Time Out For Members

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Please let me take a crack at your insightful queries MOZ.

Spitefulness, Vindictiveness, Bullying, and Blackmail (or any combination thereof).

Because I threatened to tell the CC owner that his moderators had banned a Chess Chat poster with nearly 6000 posts permanently and/or indefinitely for no discernable or rational reason. Had I went through with that call, both bots would have been fired on the spot!

So those are the 'reasons'.

Glad I could help.

Best Regards,

AO

AO
Your post reminds me of a quote >
In a world awash in information of dubious provenance, whom can you trust to tell you the truth?
-- Gerald Jonas, review of The Jazz, by Melissa Scott, New York Times, June 18, 2000

[Mr. Spoicka]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Re #344 and #346 I don't regard the opinions of an anon who is probably a hydra as of the slightest relevance. However my use of [sic] when quoting is a standard literary form that simply indicates when quotes of misspellings are the misspellings of the original author rather than mistypes by the quoter.

Mr. Spoicka (me!) is a registered memeber of the OZChess community.
His (my) opinions are as relevant as anyone elses if they address comments made in this thread.
Picking on minor spelling details in a post is inflammatory and diverts attention from the substance of the discussion.
Please desist from this practice.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Actually my achievement (not that it is much of one) is to demonstrate that the only standards this place sets are double ones.

And by their deeds you will known them:

TROLL

My aspiration is to encourage you to make this truly a place of civility and harmony ...

Disingenuous troll.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Mr. Spoicka

Picking on minor spelling details in a post is inflammatory and diverts attention from the substance of the discussion.

Well, he doesn't have much else Mr Spoicka. Its not like he ever wins an argument here at OzChess by actually debating it. He keeps reaching for his moderator buttons every time he gets into trouble, and then realizes they don't exist here at which point he panics. So it seems his newest tactic is to create diversions by using [sic] endlessly. Even Bill Gletsos has abandoned him it seems.

As such if we were to take this toy away from him he could start crying.

Best Regards,

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]Actually, there have been 15 new sign ups since the 5th of August and likely some from the 1st to the 5th as well. Any member, yourself included, could verify that statistic from the homepage advanced statistics. Next time please do your homework beforehand.

Actually it was you who failed to do your reading. Not sure which part of my words "have signed up and posted" (my emphasis) was too hard for you to see. My stat did not include those who have not posted, for the obvious reason that they were not relevant to the question of whether new members might have issues with the moderation queue.

What you mentioned about the posting levels of the new members is also incorrect as the account Ophiuchus which was created just days ago is already well above 12 posts.

Correct (for once). As the context was the fate of accounts other than mine with the spam block I omitted my own account from the tally. I should have said four other new members.

And in any event most of the posts made on a daily basis on any forum are usually made by 1-6 particular posters and not the new sign ups.

True but irrelevant because the issue is whether new sign-ups will at some stage have issues.

That said, as is the case on CC and other forums, people tend to sign up at OzChess but not post very often. Some people call such members lurkers, but its fairly common to see this practise at forums.

Also true but actually confirming my point, given that if posters start posting slowly (which many do) then those posters may well have issues with the queue down the track.

Originally Posted by Mr. Spoicka

Mr. Spoicka (me!) is a registered memeber of the OZChess community.
His (my) opinions are as relevant as anyone elses if they address comments made in this thread.

In my view, topicality is only one part of the test for relevance of an opinion in the context in which you use the concept. The other part is merit.

Picking on minor spelling details in a post is inflammatory and diverts attention from the substance of the discussion.
Please desist from this practice.

It only diverts attention if you choose to be diverted by it and is in no way comparable to actual spelling-flaming, which is of course a complete waste of space in 90+% of cases.

I actually think the [sic]cing is quite a useful practice. On this site we have at least two regulars who, in the past, have altered quoted or posted text leading to misquoting of other posters. We have another poster who has falsely accused me of misquoting when I was, in fact, giving a paraphrased interpretation of their comments. Under such circumstances the time-honoured institutions of correct quoting practice become of paramount importance and should be upheld at almost all costs.

In deference to your concerns, however, I have declined to [sic] one apparent spelling error (although it could have been a kind of pun) and one failure to use an apostrophe in the quoted text of your post. I trust that this forebearance in response to your request meets with your complete approval and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.

