Time Out For Members

[Arrogant-One]

It is with a heavy heart that I make this announcement.

Upon request from a valued and upstanding member of OzChess, two posts recently made by the member Bill Gletsos were referred to the Admin moderation team. The possibility of editting the posts was raised as an option to alleviate the hurtful and derisive nature of the posts. However, the poster disparraged felt this was not sufficient enough to address his concerns and the understandable distress caused to him by these two (2) posts.

Accordingly, Bill Gletsos is the first non-spammer to be banned from OzChess without a security threat issue being present. His ban is for 24 hours to allow him an opportunity to reflect on his aggressive and unfriendly attitude, and hopefully to change so as to accord with the standards of civility and courteousy that OzChess is famous for.

Sincerely,

Alex

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Accordingly, Bill Gletsos is the first non-spammer to be banned from OzChess without a security threat issue being present. His ban is for 24 hours to allow him an opportunity to reflect on his aggressive and unfriendly attitude, and hopefully to change so as to accord with the standards of civility and courteousy that OzChess is famous for.

Hopefully Bill will practice some reflexivity. This might cheer him up while he takes his break.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzV_0l5ILI

cheers Fg7
P.S I still can't get this youtube stuff to work so if anybody wants to give it a go with the clip above it would be much appreciated!

[jargonista]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hopefully Bill will practice some reflexivity. This might cheer him up while he takes his break.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzV_0l5ILI

cheers Fg7
P.S I still can't get this youtube stuff to work so if anybody wants to give it a go with the clip above it would be much appreciated!

Bill Gletsos does pole dancing?
Hard to believe that.

[Fischer-Fan]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

It is with a heavy heart that I make this announcement.

Upon request from a valued and upstanding member of OzChess, two posts recently made by the member Bill Gletsos were referred to the Admin moderation team. The possibility of editting the posts was raised as an option to alleviate the hurtful and derisive nature of the posts. However, the poster disparraged felt this was not sufficient enough to address his concerns and the understandable distress caused to him by these two (2) posts.

Accordingly, Bill Gletsos is the first non-spammer to be banned from OzChess without a security threat issue being present. His ban is for 24 hours to allow him an opportunity to reflect on his aggressive and unfriendly attitude, and hopefully to change so as to accord with the standards of civility and courteousy that OzChess is famous for.

Sincerely,

Alex

i have no problem with people being banned from time to time, but the timing of this one seems peculiar. generally this forum is well behaved, but there have been occasions in the past when there have been bun fights and no one was banned then. how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't allow free voicing of opinion? is this really necessary?

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

His ban is for 24 hours to allow him an opportunity to reflect on his aggressive and unfriendly attitude, and hopefully to change so as to accord with the standards of civility and courteousy that OzChess is famous for.

so do these reflect "civility and courteousy[sic]" or "aggressive and unfriendly attitude"? :

this thread about bill called "coward"

this post by phild707

this post by firegoat7

?

those were in the first four pages of sixteen
i'm sure i could find many more

just because somebody complains does not mean you have to apply a ban

especially not when the board is awash with worse stuff about the same person that was there before

and banning on such slender and arbitrary pretexts is destroying your credibility to complain about any of the bans on chesschat

if you ban bill under these circumstances phild might accuse you of having a "sad bastard" attitude

whatever that is

scary!

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

is this really necessary?

Yes I think it is. A valued poster on the site registered a complaint about Bill's hostile attitude. They argued that they did not want Chesschat type bullying to (spellchecker says 2 r's weird) be endlessly repeated on this site. They enjoy the layed back nature of Ozchess and want it to remain like that.

Alex is simply giving Bill a tap on the shoulder and saying to him if you behave like that get on your bike and go back to Chesschat!

Hopefully Bill will change.

cheers Fg7

[phild707]

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

i have no problem with people being banned from time to time, but the timing of this one seems peculiar. generally this forum is well behaved, but there have been occasions in the past when there have been bun fights and no one was banned then. how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't allow free voicing of opinion? is this really necessary?

I think it was a good call on Alex' part.
Ozchess should not discourage robust debate however, whether people are prepared to accept it or not, there is a genuine attempt being made here to create an environment where people can have rational arguments, rather than "flamewars" as we all know from experience they are worthless exercises unless you enjoy watching other people tear shreds of each other.

For that reason I would think that personal insults should be avoided as should be deliberate attempts to obstruct useful discussion by haggling over the precise meaning of simple every day terms.

Phil.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Yes I think it is. A valued poster on the site registered a complaint about Bill's hostile attitude.

well here we have a problem right away
whether the complaint is made by a "valued poster" should not be relevant
what should be relevant is the merits of the complaint
and the way similar complaints have been responded to in the past
otherwise it's all just in-scenery and double standards
i've complained to ao and moz about many clearly hostile and often defamatory posts on here with only rare success in getting anything modded

They argued that they did not want Chesschat type bullying to (spellchecker says 2 r's weird) be endlessly repeated on this site.

but flaming and so on was all over this site anyway
there was constant bagging of chesschatters, more often encouraged than toned down
the only difference is that now the chesschatters are responding
chesschatters were promised they would receive a level playing field and "civility" if they came over here
by iconoclast, no less
where is he now?
instead we get arbitrary bannings and confused, ad hoc generation of new mod policies to restrict us
because there is no fair basis on which to do so, given the abuse we have already been subjected to on here

They enjoy the layed back nature of Ozchess and want it to remain like that.

