Sunday, October 22, 2006

Is it spam?

The second issue of Matthew Sweeney's "unofficial" newsletter has just been blasted out. Two things about this issue: first, Mr Sweeney appears now to have learned from his terrible gaffe last week when he published the names and email addresses of all his recipients to each other. A Queensland chess official was quick to point out the breach of privacy.

Secondly, we have these questions for Mr Sweeney: (i) where in the world did he collect the emails from? (ii) did he have permission from his recipients to receive that newsletter? (iii) how do people unsubscribe from this newsletter? (iv) does his newsletter direct readers to a site or sites that where goods or services are advertised?

And to the guys at the ACF: what are they going to do about this rebel publication?

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

my guess sweeney will haggle to relinquish rebel newsletter and accf in return for uplift of ban from cc but then again i should be drinking heavily to say that but i'm not because i can still spell sort of hEh

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt's original newsletter #1 was only sent to 76 email addresses, one of them his own. It wouldn't be that hard compiling such a list for anyone who has been active in chess admin just from an email address book alone, and Matt was briefly on the (at the time quite large) copy list for ACF minutes when he filled the short-lived coaching accreditation director position.

Pax said...

He has also been involved in compiling a contact list for clubs, which probably includes a number of email addresses.

It's a private newsletter. It's not really any business of the ACF unless the addresses were collected by the ACF. I imagine Sweeney will probably recieve a lot of complaints and his newsletter will just quietly go away.

Matthew Sweeney said...

1. The Queensland official is 100% wrong about breach of privacy. ALL EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE/WERE AVALBABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM WEB PAGES ELSEWHERE ON THE NET.

2. Nobody needs legal permission to send another person and email.

3. The intent of my Newsletter is *PURELY* to inform Australian chess players of matters chessic. Any advertising on a site that I may bring to their attention, is concominant to the information they may be seeking.

4. Take me to court. Dob me in. See how far you get. No agency with put this UTTERLY TRIVIAL matter on their priority sheet.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Paxman, the number complaints about the first ACC Newsletter per se has been exactly zero. I have recieved many emails of thanks, support and praise.

Bonham, I sent it to many more than 76. However, any emails addresses were no longer valid on the sub-lists. I plan to renew all publically available email address that I can lay my hands on and expland the receiver list. BTW Bonham I have not used any copy list from the ACF. So STFU and ask yourself why there is not one Tasmanian event on the coming events list. Is it because.
1. You are not interested in promoting chess in Tasmania, or
2. You don't think promoting your Tasmanian events is neccessary.
3. You are a stupid little boy who won't play with Mathhew Sweeney if you cannot win.
Whatever your reason, do not tell me or anyone else because, if you make it sound reasonable we will all know you are lieing, and if you tell the truth, you will look like a dickhead.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt may or may not have received complaints about the content of newsletter #1 but he certainly received one from me about getting multiple copies!

My comment on how Matt could have easily got that many addresses is just intended as an example of how easy it would be - I accept Matt's account of his actual methods in the absence of any compelling reason to doubt it.

Of Matt's speculation about my reasons for not submitting events to his newsletter, there is a degree of truth in 2, since the chance of a player not otherwise familiar with the only remaining Tasmanian event this year finding out about it through Matt's newsletter only is negligible.

However the main reason is that I am not interested in assisting any current Matthew Sweeney venture given both his past record of half-hearted attempts and his active hostility towards the ACF's very existence. If he brought something of great value to the game then I would reconsider this stance in the interests of the game, but while he is just contributing things of questionable net benefit in an attempt to draw people away from more established avenues, I see no reason to do so.

Finally, despite Matt's blatant flogging of his forum in two issues of his newsletter, to this stage the newsletter does not appear to have generated one single ACCF sign-up. Yet another sign that the cumbersome sign-up procedures on ACCF deters potential members, perhaps?

[Sorry Matt, but if you will get that abusive in response to a relatively harmless post then you have to expect a few prods in return. :) ]

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Matt may or may not have received complaints about the content of newsletter #1 …

MS: I am telling the truth and you are trying to suggest that I am not. A curse on you.

KB: …but he certainly received one from me about getting multiple copies!

MS: You were/are on multiple lists. So shoot me.

KB… the chance of a player not otherwise familiar with the only remaining Tasmanian event this year finding out about it through Matt's newsletter only is negligible.

MS: The ONLY reason that it might be negligible is that YOU are deliberately being uncooperative in the dissemination of chess news of all kinds. Thus, you are damaging Australian chess. You should be expelled from the TasCA.

