Member Comments on Moderation

As the lack of an open thread for comments on moderation has been noted elsewhere I shall take the liberty of attempting to create one.

To get the ball rolling, I note the relatively minor matter of my recent "infraction" (yeah right, of rules that don't exist) for use of a particular word as noted here.

I make the following points on this matter:

* The supposed uncivility of the word in question is utterly trivial compared to that displayed by Iconoclast, repeatedly, in the same conversation, yet I was the first one to be given a warning.

* The word in question was first used on this board in an insulting (slightly different, but implying much the same thing) context not by me but by Iconoclast in this post here. He received no penalty for that use of it and the word was not deleted.

* AO claims my PM to him was "sooky" but it wasn't. The message I sent AO was simply:

Then I request that you give Iconoclast an infraction for "cuckholdable"[..] and another one for "asocial troll".

(I have used [..] to indicate that I have deleted a three-letter term that gave extremely great offence to the mysterious Mr. Spoicka, who appears to have gone to ground shortly after I pointed out the inconsistency between his standards and those of phild707.)

* One can also see from the above that AO's claim that I requested Iconoclast "also receive one infraction point" is incorrect. I in fact requested that he receive two. I could just as legitimately have found grounds for requesting he receive 200 given what mine was dished out for.

Although it is a minor matter given that all I have received is a warning which would require further incorrect decisions for a ban to occur, it does provide further evidence (as if any was required) that penalties are often imposed on this site in a personally biased and very poorly considered manner. Fortunately it is the first such blunder for a little while so there may be some improvement. We shall see.

[Euro-Chess]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

As the lack of an open thread for comments on moderation has been noted elsewhere I shall take the liberty of attempting to create one.

To get the ball rolling, I note the relatively minor matter of my recent "infraction" (yeah right, of rules that don't exist) for use of a particular word as noted here.

I make the following points on this matter:

* The supposed uncivility of the word in question is utterly trivial compared to that displayed by Iconoclast, repeatedly, in the same conversation, yet I was the first one to be given a warning.

* The word in question was first used on this board in an insulting (slightly different, but implying much the same thing) context not by me but by Iconoclast in this post here. He received no penalty for that use of it and the word was not deleted.

* AO claims my PM to him was "sooky" but it wasn't. The message I sent AO was simply:

Then I request that you give Iconoclast an infraction for "cuckholdable"[..] and another one for "asocial troll".

(I have used [..] to indicate that I have deleted a three-letter term that gave extremely great offence to the mysterious Mr. Spoicka, who appears to have gone to ground shortly after I pointed out the inconsistency between his standards and those of phild707.)

* One can also see from the above that AO's claim that I requested Iconoclast "also receive one infraction point" is incorrect. I in fact requested that he receive two. I could just as legitimately have found grounds for requesting he receive 200 given what mine was dished out for.

Although it is a minor matter given that all I have received is a warning which would require further incorrect decisions for a ban to occur, it does provide further evidence (as if any was required) that penalties are often imposed on this site in a personally biased and very poorly considered manner. Fortunately it is the first such blunder for a little while so there may be some improvement. We shall see.

Good post Ophiuchus. I thought you made your point very well. My only criticism would be that I saw no contrast. For instance, I said X and received a warning, Iconoclast said X and Y and did not receive a warning.

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Then I request that you give Iconoclast an infraction for "cuckholdable"[..] and another one for "asocial troll". ... I in fact requested that he receive two. I could just as legitimately have found grounds for requesting he receive 200 given what mine was dished out for.

1. If you think I should receive 200 warnings, then report me. I am known to cop it sweet and everyone here knows that I do/have altered some parts of my MO to suit the wants of the members here.

2. Do not blame me for your current lack of "clout" here.

3. I have not reported you for anything, though I could have done so 200 times.

4. I don't ban, I don't complain. You ban and you complain. That tells a lot about the difference between you and me.

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

My only criticism would be that I saw no contrast. For instance, I said X and received a warning, Iconoclast said X and Y and did not receive a warning.

Actually my post shows that Iconoclast used the word for which I received the warning before I did and without receiving a warning for it. If you want Y with that then there are heaps of other cases of uncivility by Iconoclast that I have mentioned before.

