

but this is not what's happened
during the now-locked thread i was always open to being convinced by new evidence
and changed my view on exactly what had happened in response to it when there was reason to do so

as for resolution, i hoped that the criticism would lead to you either providing an adequate explanation or else resigning
or at least agreeing not to mod me in the future

you shouldnt expect me to agree to any resolution that ties a hand behind my back while abuse all over the place is not addressed

Isn't that just minority tyranny?

hardly, you are the one with the moderator powers
no one else is forced to read what i write here

Which brings me to my final point. This forum is privately owned by Alex, so ultimately he is the benevolent dictator. Nevertheless, democratic openness requires participation. So I think that Kevin Bonham and Bill Gletsos should both be allowed to potentially be moderators.

well that's so nice of you
since three months ago you said they should be banned
i take it you retract that now?
but it is also quite irrelevant
unless they're actually interested
are they?

[phild707]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

phild's sig is also uncivil

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

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?

Phil.