[Iconoclast]

"Don't Feed The Troll"

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

And by their deeds you will known them:

TROLL

Looks like you agree that I have demonstrated many double standards by the regulars here (since you have used the words "deeds" in response to my comment about my achievements here), but how does that make me a TROLL?

Do I have your permission to quote an email you sent me in 2002 when I was posting "Do Not Feed The Troll" in response to your trolling posts on the ACF BBs of the time? Do I even need your permission given your own known willingness to quote emails in public?

I can assure you my own response to your use of the DNFTT tactic will be far more measured. Quaint as your view that I am trolling is, it hardly harms me if you discourage others here from posting nonsense!

[Mr. Spoicka]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

In my view, topicality is only one part of the test for relevance of an opinion in the context in which you use the concept. The other part is merit.

You are saying that you have a personal "test for relevance" and that this is based on your subjective view of the "merit" of an opinion!!
Therefore, we are led to presume, that you can dismiss any argument that you please on the basis that the opinion expressed is insufficiently meritorious in your personal opinion.
This must surely be a nonsense? But correct me if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

It only diverts attention if you choose to be diverted by it and is in no way comparable to actual spelling-flaming, which is of course a complete waste of space in 90+% of cases.

Again correct me if I am wrong but this remark is irrelevant and hence, little more than verbal flatulence. (and what is "spelling-flaming" anyway)

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

I actually think the [sic]cing is quite a useful practice. On this site we have at least two regulars who, in the past, have altered quoted or posted text leading to misquoting of other posters. We have another poster who has falsely accused me of misquoting when I was, in fact, giving a paraphrased interpretation of their comments. Under such circumstances the time-honoured institutions of correct quoting practice become of paramount importance and should be upheld at almost all costs.

I am not sure that your "actual" opinions on sic are a particularly useful contribution at this point and this paragraph wanders off into realms that I have no knowledge of regarding mis-quotations and paraphrasings .
Please stick to the point and if you really must allude to previous history you really do need to supply some factual details.
Please help the more uneducated readers of this forum to better understand your point of view by giving us a run down on "the time-honoured institutions of correct quoting practice"
Which institutions are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

In deference to your concerns, however, I have declined to [sic] one apparent spelling error (although it could have been a kind of pun) and one failure to use an apostrophe in the quoted text of your post. I trust that this forebearance in response to your request meets with your complete approval and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.

This seems like a needlessly sarcastic comment.
Are you being sarcastic?
If so, then why?
Is your rage with life in general, or is it just with the people in this forum?
If it's the latter then why do you post here?
Why not just go away?
Wouldn't that be easier... for everyone?
Just a thought.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Do I have your permission to quote an email you sent me in 2002 when I was posting "Do Not Feed The Troll" in response to your trolling posts on the ACF BBs of the time?

An email from 2002? Have you really become that desperate Kevin?

Best Regards,

AO

ps- You do need the author's permission to post their correspondence on OzChess, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Maybe that's not the case on CC where anything goes, but we hold ourselves to higher standards of integrity here at OzChess (in addition to setting the standard for harmony and civility).

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

"Don't Feed The Troll"

Don't worry! I brought my bottle of aerosol bot repellent with me. One spray of this stuff and both bots will be running full stride for the safety of CC!

Spoiler for Effective Bot Repellent:

Originally Posted by Garvin Gray when admonishing Kevin Bonham and Bill Gletsos

For two posters who claim to hate the toolbox and what is stands for, you certainly spend a lot of time keeping it alive by posting there and referring to it on here a lot.

Best Regards,

AO

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

... but how does that make me a TROLL?

This is a typical trollish question designed to waste our time, so, I call:
"Don't Feed The Troll"

Do I have your permission to quote an email you sent me in 2002 when I was posting "Do Not Feed The Troll" in response to your trolling posts on the ACF BBs of the time?

LOL

Question: What sort of a person trawls through casual emails from 6 six years ago to make some small point on a small chess bulletin board?
Answer: A Hyper-troll with nothing better to do than troll.

Hear that laughing? It is everyone laughing at you. Keep going Kevin Bonham (Vice Pres. ACF)


BUGGER! There I go again feeding the troll.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

<.>

Question: What sort of a person trawls through casual emails from 6 six years ago to make some small point on a small chess bulletin board?
Answer: A Hyper-troll with nothing better to do than troll.

Hear that laughing? It is everyone laughing at you. Keep going Kevin Bonham (Vice Pres. ACF)


<..>

I first tried Funk & Wagnall (yes I am old) for Hyper-troll

But Google is your friend in modern days.