In this case Iconoclast did receive a point as well, but only after the awarding of a point against him was discussed with him and he agreed to it (as also happened when phild707 was suspended for a day). I was not given the same opportunity to express a view on whether or not I should be warned prior to being so, so why was he?

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

1. If you think I should receive 200 warnings, then report me.

There are two things that have thus far disinclined me to do so. The first is that I have made several previous reports concerning breaches by posters of the standards that (a) they profess and (b) have sometimes been the pretext for action against me, and these have generally been to no avail although my case was often overwhelming. The second is that a staff member here has given me reason to expect that requests for removal of material I make here shall be refused until a certain event occurs. (The details of this event are matters of discussion/negotiation that the other party may consider confidential, so I shall refrain from revealing them).

I am known to cop it sweet and everyone here knows that I do/have altered some parts of my MO to suit the wants of the members here.

That's not very relevant to me unless you are inclined to alter them to suit mine.

2. Do not blame me for your current lack of "clout" here.

I am not doing so. I am simply pointing out that you have not been historically moderated the same way I have here, even though you persist with:
* factually absurd trolling speculations about my private life, and
* trolling claiming that I have one or more mental illnesses (although you have no evidence this is so and are not sufficiently qualified in a relevant field to usefully comment)

(among other things)

In my view you should desist utterly from such comments, all of which make a complete sham of your claim to have even a passing interest in civility, and also make a complete sham of any pretence of this place to have got away from whatever used to be a problem on chesschat.

In my view if you continue to make such comments you should be banned immediately; of course, I do not realistically expect this to happen. Although it is apparently futile I intend reporting you should you persist with such comments.

3. I have not reported you for anything, though I could have done so 200 times.

You could and all 200 would have been bogus since in every case I could have demonstrated more severe unpoliced behaviour by regulars here.

4. I don't ban, I don't complain.

It's true you haven't banned any non-spammer poster from here, but you frequently complained about your moderation on chesschat; that you haven't complained about moderation of you here just reflects that scarcely any of it has occurred.

[Arrogant-One]

I see Kevin is back to his extended monologues. Personally, I'd rather read Shakespear if I am going to spend all day reading something, but in an effort to be more generous than usual I will address parts of his monologue.

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

As the lack of an open thread for comments on moderation has been noted elsewhere I shall take the liberty of attempting to create one.

Thanks, seems like a good idea.

To get the ball rolling, I note the relatively minor matter of my recent "infraction" (yeah right, of rules that don't exist) for use of a particular word as noted here.

Noted.

I make the following points on this matter:

* The supposed uncivility of the word in question is utterly trivial ....

No, its not trivial at all. It leads to other more denigrating terms, and has been known in the swamp to lead to mop and bucket references. Its a word that is a magnet for attracting uncivilness.

* The word in question was first used on this board in an insulting context not by me but by Iconoclast .... He received no penalty for that use of it and the word was not deleted.

Actually, he received an infraction point as well.

* AO claims my PM to him was "sooky" but it wasn't.

Well, it seemed sooky at the time. But upon reflection maybe it wasn't entirely sooky.

* One can also see from the above that AO's claim that I requested Iconoclast "also receive one infraction point" is incorrect. I in fact requested that he receive two.

Well, I didn't read your PM too carefully because at the time I thought it was too sooky. Maybe you did request two points for Matt. In any event, infraction warning points are simply warnings, taps on the shoulder to step back behind the civil line again.

Although it is a minor matter given that all I have received is a warning which would require further incorrect decisions for a ban to occur, it does provide further evidence (as if any was required) that penalties are often imposed on this site in a personally biased and very poorly considered manner.

Penalties? There were no penalties. Once again, an infraction point has no penalty value unless 3 of them are combined together. Also, there was nothing personal about it as my mate Matt also received a point. So much for your theories of bias there. At least you seemed to learn from Gletsos ill fated 'hell will freeze over when Phild707 gets banned' remark. Incidentally, he has yet to apologise for that remark or even acknowledge that he was wrong. Please remind him next time you are at CC.

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

In this case Iconoclast did receive a point as well, but only after the awarding of a point against him was discussed with him and he agreed to it ....

Well, whether or not he agreed is besides the point (if you had a point to begin with). Its like saying a speeding ticket isn't valid because the recipient agreed to accept it. Doesn't make sense, now does it?

Best Regards,

AO

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

Good post Ophiuchus.

