Saturday, January 06, 2007

SMH on Aussie Chess

Here's another item that must surely boil the blood of NSWCA officials. It's almost like a free kick! This Matthew Sweeney guy is everywhere. Pretty soon the association will have to make him the PR officer as he actually seems to be doing a better job at airing himself.

From the Sydney Morning Herald: Pawn to be Wild.

We should expect a quick sharp letter to the editor from NSWCA boss Bill Gletsos.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are the police at Chess Chat going to ban anyone who quotes Matthew's comments in this article? It wouldn't surprise me if they will do just that.

Anonymous said...

yes it will be quite interesting to see how arosar's brinkmanship "quoting" at chesschat is handled. over there they make out they want to have sweeney and toolsie permantly banned but realistically that has to include no access to guests at all so that they can't lurk about. can you ever see them doing that?

Kevin Bonham said...

Actually on the thread http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5611 in reply to a part-time troll called Steve K I wrote "If you think there's a good case for allowing quoting of material by banned posters in certain specific cases where there's a strong public interest in debating their output, feel free to suggest how it should be worded. If someone (including possibly me) can come up with some way of codifying such exceptions I may very well support it."

Steve K himself made no further contribution to the debate, choosing instead to unconstructively storm off in a huff, but I have now made a specific proposal to the other moderators concerning this matter.

We wouldn't have banned anyone over it anyway.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: "If you think there's a good case for allowing quoting of material by banned posters in certain specific cases where there's a strong public interest in debating their output, feel free to suggest how ..."

MS: It does not have to be a "good case" at all. It should be "quote anyone you like." If a/any Chess Chat poster thinks that there is something worth while to quote, then they ought to be able to do so. If nobody thinks I have written something quotable, then I would not be quoted at Chess Chat. If they quote something "unseemly," take action against them for the "unseemliness." If the quote is OK, then there is no problem ....... unless you are a power tripping dickhead.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if the ECF treated our players like this. Nigel Short - their relentless critic who swears a lot - would have to change his passport!

Kevin Bonham said...

anon #2 - Sweeney and Toolsie can lurk all they like (we don't care if they do); if they post or shout anything suspect we will most likely dispose of them again.

Matthew, your claims ignore the fact that if we had no restriction on quoting banned posters, your very few remaining sycophants would abuse that to quote stuff by you onto the board for the sake of circumventing your ban. Just get over it and apologise for your past misbehaviour, unless ... (well, you said it! :) ).

Anonymous said...

If Steve K is a part time troll Kevin,then you must be a full time one. lol.

You dont have to ban anyone for quoting Matt,Kevin.

You and Bill either delete the quote or moderate it to DEATH.

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: … if we had no restriction on quoting banned posters, your very few remaining sycophants would abuse that to quote stuff by you onto the board for the sake of circumventing your ban.

MS: Exactly who or what is being “banned” here. Is it
1. the physical me, Matt.
2. the action of me posting on your board.
3. the scribblings I post elsewhere.
#1 is loony
#2 is arguably valid, since you are the despot.
#3 is censorship pure and simple.

Hypothetical: imagine if a BB called ChristianChat banned every quote from Richard Dawkins. This would include quotes from newspapers, interviews, and official emails not written by RD but posted by him.

Now that you have imagined that tell us what a jolly good chap you are for saving the ChessChat community from … ummm … errr … my iconoclastic sprays at despicable narcissistic pest like you, and a stultifying canine bully like Gletsos.


KB: Just get over it and apologise for your past misbehaviour,

MS: I would be rightly ridiculed for kowtowing to an insect and a barely sentient being. And I would be called for being disingenuous.

Matthew Sweeney said...

When will the sequel come out? - "Dunny Door"

Anonymous said...

How exactly would the NSWCA prove that any apology from Matthew Sweenry is sincere?

Until that is established why are they wasting their time demanding one from him?

Anonymous said...

So I am a part time troll? I'm not sure what recent action of mine has warranted such an accusation. If it's because I have chosen to no longer post at Chess Chat then that surely suggests that I am not trolling. Until Chess Chat changes its moderators I have no desire to post again on that board. It is my experience that boards work far better when the positions of moderators are rotated occasionally. When mods are in the same position for to long they treat the board as their own and that is exactly what I see happening at Chess Chat.