the best way to make it like that is to get rid of all the anti-chesschat defo, abuse, baiting and nonsense

then chesschat regulars will have no reason to come here and argue

but if you allow people to defame and bait then you must expect the subjects to respond
perhaps angrily from time to time
and if you ban them for not mincing their words in their replies, your actions will be clearly seen as arbitrary

Originally Posted by phild707

Ozchess should not discourage robust debate however, whether people are prepared to accept it or not, there is a genuine attempt being made here to create an environment where people can have rational arguments, rather than "flamewars" as we all know from experience they are worthless exercises unless you enjoy watching other people tear shreds of each other.

if it is a genuine attempt it is a struggling one
i am all up for rational arguments devoid of personal attacks but the other side must be prepared to play ball too
and this site is awash with severe failures in that regard

For that reason I would think that personal insults should be avoided as should be deliberate attempts to obstruct useful discussion by haggling over the precise meaning of simple every day terms.

well here we have phil saying personal insults should be avoided while at the same time he drops hints that someone is obstructing useful discussion
and it's not that hard to guess who he's dropping hints about, even though he doesn't say
so in a sense, the above is a personal insult in itself, even though it doesn't name the person
not too good a start for his proposal

nor is his reference factual
i actually wasn't haggling over the everyday meaning of "civil"
i know full well what the word means in ordinary usage
i was just pointing out that firegoat's usage of it is not the same as that everyday meaning
indeed it is not even close
at least not consistently
as such it would be helpful to understand what he does think the word means
or perhaps he just uses it and does not really know?

[Lurking Lucy]

The double standards here are a joke.

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by Lurking Lucy

The double standards here are a joke.

The key question is will you make it to 2 posts?

cheers fg7

[Lurking Lucy]

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

The key question is will you make it to 2 posts?

I can't be sure whether you're being threatening, uncharitable, or truly curious. Either way, hopefully this missive will satisfy your curiosity.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Fischer-Fan

... how can we take ourselves seriously if we don't allow free voicing of opinion? is this really necessary?

Hi FF

Does the free voicing of opinion entitle one to shout "Fire, Fire" in a crowded place so as to create a panic when in fact there is no fire? Does it extend to defaming, slandering, and harrassing others? In my respectful view, the answer to both questions is no. There is a lot of history you may not be aware of between many posters and Bill and Kevin. In this instance a valued poster complained and action was therefore required.

Originally Posted by lotlizard

so do these reflect "civility and courteousy[sic]" or "aggressive and unfriendly attitude"? :
this thread about bill called "coward"

this post by phild707

this post by firegoat7

Firstly, what was done to Matt was underhanded and therefore Matt had good cause to voice his complaint. Secondly, the interaction between Phil and yourself is largely a Tasmanian affair which doesn't include others (nor should it). Thirdly, Firegoat7 was very tame with a ferocious kitten that was trying to bite him. I think he deserves commendation for how he dealt with the situation.

Just because somebody complains does not mean you have to apply a ban.

Perhaps not, but in this case it was appropriate.

Especially not when the board is awash with worse stuff about the same person that was there before.

I don't know what person you are referring to.

... and banning on such slender and arbitrary pretexts is destroying your credibility to complain about any of the bans on chesschat.

What pretext? There was no pretext at all. Banning Bill Gletsos was something I did with a heavy heart, I am sure the same way a parent sometimes has to discipline an unruly child even though the parent would rather not. A complaint was made (not by a staff member), that complaint was discussed with the poster in open dialogue which respected that poster's anonymity. Solutions other than banning were explored. There was nothing arbitrary about it, and some level of due process was afforded before action was taken. This is in addition to the fact that several warnings were provided to the poster beforehand.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to open my inbox and find an email from Bill Gletsos to the effect of:

---------------------
Dear Alex,

I have given it some thought. I think you were correct in banning me because I was out of line. I would like to apologize and will try hard to ensure that a repeat of such behaviour does not occur in the future.

Yours Sincerely,

Bill
-----------------------------

Best

AO

[Virgil]

Originally Posted by lotlizard

well here we have a problem right away
whether the complaint is made by a "valued poster" should not be relevant
what should be relevant is the merits of the complaint
and the way similar complaints have been responded to in the past
otherwise it's all just in-scenery and double standards
i've complained to to ao and moz about many clearly hostile and often defamatory posts on here with only rare success in getting anything modded



but flaming and so on was all over this site anyway
there was constant bagging of chesschatters, more often encouraged than toned down
the only difference is that now the chesschatters are responding
chesschatters were promised they would receive a level playing field and "civility" if they came over here
by iconoclast, no less
where is he now?
instead we get arbitrary bannings and confused, ad hoc generation of new mod policies to restrict us
because there is no fair basis on which to do so, given the abuse we have already been subjected to on here



the best way to make it like that is to get rid of all the anti-chesschat defo, abuse, baiting and nonsense

then chesschat regulars will have no reason to come here and argue

but if you allow people to defame and bait then you must expect the subjects to respond
perhaps angrily from time to time
and if you ban them for not mincing their words in their replies, your actions will be clearly seen as arbitrary

Complaints to MOZ were made under the assumption on your part that MOZ had accepted a contract with the owner of the board to do moderation. A reasonable assumption on your part, given the signage on the bb. However, it is an incorrect assumption as I have advised recently.
I have taken steps to clarify by using this vanilla NICK since the point was raised by Bill.

[The Knife]

Originally Posted by phild707

2. 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.
Turn up in as many different identities as you wish but if you want to participate in discussion then state plainly who you are ion your profile ideally.

But the following members don't explicitly identify themselves in their sig or their profile:

MOZ
Arrogant One
Firegoat7

Is Phil really "Big Brother"?