Hi Euro-Chess

While usually I completely agree with what you have to say, unfortunately I cannot on this occasion. His post was average at best in my view.

Incidentally, haven't seen you around for a while. How've you been? I will PM you.

Best Regards,

AO

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]I see Kevin is back to his extended monologues. ... but in an effort to be more generous than usual I will address parts of his monologue.

"Don't Feed the Troll."

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]No, its not trivial at all. It leads to other more denigrating terms,

Then deal with the user(s) of the more denigrating terms, if you must, if and when that happens.

and has been known in the swamp to lead to mop and bucket references.

Which themselves are still far milder than much of the garbage Iconoclast has been shovelling in my direction here already.

Its a word that is a magnet for attracting uncivilness.

In this case its appearance was in response to it.

Actually, he received an infraction point as well.

He did, but it was not for that use of it. He agreed to receive an infraction point after you advised him (albeit inaccurately) of my request. My request was unrelated to his prior use of the same term.

Well, it seemed sooky at the time. But upon reflection maybe it wasn't entirely sooky.

Well, I didn't read your PM too carefully because at the time I thought it was too sooky.

My PM contained all of eighteen words of new content. Being able to realise that a message that is eighteen words long requests two infraction points rather than one should not be beyond even your notoriously short attention span. I doubt you thought it was "sooky" at all and suspect your use of that word is simply uncivil trolling.

Penalties? There were no penalties.

In the Laws of Chess a warning is explicitly included in a list of possible "penalties" (13.4a) so I'm not sure I agree with you there.

Also, there was nothing personal about it as my mate Matt also received a point.

I already addressed this by pointing out that Matt's point (unlike mine) was applied with his agreement after he was given a chance to comment. Also his conduct has been persistently far worse.

At least you seemed to learn from Gletsos ill fated 'hell will freeze over when Phild707 gets banned' remark. Incidentally, he has yet to apologise for that remark or even acknowledge that he was wrong. Please remind him next time you are at CC.

Or perhaps I should try it myself by suggesting that hell will freeze over when you permanently sack firegoat7 as moderator, when alleged "uncivility" ceases to be a (selective) basis of moderation on this site and when the imposition of silly threats, warnings and bans to people based on who they are rather than what they say no longer happens.

Well, whether or not he agreed is besides the point (if you had a point to begin with). Its like saying a speeding ticket isn't valid because the recipient agreed to accept it. Doesn't make sense, now does it?

It makes sense on at least two levels. Firstly, we have no idea if you would have issued the ticket to Matt had he not volunteered to accept it. All you did was mention my view on the matter. Secondly, had I been given the same opportunity as Matt to argue a case before a decision was made, it is possible I would have been able to dissuade you from taking such a foolish step as issuing an "infraction".

[vagrantnomad]

"Hate is not UNCIVIL." - Iconoclast , this is so true ! only a fool would'nt understand why.

think about this - porn has almost ruled the net to the point that anything thats good and non porn has been picked up by porn - eg youtube , now if you put porn on youtube it wil be deleted and you will be banned , but what if i started posting chess games on free to air porn sites ?

next.


if i/someone open up a forum ^ then it's my/their rules(i'll say mine) , if i make the rule that people can swear in good ways over bad ways and then let the odd bad swear go because the reciver can handdle it or deserves it , then that is my option as an onwer/mod of my site.

i like that aussies can say - that was f*ckin awsome, and swear in a good way.

i cant stand over swearing and dont like bad swears.



my post may have nothing of real value to you guys ,but maby it will.

[Dragon-Fly]

Originally Posted by vagrantnomad

"Hate is not UNCIVIL." - Iconoclast , this is so true ! only a fool would'nt understand why.

think about this - porn has almost ruled the net to the point that anything thats good and non porn has been picked up by porn - eg youtube , now if you put porn on youtube it wil be deleted and you will be banned , but what if i started posting chess games on free to air porn sites ?

next.


if i/someone open up a forum ^ then it's my/their rules(i'll say mine) , if i make the rule that people can swear in good ways over bad ways and then let the odd bad swear go because the reciver can handdle it or deserves it , then that is my option as an onwer/mod of my site.

i like that aussies can say - that was f*ckin awsome, and swear in a good way.

i cant stand over swearing and dont like bad swears.



my post may have nothing of real value to you guys ,but maby it will.