I have no particular 'beef' with Kevin Bonham. In many ways I think he is doing a good job. The same cannot be said for Bill Gletsos. He has become totally obsessed with destroying Matt Sweeney. This obsession has resulted in him destroying a large chunk of his own reputation.

Kevin may consider me to be a part time troll. That's OK. I received emails from several other posters at Chess Chat when I said that I was leaving. Those individuals thanked me for my contributions to the discussions and some even requested that I reconsider my decision to leave.

Thanks, Steve K

Anonymous said...

But the part of the article "Born to be Wild" that came to my attention was about my favourite granny, Dr. Mary Wilkie. Her game appeared on www.rootyhillchess.org/inthenews7a.html. I can see, she enjoyed mating her opponent on 25th move.

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, leaving aside your foolish contempt for insects (which I am sure your Mr Dawkins would not share) your analogy is inaccurate because Richard Dawkins does not, so far as I am aware, show up on Christian BBs and then persistently flout their posting rules. Also comparing yourself to Mr Dawkins, who is highly influential and generally fairly rational, is another example of you having tickets on yourself.

The aim of poster bans is to prevent the banned poster from causing material to appear on the board in any way, including direct posting but also including posting it where a sycophant (or even an opponent) will then be sure to quote it. We would not have limited the quoting of banned posters had issues with lackeys posting on the banned poster's behalf (and widespread poster disapproval of *opponents* dragging material by banned posters, curiously enough) not been apparent.

Matt is not even required to apologise if he wishes his material to appear on chesschat once more. All he needs to do is agree to abide by the forum rules.

Kevin Bonham said...

Steve, when you first started posting on chesschat you were pretty much a *full*-time troll as far as I could tell. For a while after that you seemed much improved and I was surprised how sensible most of your posts had become, but the way you disappeared in a huff when the issue you complained about is actually being reconsidered, was a reversion to your original bad form. OK, it was only one post, so "part-time" is a little simplistic, but I was surprised by it.

In deleting the post Bill was simply and rightly implementing the site rules as they currently exist. Nothing should be assumed about Bill's own views on the rule from this action.

I have never been on any forum where moderator positions are rotated regularly, although I know that Slashdot applies a system of this sort. Can you advise of any forums that use such a system; I would be interested in checking out how it works.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, Mig's Chess Ninja forum very recently had a change in the majority of the moderators. Mig even asked members who they thought should be considered for the positions of moderator. Mig still retained the right to decide who would receive the guernseys. A couple of the former moderators were unhappy at losing their 'status' but Mig went ahead anyway as he argued that it is important to make such changes from time to time. His reasoning was along the lines that I mentioned in an earlier post.

I accept your comment that much of my early contributions to Chess Chat was trolling. I was new to the site and I suffered a rush of blood. It took some time for me to recognise that moderating Chess Chat was a very difficult task.

I'm sure that Mig would respond to any questions you might have regarding his approach to moderating his site.

Regards, Steve K

Matthew Sweeney said...

Matt, leaving aside your foolish contempt for insects (which I am sure your Mr Dawkins would not share) …

MS: Contempt for a *pest* actually, (Why am I am not surprised that you deliberately missed that implication. That’s right, you are using a debating trick. You cannot discuss or comment on ANYTHING without turning it into a battle of tricks. That is why you should not be allowed to occupy any position of authority.

KB: …your analogy is inaccurate because Richard Dawkins does not, so far as I am aware, show up on Christian BBs and then persistently flout their posting rules.

MS: This is an irrelevant condition. Even if Dawkins did join that BB and flout the rules, as an opponent to that BB’s paradigms, he would be being censored.

KB: Also comparing yourself to Mr Dawkins, who is highly influential and generally fairly rational, is another example of you having tickets on yourself.

MS: Again you choose to deliberately miss the analogy. It is not one of comparing Sweeney to Dawkins, but the position of Sweeney with a hypothetical position of Dawkins. (BTW it is Dr not Mr, :p)

KB: The aim of poster bans is to prevent the banned poster from causing material to appear on the board in any way …

MS: Crikey. There I was, thinking that removal of posting rights would be the punishment (for posting bad posts). But no, the poster must also be “shunned” and censored, and all those who quote him to be smited.