KB: However the main reason is that I am not interested in assisting any current Matthew Sweeney venture given both his past record of half-hearted attempts and his active hostility towards the ACF's very existence.

MS: [That was two reasons, Kevin, not one.]

1. A half hearted Newsletter is better than NONE. Not that my news letter is that bad! 8 weeks and the ACF still has its thumb up its arse.
2. I can be as hostile as I like to the ACF. You have no right to deprive your Tasmanian players of a newsletter. You are deliberately preventing them from getting the information that they are entitled to receive. YOU, as a TCA official must forward the newsletter to Tas members. You as ACF official are attempting to protect the ACF.

KB: If he brought something of great value to the game then I would reconsider this stance in the interests of the game, but while he is just contributing things of questionable net benefit in an attempt to draw people away from more established avenues, I see no reason to do so.

MS: This is transparently a hatchet job on the opposition. You are a scared little ACF companyman. You and ACF deserve eachother. Plainly power obsessed and incompetent to use it.__

KB: Finally, despite Matt's blatant flogging of his forum in two issues of his newsletter, to this stage the newsletter does not appear to have generated one single ACCF sign-up.

MS: The non-member viewing stats show ACCF is growing steadly and will surpass CC within a year.

KB: Yet another sign that the cumbersome sign-up procedures on ACCF deters potential members, perhaps?

MS: The signup hurdles keeps out anon dickheads.

KB: Sorry Matt, but if you will get that abusive in response to a relatively harmless post then you have to expect a few prods in return. :)

MS: As a man, I can take the prods. However, you, as a snot nosed bullyboy CC moderator, without a driving licence or the spine to have children, you just ban people. Walking winging wanker!


Matt

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, the reasons why no-one is likely to find out about a Tasmanian event solely through your newsletter are as follows:

1. The original email list suggests your newsletter has few Tasmanian involuntary subscribers - indeed the only other one I noticed was the organiser of the upcoming event! Maybe you should raise your concerns about the event's non-appearance with Mr Donnelly - do you think he is "damaging Australian chess" and should be expelled from the "TasCA"?

2. The number of non-Tasmanian entries in Tasmanian events is small whatever the publicity level because they generally clash with weekenders elsewhere in the country (and because of the travel costs).

3. The people listed on your email list for #1 are generally well and truly "in the loop" and as such would be familiar with upcoming events through normal channels. I suspect this would also be the case for addresses since added given your stated harvesting methods.

4. This is only speculation but I'm guessing that quite a few of the recipients saw who it was from and binned it right away.

Re your failed pedantry attempt, my comment was actually one reason which then had two subsidiary explanations.

Much of the non-member viewing you refer to (are these claims even publicly verifiable? what about bots?) would be by your opponents keeping tabs on what you're spouting and allowing to be spouted on your board. While I don't see any way of proposing a bet about it that would not be open to deliberate rorting, I laugh at your claim that ACCF will supplant Chesschat (unless chesschat collapses for unrelated reasons), and will be back in a year to rub your nose in it! I've even marked it in my diary!

The ACF Newsletter resumed transmission on 20/10/2006 having previously transmitted in full on 31/08/2006 (plus a special edition on 7/9/06). That's seven weeks, not eight, and while even this delay was undesirable (albeit triggered by an unfortunate double whammy of unexpected events) it is now back in circulation.

You continue to engage in irrelevant personal slights, but choosing not to breed is actually not a decision anyone should take lightly. Indeed many taking it find they require considerable spine to deal with pressures placed by relatives who do not entirely accept such a decision.

While we're on completely irrelevant subjects, how are the Code of Conduct enforcements going? (" Right-o chaps, the declarations will be pursued.", says he, three weeks ago, yet several still remain AWOL.)

Finally, Matt, it's good to see ACCF has a hurdle to keep out those you so kindly refer to as "anon dickheads". Shame it hasn't worked nearly so well at keeping out the named ones who comprise between a sixth and a third (depending on the weather) of said forum's poster base.

Anonymous said...

Were these two married once?

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Stick to issues please.

- TCG

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Maybe you should raise your concerns about the event's non-appearance with Mr Donnelly - do you think he is "damaging Australian chess" and should be expelled from the "TasCA"?

MS: Hmmmmm. That would be the same Mr Donnelly to whom you gave such a hard time that he resigned, and whose area of the state you abandoned for DOPing, and then banned from CC. Goodness me, why on earth would you be blaming him for your lack of cooperation? Your grudges are soooo transparent.