So you are saying you like being able to swear in a good way, but not over swear? I am unsure what that has to do with moderation decisions unless there was swearing involved and that is why various people got infractions.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Or perhaps I should try it myself by suggesting that hell will freeze over when you permanently sack firegoat7 as moderator, ....

Why would I sack Firegoat7 when he has done and is continuing to do a terrific job? If you were one quarter as good a moderator as Firegoat7 is, I'd invite you to become an OzChess moderator.

Best Regards,

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]Why would I sack Firegoat7 when he has done and is continuing to do a terrific job?

Your premise is faulty as I demonstrated many times during the series of silly bannings he imposed not long ago. Precisely what, in your view, is he doing right that makes him so "terrific"?

If you were one quarter as good a moderator as Firegoat7 is, I'd invite you to become an OzChess moderator.

Last time I did the maths, one-quarter of minus infinity was still minus infinity, though if you hadn't caused Rincewind to leave this site perhaps we could discuss which concept of infinity is most appropriate here.

Strangely however there are some issues where firegoat seems to have more of an idea what is going on than some of the rest of you (the propensity of other mods for having conversations on threads devoted to official notices, and even sometimes encouraging posters to do the same, being one such example)

Originally Posted by Dragon-Fly

So you are saying you like being able to swear in a good way, but not over swear? I am unsure what that has to do with moderation decisions unless there was swearing involved and that is why various people got infractions.

At least on my part there was no swearing involved and I am also unsure what vagrantnomad's post has to do with anything else on this thread.

[Arrogant-One]

Originally Posted by Ophiuchus

Last time I did the maths, one-quarter of minus infinity was still minus infinity, though if you hadn't caused Rincewind to leave this site perhaps we could discuss which concept of infinity is most appropriate here.

Rincewind left because he's a sook, but he never really added anything of substance to OzChess even when he was a regular poster here. His style and beliefs were easily refuted as Jono has shown countless times. After getting whipped time after time, Barry Cox (perhaps out of frustration) resorted to calling Jono a racist. Barry had no foundation at all justifying this accusation, and accordingly he then went into hiding as a result of the ill considered remark. About the only thing he ever did that was worthwhile was to publicly concede that there was zero ip evidence linking me to the Ford Forum fiasco, despite your unsubstantiated biased personal suspicions otherwise.

Best Regards,

AO

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Rincewind left because he's a sook, but he never really added anything of substance to OzChess even when he was a regular poster here.

I do hope the other regulars who are not ex-trolls here realise you will talk about them that way should they go.

After getting whipped time after time, Barry Cox (perhaps out of frustration) resorted to calling Jono a racist. Barry had no foundation at all justifying this accusation, and accordingly he then went into hiding as a result of the ill considered remark.

Why do you waste so much time on claims that everyone can easily see are false? Barry's last post here following numerous requests for account suspension (clearly based around your redirection attack) was on 18 April 2008 and the "racist" thing on chesschat didn't start until May.

About the only thing he ever did that was worthwhile was to publicly concede that there was zero ip evidence linking me to the Ford Forum fiasco, despite your unsubstantiated biased personal suspicions otherwise.

He may have said that he was not aware of any evidence at the time, but that doesn't prove that no such evidence exists, nor does it prove that my suspicions were unfounded.

It would really be a terrible shame if it wasn't you; I actually have quite an interest in motorsport and through those attacks I was alerted to a forum I was previously unaware of with quite a deal of motorsport discussion. Unwittingly doing me a good turn is the most you can aspire to in this life so if you missed out on that I'm not sure what there is left for you from now on!

[Iconoclast]

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Rincewind left because he's a sook, but he never really added anything of substance to OzChess even when he was a regular poster here. His style and beliefs were easily refuted as Jono has shown countless times. After getting whipped time after time, Barry Cox (perhaps out of frustration) resorted to calling Jono a racist. Barry had no foundation at all justifying this accusation, and accordingly he then went into hiding as a result of the ill considered remark. About the only thing he ever did that was worthwhile was to publicly concede that there was zero ip evidence linking me to the Ford Forum fiasco, despite your unsubstantiated biased personal suspicions otherwise.

Best Regards,

AO

AO, remember:

"Don't Feed The Troll"