KB: … (and widespread poster disapproval of *opponents* dragging material by banned posters, curiously enough) not been apparent.

MS: I see your inconsistency very clearly. “Widespread poster disapproval” is to be taken into account when it suits your purpose, but when “widespread poster disapproval” is not marching to your drum (e.g. Bill Gletsos’ mop and bucket alert), you ignore it.

KB: Matt is not even required to apologise if he wishes his material to appear on chesschat once more. All he needs to do is agree to abide by the forum rules.

MS: You are full of shit. *I was banned permanently.* Now you are saying permanent aint necessarily permanent ?!?!? Forget it. Chess Chat has slipped since I was expelled. For sure, you have sanitized it somewhat, but it has no bite. It is no longer a place where administrators can be called to account.

BTW, Let me re jig your post. -> Matt is not even required to apologise to the NSWCA if he wishes to play in NSWCA events. All he needs to do is agree to abide by the NSWCA rules by signing the application form.”


Finally, I recall that some months ago I said I should/would not engage with you. I think I will have to try harder to resist. I find these exchanges deadly tedious. Your whole debating/point scoring approach irks me. It takes matters nowhere and wastes my time. You say nobody has your measure in the debating stakes on Chess Chat – not true. PhilD and starter owned you repeatedly. As for my self, I can do you like a dinner any time I have the time – this post is an example. I simply have more interesting things to do than step on an ant.

Anonymous said...

Steve you were never a troll on chesschat,you just didnt agree with Kevin and Bill's mantras.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Imagine what chesschat would be like if everybody just went along with Kevin and Bill's mantras,it would end up looking like Stepfordchat!

Kevin Bonham said...

Matt, the reason I "missed" your implication is that the vast majority of insects are not pests, and thus to use "insect" as an analogy for "pest" suggests scientific ignorance and prejudice on your part.

Your point that Dawkins would be being "censored" if he joined a Christian BB and flouted its rules is irrelevant. It is also technically dubious, since the term primarily refers to the act as performed by government and other major bodies prior to release of material, not to actions taken by small privately-owned media to determine who they allow as members and what they delete.

Your third paragraph is also irrelevant as my point about the comparison being silly still applies whether the Dawkins you refer to is real or hypothetical. And thank you for correcting my incorrect use of Mr, but your correction is also incorrect; his correct title is Professor!

If you underestimated the consequences of getting yourself banned that is your problem, and you can overcome it simply by agreeing to abide by the site rules. When you were banned the following was posted on chesschat:

"User PHAT (Matthew Sweeney) having again crudely abused at least one other poster while on a zero-tolerance policy for breaches of the board rules, has now been banned permanently from this board. Should he wish to be readmitted he must agree to abide by all site rules in future, and even if he does so he will serve a substantial suspension for the current offence before being allowed back on."

So your claim that the situation regarding your banning has changed is nonsense. The NSWCA comparison is not relevant as the NSWCA is requiring you to apologise. Chesschat is not imposing this requirement, although we easily and reasonably could.

I would be interested in your evidence in terms of posts on the board for "widespread poster disapproval" of "alert, mop and bucket required". Of course there is another issue to be considered in such cases, which is whether the matter concerned can be effectively regulated. I take the view that moderation limits on forms of alleged debate evasion, such as so-called "jeering", would also need to address other forms of alleged debate evasion, such as blatant obfuscation (intended or otherwise). Is that a path we should be going down?

Indeed if we introduced rules against such comments it is quite obvious to me what would happen. Ironically, it is the trolls who would fail to abide by them, get themselves banned and then complain about increased "censorship" again.

You claim that my debating/"point scoring" approach irks you, but your posts are attempts at much the same thing, only failed ones. Your bluster at the end of your post is amusing but there is no evidence for it. Indeed the laughable mention of PhilD shows that your claim is not serious and is merely a provocation attempt. If that's doing me like a dinner, you must eat directly out of your freezer. :)

Anonymous said...

You are pathetic Kevin.

