Our two posts on Matt Sweeney's Australian Chess Club Forum are breaking records by being the two most commented posts so far in the blog's history. Both have 20 comments or more each. You can read the first post here and the second one here.
Perhaps the most amusing comment was from an anonymous poster who said that Matt Sweeney's new forum was basically a split thread from Australia's liveliest chess bulletin board.
Unfortunately, as I add more posts, the old ones are pushed further and further down. So dear readers, feel free to continue the discussion here.
Have a happy weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I think that's actually part of the "technological limitations" of a blog.
When you actually want people to interact with your articles, and you want those articles to appear first on the list if someone has replied to them, you actually need a forum, many of which are also available for free. (www.invisionfree.com or the one used by Matthew are two that come to mind right now)
Funnily enough I actually appreciate that technological limitation when it comes to TCG’s blog. It’s been remarkably refreshing sometimes to visit his blog after spending time at bickering forums where naturally enough there’s no quality or quantity control. As a blogger he's a sort of benevolent dictator… chooses the topics, controls the style, environment, mood. So naturally, a blog sinks or swims based on how good the blogger is. TCG deserves a lot of credit for his lively writing style, wide ranging curiosity and desire to keep things honest but friendly. :)
Yes, I agree, and that's why we read it. But that doesn-t change the fact that a blog is basically a forum where only one person is allowed to start threads and the rest can just reply.
and thank God for that... ! ;-)
Well, that's your own opinion. :) it's not very flexible. :) I mean, you could use a forum as a blog changing user permissions: you'd be able to do everything you currently can with a blog and add all the flexibility of a forum (for example, prevent users from starting threads, etc.).
Two things:
I did not want to build a forum. I wanted a blog - like thousands of other people. While readers are welcome to interact with me and with each other, we all have to accept the this blog's limitations. There is no point dwelling on it.
But hey, this is an 'open thread' after all, so whinge all you want.
Second, I haven't got a clue how to set up a forum even if that's what I wanted to do.
Cheers boys and girls.
On the tech limitations thing, another blog (of sorts) I post frequently on, www.tasmaniantimes.com, has a display that lists the most recently made comments, irrespective of the age of the thread they are made on. That way, when old debates continue, all posters can see that this is happening.
Continuing from the previous thread, Alexander Malejwicz asks me if I am asserting that he is a person of dubious character. It should be obvious that I am not - all I am saying is that his argument that his banning from chesschat proves anything creditable about him, is unsound. To assert that an argument fails to prove X is different from asserting that it proves the opposite of X.
A gutless anonymous poster attempts to refute my statement that firegoat is hardly esteemed on chesschat by saying that he is well liked. These concepts of being esteemed and being liked are actually quite different. I can't be bothered debating whether firegoat is popular because online popularity contests of that sort are meaningless, silly and irrelevant.
Yes, I can add all sorts of plug-in, such as that comment display. I'll do some experimentation and see what happens.
Of course, I can also migrate the blog to a better blog software. I began this sometime ago, actually, but just haven't had the time.
Btw, to our readers/posters...you can be anonymous, but please keep the lingo and content of your posts safe for me and everyone else.
I think you know what I mean.
It was me who said FG7 was liked at ChessChat. Now that I have found my psswd (again) I will not put "Matt" at the bottom of my anon. posts.
Listen Bonham, everywhere you go you foul sites with pompus pedantry. Not happy with turning Chess Chat into a disfuntional board, that actually retards the interests of Australian chess, now you want to engage in knob end antics here too. I will try to stop replying to Kevin "The TROLL" Bonbot here, because he should not be fed here or anywhere.
One last thing. Bonham is silently apopleptic at not being able to post on ACCForum. This is compounded but the fact that ChessChat does not allow him to even quote ACForum text on ChessChat. LOL.
Suffer TROLLBOT.
PS. If you think Bonham is upset, you should be inside Bill Gletsos' head. :-) LOL
Matthew Sweeney says I am "silently apopleptic" at not being able to post on ACCF. Actually I have no idea whether I am able to post there or not, since I have, mainly for reasons discussed on the other thread, made no attempt to join. Furthermore, surely if I wanted to post on a forum run by Matt I would have done so on UCJ. Matt: are you saying that if I applied to join with the support of a member, you would block me? If so, on what grounds?
I'm ignoring the rest of Matt's laughable spray (though thanks for the free entertainment). History indicates he will find it much harder ignoring me. ;)
It is interesting to note that some of the long term posters[1000+posts] on chesschat have switched to Matt's board due to the current posting and moderating standard on chesschat.
While that may not make Kevin apoplectic it should be making him think about the way chesschat is going.
If things keep going the way they are now it will just end up being Kevin,Bill,Howard Duggan and their yes men.
If that happens chesschat will die a slow death. And Matt Sweeney will win. Oh the irony. Hehehe.
Poor Bullyboy Bonbot has no friends, therefore feels the need to put others down to cheer himself up. Sad really.
Given the advantages chesschat enjoys in access to poster base, ease of registration, board technology and quality of advice available I doubt that the appearance of Matt's forum poses that much threat. It may attract some whinging posters away from chesschat but that will only leave a less quarrelsome place for the rest to talk about chess! (Not much actual talk about chess on ACCF right now).