KB: This is only speculation but I'm guessing that quite a few of the recipients saw who it was from and binned it right away.” “…your opponents keeping tabs on what you're spouting ….”

MS: You wish. On one hand you say people bin my newsletter, then you say that visit stats to ACCF are people checking up on my posts. Idiot. You cannot have it both ways.

KB: Much of the non-member viewing you refer to (are these claims even publicly verifiable?)

MS: You are not even a member of the forum, so why would I do your research for you on my forum. Drop dead Fred.

KB: I laugh at your claim that ACCF will supplant Chesschat (unless chesschat collapses for unrelated reasons), and will be back in a year to rub your nose in it! I've even marked it in my diary!

MS: Listen boy, at least I have a plan and a goal. WTF does the ACF have. It has no plan, and no goal. I don’t mind if I try and fail, at least I am having a go when the ACF fails to deliver. A newsletter for two months.

KB: The ACF Newsletter resumed transmission on 20/10/2006 (albeit triggered by an unfortunate double whammy of unexpected events) it is now back in circulation

MS: That would be why nobody I know has received it. D’oh.

The double whammy was
1. The ACF had no plan to replace PaulB.
2. The ACF cannot even get data out of their ISP for the same reason it cannot get $4k out of the its last President. Yep, the ACF is run by Drongos.

KB: You continue to engage in irrelevant personal slights …

MS: Yep, when you are trying to assess a person’s social worth, you need to look at them as a package. You are social blugger - refusing to make the next generation, refusing to provide your own transport, refusing to DOP in certain parts of the state, two unrelated degrees and working within one profession.

KB: While we're on completely irrelevant subjects, how are the Code of Conduct enforcements going?

MS: None of your business. When you become a member it will be. But for now, crawl back to CC and deficate on your population there.

KB: Finally, Matt, it's good to see ACCF has a hurdle to keep out those you so kindly refer to as "anon dickheads". Shame it hasn't worked nearly so well at keeping out the named ones …

MS: Name those dickheads – or are you still being too much of a bogus nice guy on TCG. Perhaps It would not be good for an ACF official to go about calling large numbers of particular online posters dickheads.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: Maybe you should raise your concerns about the event's non-appearance with Mr Donnelly - do you think he is "damaging Australian chess" and should be expelled from the "TasCA"?

MS: Hmmmmm. That would be the same Mr Donnelly to whom you gave such a hard time that he resigned, and whose area of the state you abandoned for DOPing, and then banned from CC. Goodness me, why on earth would you be blaming him for your lack of cooperation? Your grudges are soooo transparent.

KB: This is only speculation but I'm guessing that quite a few of the recipients saw who it was from and binned it right away.” “…your opponents keeping tabs on what you're spouting ….”

MS: You wish. On one hand you say people bin my newsletter, then you say that visit stats to ACCF are people checking up on my posts. Idiot. You cannot have it both ways.

KB: Much of the non-member viewing you refer to (are these claims even publicly verifiable?)

MS: You are not even a member of the forum, so why would I do your research for you on my forum. Drop dead Fred.

KB: I laugh at your claim that ACCF will supplant Chesschat (unless chesschat collapses for unrelated reasons), and will be back in a year to rub your nose in it! I've even marked it in my diary!

MS: Listen boy, at least I have a plan and a goal. WTF does the ACF have. It has no plan, and no goal. I don’t mind if I try and fail, at least I am having a go when the ACF fails to deliver. A newsletter for two months.

KB: The ACF Newsletter resumed transmission on 20/10/2006 (albeit triggered by an unfortunate double whammy of unexpected events) it is now back in circulation

MS: That would be why nobody I know has received it. D’oh.

The double whammy was
1. The ACF had no plan to replace PaulB.
2. The ACF cannot even get data out of their ISP for the same reason it cannot get $4k out of the its last President. Yep, the ACF is run by Drongos.

KB: You continue to engage in irrelevant personal slights …

MS: Yep, when you are trying to assess a person’s social worth, you need to look at them as a package. You are social blugger - refusing to make the next generation, refusing to provide your own transport, refusing to DOP in certain parts of the state, two unrelated degrees and working within one profession.

KB: While we're on completely irrelevant subjects, how are the Code of Conduct enforcements going?

MS: None of your business. When you become a member it will be. But for now, crawl back to CC and deficate on your population there.