Bill and his gang of sycophants were clearly harassing Trevor Stanning by constantly calling him dribbler and putting alert mop and bucket after his posts.

It is clear you have no sense of fair play. Trevor wasnt aggressive in his posting,but Bill clearly is.

The quicker we get rid of people like you and Bill from the australian chess the better we will be.

Kevin Bonham said...

I do hope Matthew Sweeney will publicly concur with me that this anonymous who is calling me "pathetic" is gutless and, well, pathetic for not posting under his/her real name while criticising others.

The following is said for the purposes of explaining why I did not moderate Bill's use of "alert, mop and bucket required" (etc) only:

Sure, Trevor was not "aggressive" in his postings. But they, on certain issues, displayed a certain combination of impish cheekiness and severe misrepresentations of other posters' clearly expressed views that, whether deliberate or not, could be quite vexing for other posters to deal with. On that basis, I did not see it as a black and white situation in the way that anonymous appears to do.

Trevor himself also used to dish out plenty of stirring of a type some could have construed in a similar manner had they wished to - persistently respelling Garvin Gray's handle, for example.

Anonymous said...

So are you categorically saying that Starter was never harassed by Bill,Bergil,Boris and Howard?

That they werent following him around in threads just to post "alert mop and bucket" and to keep calling him dribbler?

Libby said...

Phew!

Australian Chess moves forward -

Zhao's win = 0 comments

Matthew Sweeney references = unlimited comments from all sides

442 said...

This being the 3rd chess bb in australia,things can get quite hectic Libby. lol.

Congratulations to Zhong.

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous, don't read things into my comments that aren't there.

Anonymous said...

Answer the question,Kevin.

Was Starter ever harassed by Bill,Bergil,Howard,or Boris on chesschat?

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous, I find that the word "harassment" is easily used in online discourse, but in the case of exchanges between well-established posters specifically, rather difficult to define.

Therefore my own definition of "harassment" for such purposes is, and has been for some time, harassment as defined by relevant Australian laws.

I am not aware of any evidence of harassment of such a sort. Any individual believing they have any such evidence should take it to the police.

Anonymous said...

Irrespective of the legal definitions I wouldn't feel comfortable in a work or social environment where a "group" chose to adopt a less-than-witty "catchphrase" to belittle my participation.

Now you can accuse me of all the warm fuzziness you like but it was unneccessary and unwarranted. Anybody can take a "joke" (if that's what it was supposed to be) as a one-off but a long-time poster like starter didn't deserve a mob response.

Maybe no "moderation" was strictly required under the rules of the site. But people can occasionally be big enough to admit taking things further than they should (ie adopting a d*ickhead mob-mentality)or just defend/wipe-hands-of-it it with less relish.

Libby said...

PS

Last anon was Libby.

I usually remember to take credit for my rambling

Kevin Bonham said...

Thought I'd check out one of the claims originally posted by the previous anon, who suggests that Bill, bergil, Howard and Boris were following starter around posting "alert, mop and bucket required" in threads.

In fact Bill was the only poster to ever employ this line against starter in a thread.

The inaugural use of AMOBR came on this thread: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=100726

where Bill had been considerably provoked by starter continuing to add fuel to nonsense by Matthew Sweeney to the effect that Bill had been muzzled from posting by people within his state association.

It's all very well talking about how one would feel in a given environment. However, Libby should consider whether, in a work or social environment, she would press nonsensical accusations of the type pressed by starter on that thread in the first place.

Kevin Bonham said...

Further to the above, Boris has never used "dribble" lingo to refer to starter on any post on the board. Can't vouch for the shoutbox, but I suspect anon's (7:11 Jan 9th) inclusion of Boris is completely spurious trolling, motivated by the anonymous poster's bias against Boris. Hmmm, I wonder who might behave in such a manner? Be a good little tiger and try using your real name in future!

Libby said...

"However, Libby should consider whether, in a work or social environment, she would press nonsensical accusations of the type pressed by starter on that thread in the first place."

Glad to see the "asked for it" defence invoked.

Is harrassment (bullying) in work or social environments OK if -

a) I disagree with the person generally

b) I thought their contribution was silly/obfuscating/insert other as required

c) everyone else is doing it so I joined in

d) all of the above?