Only three of the 25 1000+ post posters from chesschat (Libby, starter, Frosty) are posting on ACCF and not chesschat, and of these one had quit chesschat some time ago and another has been on and off self-imposed suspension in the past. Matt doesn't count since he has stated an intention to post on chesschat again once his current ban expires. Poster departure issues are complex and often difficult to ascribe to single causes. In total only four of the ACCFers thus far appear to have voluntarily quit posting on chesschat.
What will be interesting is to see the interplay between the forums once Matt's chesschat ban expires and open linking to ACCF is permitted (provided content on ACCF remains broadly acceptable). This will provide Matt with potential access to more chesschat posters who may be interested in his forum, but as he is on his final warning prior to a permanent ban on chesschat, he will need to behave himself there to maintain this feed.
I suspect the forums can co-exist if Matt wants it to be that way - in which case ACCF could just become a de facto extension of chesschat for those who wanted to play by Matt's rules rather than ours. However if Matt posts material unacceptable by chesschat standards on either site, he loses this opportunity.
I must confess a degree of confusion about the "rules" of Matthew's site. He does not seem to be enforcing the Code of Conduct declaration so I can only assume that isn't obligatory.
I'd really like to see my name stop appearing here and on ChessChat re my membership, reasons for leaving and various "Howard Duggan-esque" assertions about the reasons why.
I have two events to promote and was unhappy with the way I was able to do so on Chess Chat and the ease and quality of information people would be able to receive if they went to Chess Chat to find it.
I have no interest in returning to Chess Chat but no particular axe to grind over it.
My account is suspended as I have no desire to continue to use it, to emphasise that point to anyone who is seeking a direct response from me in that forum, and because of occasional lapses in self-discipline that do me no credit and certainly don't cast a positive light on the events I am running.
I am far from being "all over" Matt's site but it does provide a forum for me to provide the kind of updates on the events that were lost in the endless, circular (and at times) very hostile remarks that were part of the Chess chat experience.
Don't you all get tired of scoring points over each other? Take an "outsiders" look at Chess Chat now and then. Not just as "just another Forum" but at the way it represents Australian Chess from the bottom to the top. Is this where you would like to refer anyone for updates & matters of interest? Remembering you'd like them to get involved and feel good about where the game is going in this country?
Here is probably the only spot I'd bother with. Matt's site remains unproven ...
i left cc because i just got borEd with it all
Unfortunately Libby it seems some people cant just bury the hachet and are hell bent on grinding their axes. This attitude is going to kill chesschat in the long run.
Which is a pity. Chesschat has the potential to be a really good forum.
"[ACCForum] does provide a forum for me to provide the kind of updates on the events that were lost in the endless, circular (and at times) very hostile remarks that were part of the Chess chat experience." - Libby
Thanks for those words. I feel encouraged to keep going. At ACCF we are trying to be a forum that can be recommended to outsiders and new comers as:
a place to veiw unsullied updates; partake in civil debate; obtain information; and make contacts.
I agree (as is often the case) with Libby. Chess chat had become a very poisonous place to be.
Getting suspended was not a matter of a lack of self control, but more a way of sending a message about how I felt.
I think chesschat and these comments show a lot of what is wrong with Australian chess. It is never about working together to build something great. It is all about personal fiefdoms, holding grudges for 50 years and trying to score points off each other.
Jenni
I wish the ShoutBox at ChessChat would go ... it makes it look like a forum badly in need of an incontinencE pad.
Sweeney once called the Chess Chat shout box the shit box and got banned for 24 hours by the site owner. Goes to show what the mods and the site owner have in common and it is not an excess of social skills.
Howard Duggan cant stop dribbling in the shoutbox,how did that guy ever get elected president of the CAQ?
Thankfully I'm not a queensland chessplayer,he is not a good example of a chess state official.
An anonymous poster writes: "Sweeney once called the Chess Chat shout box the shit box and got banned for 24 hours by the site owner." Actually Matt not merely called the shout box "this shit box" but rudely requested that it be disabled at once (after it had just been revived). Karthick, showing both the appropriate attitude to people who insult a service provided by him for free, and quite a degree of humour, disabled Matt's account instead. :) It is quite clear who was lacking social skills in this case and it certainly wasn't Karthick!
I notice that Matthew has still not replied here to my concern about whether he will or will not enforce Code of Conduct declarations on his site.
As for personal-fiefdom-building, if chesschat was into that we would be banning all linking to ACCF even when its owner ceases to be banned on chesschat. Yet we are not doing so.
May respond to some other comments on this thread later.
sadly duggan is merely filling a void left behind by others; and vEry badly at that ... :)
Its a bit hard to take Howard seriously as a state president,just look at the avatar he uses on chesschat! omg
What was he thinking?
I hope our club delegate doesnt help to get Howard elected again.
insisting on those wanting to post on accf to reveal their identity is as reasonable as insisting on the abandoning of the split swiss system championed at the box hill chess club or of hoping for a new president of chess victoria come its nExt agm
Could the poster with the raised E in their posts be Eclectic from chesschat? hehe
Bonham said, "I notice that Matthew has still not replied here to my concern about whether he will or will not enforce Code of Conduct declarations on his site."
I am not answerable to you about ACCForum because you are not even a member.
Since we are humans at ACCForum - not robots - our rules are flexable and our lines are blurred. You would not fit in. Nevertheless, the declaration is something we push strongly. So, to use a typical Chess Chat comment, FOFW - full offense meant.
Post a Comment