Member: hypertroll - Chess.com


I think I need more hints.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Question: What sort of a person trawls through casual emails from 6 six years ago to make some small point on a small chess bulletin board?
Answer: A Hyper-troll with nothing better to do than troll.

Actually it takes me no more effort to find an email from six years ago than one from six days ago. But actually I did not go looking for that email specifically to comment on this debate. I had come across the exchange in question within the last week or two, while looking to see whether an anti-creationist link posted by Rincewind to stir up Jono was one that had also been mentioned on the old ACF BBs (it was). Why I was so curious about this I don't recall, but it was while looking for that that I came across your response to my use of "Don't Feed The Troll" at around the same time.

Hear that laughing? It is everyone laughing at you.

Not likely; there is virtually nobody here!

BUGGER! There I go again feeding the troll.

Your advice would be more effective if you could actually put it into practice yourself.

Mr. Spoicka, I have a question for you before I commence my reply:

Who are you?

I ask this because phild707, who is respected by staff on this board, has stated in Time Out For Members that "people who enter discussion without making it clear who they are either by their signature or their profile, should expect to be treated rudely and/or ignored. It's a cowardly thing to do, in my view, and it should be discouraged."

You do not make it clear who you are by either your signature or your profile, so I thought I should encourage you to make yourself known in the hope of saving you from Phil's ire!

Originally Posted by Mr. Spoicka

You are saying that you have a personal "test for relevance" and that this is based on your subjective view of the "merit" of an opinion!!

Here you paraphrase my comment, and do so somewhat inaccurately. I must also advise you not to do this as I was (quite astonishingly) suspended after the same phild707 I mention above made public complaints about me paraphrasing his comments, and I would hate to see you go the same way so early in your career here!

What I actually said was that I had a personal test for relevance that was partly based on merit.

Therefore, we are led to presume, that you can dismiss any argument that you please on the basis that the opinion expressed is insufficiently meritorious in your personal opinion.

Actually that doesn't follow from your interpretation of my comment. However, in my experience, for rational people, their considered view of the merit of an argument (taking into account all available evidence) is indeed the primary basis on which they accept or dismiss it. Of course, should the evidence change, or should they reconsider their position, their stance towards the argument may change.

Again correct me if I am wrong but this remark is irrelevant

Thanks for the invitation; you are indeed wrong, as the relevance of my remark was that any diversion created by my use of [sic] should be marginal at best.

However, as I know some members here use the word "please" when they mean "if you desist from this unreasonable request I will pull the strings on my puppet and get you suspended" I am considering desisting from the practice. Of course I completely disagree with your arguments against it.

and hence, little more than verbal flatulence.

For one who claims to be opposed to diversions, this uncivil comment does not do you any favours.

I am not sure that your "actual" opinions on sic are a particularly useful contribution at this point

This is coming from someone who argued that his opinions were "as relevant as anyone elses if they address comments made in this thread." My opinions on the use of "[sic]" address comments made on this thread by indicating a different view of the value of the term than that expressed by those deriding it, and therefore according to your own argument, they are as relevant as anyone else's, including yours.

and this paragraph wanders off into realms that I have no knowledge of regarding mis-quotations and paraphrasings .

Please stick to the point and if you really must allude to previous history you really do need to supply some factual details.

I am content with simply advising you, as a new member, of something here to keep an eye out for. If you don't want to accept my word that such irregularities have occurred then that's up to you.

Please help the more uneducated readers of this forum to better understand your point of view by giving us a run down on "the time-honoured institutions of correct quoting practice"
Which institutions are you referring to?

I am simply referring to the long-established use of "[sic]". In texts that quote previous texts, it is common and widespread practice for those who quote material that contains a typographical, spelling or other such error to indicate that error by the use of [sic], thus showing (for the avoidance of doubt for the reader) that the error resides in the original text and not in their transcription of it.

This seems like a needlessly sarcastic comment.
Are you being sarcastic?
If so, then why?
Is your rage with life in general, or is it just with the people in this forum?
If it's the latter then why do you post here?
Why not just go away?
Wouldn't that be easier... for everyone?
Just a thought.

As I find the tone of these questions uncivil, I find myself strangely disinterested in responding to them. You could try to avoid unfounded speculations about the state of mind and motives of those with whom you are having discussions if you want them to respond to all your questions. Just a thought.