I think the odd spiteful cat, pedant, boofhead or low-level sex offender (joke) on CC has probably made more vexing contributions than starter without attracting a public tag-team and their own personal "insult" to follow them around.

Kevin Bonham said...

I believe I've made my views on the inappropriateness of "bullying" in this context known before, and for "harassment" see above.

a), b), c) and d) are all missing the point of what actually happened. starter was making prolonged personal attacks by giving credence to the nonsense about Bill being muzzled by the NSWCA. He was then being deliberately evasive and attempting to tease his target by playing silly provocative games and refusing to cough up with evidence when challenged (see the thread linked to above). His target eventually got sick of his tactics and returned fire. Funny, that. Just because the "asked for it" defence is often bogus doesn't mean it always is.

I am trying to deter those who were never provoked by starter from treating his current lurking like some kind of freak show, but starter was nowhere near Mr Nice Guy in all this.

I totally agree that there have been more obnoxious posters who have not received the same level of response, but Libby's inclusion of "pedant" in the list is interesting. Those who get called pedants on chesschat are generally vexing only to the recipients of their so-called pedantry (ie people who've been sloppy with significant facts), and to trolls.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that Bill was the only one using the childish 'dribbler' label on Stanning. Even if Kevin can't find it in his searches, bergil and Howard Duggan both belittled Stanning with one of mop bucket/dribbler/dribble emoticon and are all guilty of bullying on multiple occasions, something they have both done to other chesschat users but not been pulled up on due to huge sucking up to moderators.

Kevin Bonham said...

Anonymous writes " I disagree that Bill was the only one using the childish 'dribbler' label on Stanning. "

Anonymous, your comprehension skills are deficient at best. Next time, try disagreeing with something that someone has actually said.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous quote:

Until Chess Chat changes its moderators I have no desire to post again on that board. It is my experience that boards work far better when the positions of moderators are rotated occasionally. When mods are in the same position for to long they treat the board as their own and that is exactly what I see happening at Chess Chat.

This is very true. The situation at chesschat has become farcical.

If Kevin or Bill are looking for an example of someone who diligently and appropriately carries out their moderation duties (with no power tripping agenda) they should turn to the ACCF and try emulating MOZ (aka - Starter).

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Steve K said that in his experience boards worked better when moderator rotation was applied. But when I asked him for an example the only one he gave was one where such a policy had only been invoked "very recently". If it was only invoked very recently there has not been enough time to determine whether it works, and therefore he has still provided no evidence that boards work better with rotation. I suspect it depends on the board in question, its poster base and its issues.

In claiming that the situation at chesschat is farcical, "AO" (alias Arrogant-One, DuMaurierXXX, Alex Toolsie and a very large collection of hydra names) fails to disclose that he is a self-confessed troll who was banned permanently after numerous rule breaches and failures to meet undertakings to improve his behaviour.

I suspect AO praises a moderator on ACCF solely to try to bait me into expressing criticisms of said moderator's performance and thereby start a fight. Rather than playing that game at this moment I will instead point out that DuMaurierXXX recently (15/01, 12:31) deleted his own code-of-conduct declaration from ACCF. It will be interesting to see what inaction the admins and moderators take over this flagrant breach of ACCF standards.

Of course they have been spineless and selective over this issue all along, immediately enforcing it against Brian Thomas but showing no signs of ever enforcing it against Shaun Press.

Anonymous said...

Quoted by Anonymous:

The quicker we get rid of people like you (Kevin) and Bill from Australian chess the better we will be.

I do not entirely agree.

We simply need to get Billbot and Bonbot out of positions of chess authority (including their little mod powers at chesschat).

Once that is done, they should be allowed to become humble chess players like the rest of us. This would seem to be the best avenue for them.

AO

Anonymous said...

Kevin, The site I referred you to is one of the best chess sites. Mig Greengard is a respected chess journalist and is on first name terms with many of the game's leading players including Kasparov. Indeed Kasparov has regularly provided Mig with 'exclusives'. Chess Ninjas is well moderated with no evidence that I can detect of administrators pushing their own barrows.