KB: Finally, Matt, it's good to see ACCF has a hurdle to keep out those you so kindly refer to as "anon dickheads". Shame it hasn't worked nearly so well at keeping out the named ones …

MS: Name those dickheads – or are you still being too much of a bogus nice guy on TCG. Perhaps It would not be good for an ACF official to go about calling large numbers of particular online posters dickheads.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt's (actually Phil's) claim that I abandoned arbiting in any region of Tasmania is false and has already been debunked at length: http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=127574&postcount=52
Also I did not ban Phil from Chesschat but I did file the complaint as a result of which he was suspended. Anyway Matt, nice attempt to evade the question: you have said that my failure to publicise a tournament is a disgrace; why are you not applying the same logic to its organiser? Naturally if you did I would defend Phil on this score as it is up to him whether he bothers to use such a marginal service as yours.

Re your alleged inconsistency, what I am suggesting is that a small number of people are taking a close interest in keeping tabs on ACCF while many others are simply ignoring your efforts. My non-membership of your forum is irrelevant to whether your claims are publicly verifiable, since if they are then even a non-member can verify them.

Having plans and goals is one thing and acheiving them is another.

ACCF Newsletter #386 was mailed last night. I know that the initial mailout of #385 was to a reduced mailout list because of the iSage problems - I thought this problem would have been fixed by now but am not sure whether it has been.

I do agree with Matt's comment that the ACF should have had an advance plan in place to more smoothly maintain the newsletter in the event of a sudden editor resignation or incapacity.

TCG has asked posters to stick to issues but Matt has continued to make non-chess personal attacks without them being censored so I will continue to respond to them as inclined (and subject to TCG's approval of course). Again Matt regurgitates Phil's nonsense, this time as concerns transport to chess tournaments. This was largely debunked at http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=127860&postcount=83 and furthermore, when I accept offers of lifts I offer to share petrol costs, and share them when such offers are accepted. "Two unrelated degrees and working within one profession" is also false as I in fact have three degrees (one of which is related to both the other two) and have worked in at least three completely different professions within the last five years. I am unsure what Matt means by "blugger" but the mind boggles (or should that be bloggles, or is that what AR does?)

I haven't called anyone anything - I was very careful to take the irresistable cheap shot using a wording that merely referred to named posters who behave in a way consistent with Matthew Sweeney's employment of "dickheads" towards anons. I note that he now ("Name those dickheads") claims that there are "dickheads" on his forum! Well you might think that Matt, but I couldn't possibly comment. It is not a nice way to go talking about your own poster base.

I would urge Matt to not regurgitate claims made by Phil Donnelly given their frequent unfactual nature. His doing so has surprisingly dashed my illusions that Matt had no way left on earth to further reduce his own credibility. You learn something new every day in this business. ;)

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Gentlemen -

The blogger application doesn't actually allow me to censor/edit parts of a post. This is why it's all or nothing.

Actually, there is a workaround, but it's messy. And if the irrelevant personal attacks become too common, then I shall have to do that (but I'd really rather not).

I'm happy to have the blog used as as kind of middle board for CC'ers and ACCF'ers. But please respect the blog, the blogger and the general readership (who are, btw, fairly international).

Thanks.

-TCG

Anonymous said...

Dont let this blog become a flame war blog Amiel...sin bin them both lol.

Anonymous said...

Saw Matthew Sweeney's newsletter #2 yesterday after some kind soul emailed it to me. It looks OK to me, although there is a bit too much self promotion for my liking.

One item caught my interest which surprisingly I have not seen reported on ACF Newsletter, Chess Chat, CGM blog or anywhere other than Matthew's newsletter, so well done on your scoop, Matthew.

Matthew mentions that CAWA is in a crisis with the sudden resignation of 3 of its senior officials and Matthew asks if such a crisis is likely to happen elsewhere. Well, it seems to me that the NSWCA will be in a worse mess come its AGM next month. I hear that several NSWCA Officials will not stand for reelection, in some cases due to having burnout from years of workload and in other cases due to being sick of the domineering of Bill Gletsos. There could be as few as 4 people on NSWCA Council next year, although I hear that Gletsos is trying to get Gletsos admirers such as Shane Burgess to be on 2007 NSWCA Council in order to stack it with Gletsos yes men. Could be scary for some of Gletsos enemies if NSWCA becomes run by effectively several Gletsoses but this may well happen, but things would be entertaining for blogs like this with plenty of controversy.