I'm interested to know if you have taken up my suggestion to contact Mig to discuss his views on moderator rotation. His new moderators have been in place for several weeks now so there has been sufficient time for Mig to judge if his changes were a success.

One thing that I can say with certainty is that the old mods are no longer posting as frequently as before and the new mods have increased their contributions since joining the administration. IMO both of these are good things for the site as there is a different 'flavour' about the threads - not necessarily better but different enough to make the place seem fresh and reinvigorated. Maybe Chess Chat could benefit from such changes as well. There are some well liked and respected posters at Chess Chat who could be encouraged to take on moderating for a few weeks to see if they enjoy the experience. This would be a good thing IMO for the new mods, the site in general and, believe it or not, for the existing mods.

Why not start a discussion on this at Chess Chat? Maybe you could even include a poll if you think it worthwhile. I might even drop in and add my two bobs worth.

Regards, Steve K

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB: ... but starter was nowhere near Mr Nice Guy in all this.

MS: starter was always Mr Nice Guy at CC. For sure, he would ask "inconvenient" questions and slowly gently extract an answer that was "revealing." However, The way NSWCA **officials** went after T.S. was disgraceful. Now two of them are Top Dg and Top Puppy.

Anonymous said...

Quoted by Kevin Bonbot:

Hmmm, I wonder who might behave in such a manner? Be a good little tiger and try using your real name in future!

I absolutely love it! I just discovered the juicy debates / flame wars on TCG, and see that Bonbot is already accusing someone else of being me.

Sorry Kevin, but you're wrong - again. I can assure you my posts will be signed with Arrogant-One's initials when I make them.

I suspect AO praises a moderator on ACCF solely to try to bait me into expressing criticisms of said moderator's performance and thereby start a fight.

Wrong again Bonbot. I applaud the job Trever Stanning is doing as moderator on ACCF. I can understand your feelings of jealousy over the fact that you have been completely outperformed by him, but do not despair - you're still a moderator at chesschat, and there is still time for you to lift your game if you chose to do so.

In claiming that the situation at chesschat is farcical, "AO" (alias Arrogant-One, DuMaurierXXX, Alex and a very large collection of hydra names) fails to disclose that he is a self-confessed troll who was banned permanently after numerous rule breaches and failures to meet undertakings to improve his behaviour.

Bonbot, please admit that bans issued at chesschat are:

(a) Subjective
(b) Usually unwarranted; and
(c) Based on favourism.

Maybe you're fooling youself by claiming otherwise, but everyone else knows the score.

I think you're just bitter because I sided with Phil Donnelly in the dispute you two had.

Anyway, have a good day Kevin.

Regards

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

Steve, I am well aware of (and enjoy) Mig's contributions, but that does not change the fact that a change to his forums that was only recently implemented cannot be judged a success until enough time has passed to comment. "Several weeks" is not long enough time to judge the effectiveness of a moderation regime. Often how effective a moderation regime is depends on its response to the more unusual, tricky or sensitive incidents. In my view, you need a year.

Incidentally, Kasparov's "exclusives" to Mig probably stem from Mig's close involvement in the now more or less deceased kasparovchess venture.

I have no objection to new mods being added to chesschat (and indeed think this would be a good idea) provided they are suitable. Anyone who is interested is welcome to apply at any time. We have knocked back applications from posters who we thought would be far too heavyhanded or whose motives appeared suspect, but there are several posters on chesschat who would make good mods if they were interested. If you want to start a discussion on this on chesschat go right ahead, but it is more likely to receive a positive response if framed as canvassing the idea of adding new mods rather than as a bitch about the existing ones. However, ultimately, appointments of mods are in the hands of the site owner.

Matt: anyone who reads the thread I linked to should be able to see that starter's posts on that thread were rather out of order.

AO: After your behaviour with respect to undertakings on chesschat, you are not a person whose word I regard as of any worth, so I am not taking your claim not to have been one of the previous anons seriously.

You follow this up with that lame automatic debate-forfeiter known in some parts as the "jealousy card", and various other pieces of tryhard armchair-psychology trash and other unsubstantiated bluster. The only thing worthy of note is that one of your suck-up attempts alleges that Trevor has "outperformed" me. It is news to me that a whole two moderations are sufficient to constitute "performance".

You're a lightweight, mate. Give it up!

Anonymous said...

Is power-tripping a hobby for Kevin and Bill? it's interesting that antichrists posts have also been modded at their discretion for mundane things - it is quite a 1984 society they have at chesschat. Also while the bosom-buddies bonbot and billbot hapily ban people they don't like such as Phil, Matt and AO they don't ban others that suck up to them, smoochy-smoochy *kiss* like bergil and howard duggan who do worse to starter and they just laugh and call fancy big words like ofbuscater. its funny to see chesschat turn into a place of jerks like this, it's what many people think who I ask who read chesschat. Now bonbot will probably have a go at my english now as he has done to others to mask his incompetence haha, go AO and Matt and others who stand up!

Kevin Bonham said...

There are many reasons why antichrist gets modded a lot, but the main one is his remarkable inability to consistently post anywhere near on-topic. Irrelevant comments by him, usually about Middle Eastern political issues, religious issues, or women, have frequently caused off-topic exchanges to derail threads. He also makes many posts which serve no purpose other than attempting to create conflict. Most forums would have long ago banned him for good.

Apart from the laughable inclusion of our lenient modding of antichrist in a claim of "a 1984 society" (thanks for the free entertainment!) the rest of anon's post is the same old lazy lame empirically false cliches. There are posters I don't get on with who I've never banned, and I supported all the disciplinary measures against Howard so far.

Anonymous said...

Post from Kevin Bonham, 3:16 PM, January 16, 2007

------------------------------
In claiming that the situation at chesschat is farcical, "AO" (alias Arrogant-One, DuMaurierXXX, Alex Toolsie and a very large collection of hydra names) fails to disclose that he is a self-confessed troll who was banned permanently after numerous rule breaches and failures to meet undertakings to improve his behaviour.
---------------------------------

Wasnt Alex Toolsie's caq membership terminated by the caq council and his appeal rejected by the caq club delegates?

Anonymous said...

Quoted by Kevin Bonham:

You follow this up with that lame automatic debate-forfeiter known in some parts as the "jealousy card", and various other pieces of tryhard armchair-psychology trash and other unsubstantiated bluster. The only thing worthy of note is that one of your suck-up attempts alleges that Trevor has "outperformed" me. It is news to me that a whole two moderations are sufficient to constitute "performance".

An old adage states that the dog would have caught the rabbit if it hadn't stopped.

It is therefore disappointing that you've given up the chase to be a better moderator by following Trevor Stannings fine example.

Regards

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

AO, I would describe your repetitive unsubstantiated nonsensical babble as a "disappointment" but I know your output too well by now to expect any improvement at all. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Kevin

I am not your psychiatrist nor am I your counsellor. If you have feelings of frustration/bitterness because so many people criticise the way you carry out your moderation duties on chesschat that does not entitle you to:

(a) Unfairly criticise Trevor's efforts as a mod on ACCF; and

(b) lash out at everyone, myself included, who says you need to pull yourself up by your boot straps.

You should take the latter as a compliment.

We do not expect Bill Gletsos to lift himself up by his bootstraps as we know his limited 'abilities' preclude that from ever happening.

My Advice: Less lashing out at me and others, more self reflection (by you).

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

You're doing it again, AO. You're trying to tell people what I might be feeling when you have no basis on which to have a clue. Your posts are just totally useless trolling; try backing your case with evidence taken from fields that you actually understand (if there are any.)

Anonymous said...

Actually Kevin, my basis is perfectly logical.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that your feelings of bitterness about being out-moderated by Trevor may only be a possible cause of your recent verbal assaults on various posters, it nevertheless was the most probable cause.

Hence, the conclusions I drew were most likely correct!

Regards

AO

Kevin Bonham said...

AO, you could not eliminate an impossible if it sat right in front of you pleading to be eliminated. Indeed, your standard response to an impossible is to not eliminate it but accept it as truth and repeat it incessantly. You are truly a clue-free zone.

Anonymous said...

AO,are you sure Kevin has feelings?

50 comments must be close to a record response for a blog item.

What is the record,Amiel?

More than 60?