tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post115527200371209031..comments2023-09-30T18:56:06.919+09:00Comments on The Closet Grandmaster: Open ThreadUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155868263081328002006-08-18T11:31:00.000+09:002006-08-18T11:31:00.000+09:00Great stuff Matthew! Good to see your attitude to...Great stuff Matthew! Good to see your attitude to losing debates is as gracious as ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155719024751256752006-08-16T18:03:00.000+09:002006-08-16T18:03:00.000+09:00yEah!yEah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155715684824998482006-08-16T17:08:00.000+09:002006-08-16T17:08:00.000+09:00I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly argui...I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly arguing the toss with EVERYONE. Time for me to walk away form the toxic rot of Kevbot.<BR/><BR/>If he wants to turn this GOOD blog into another anus built for his product. I will not help him by replying here, to him.DeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155715615524716692006-08-16T17:06:00.000+09:002006-08-16T17:06:00.000+09:00I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly argui...I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly arguing the toss with EVERYONE. Time for me to walk away form the toxic rot of Kevbot.<BR/><BR/>If he wants to turn this GOOD blog into another anus built for his product. I will not help him by replying here, to him.DeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155714571729429952006-08-16T16:49:00.000+09:002006-08-16T16:49:00.000+09:00Frosty - there was never a ban on *posting* materi...Frosty - there was never a ban on *posting* material from private conversations. The ban was on *quoting* which is not the same thing. In general one is still free to summarise one's impression of what another person said, but one can't give an exact alleged quote in a case where there is an expectation of confidentiality. Furthermore if you've heard something from another person you are free to report what you've heard without using the form "X said [insert quote here]" I get the impression that you simply didn't understand the new rule as it applied to private conversations, and thought it stretched much further than it did.<BR/><BR/>Matt, it has long been established (especially since UCJ) that the idea of you giving maturity lessons to anyone is ridiculous.<BR/><BR/>Your use of that fable has two glaring flaws. Firstly most of my criticisms of ACCF have been not of the discussions on the site itself but of your cumbersome membership procedure and your lack of clarity concerning it. Second I could have posted on UCJ any time I liked but I thought UCJ was a considerably worse forum than ACCF has been to date. And no, Bill and I are not "the agencies" - the agencies in the context I used are the ACF, the TCA , the site owner of chesschat and all other chess-related groups or people I do stuff for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155708787749280572006-08-16T15:13:00.000+09:002006-08-16T15:13:00.000+09:00Hi Kevin,You wrote:>> The aim was to make it clear...Hi Kevin,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>>> The aim was to make it clear that the kind of nonsense where A says that B said exactly C in private (and then B denies it, and nothing is ever proven) is out. If you can see merit in a person being allowed to quote from a private convo in such circumstances<BR/><BR/>The problem I had was precisely this:<BR/><BR/>- most conversations I have about chess matters are private, whether it be with members of my own club, or administrators at another club, or coaches, etc<BR/><BR/>- the ban was on posting details of private conversations (no additional information was provided at that time)<BR/><BR/>Either I would post details of private conversations and in contravention of moderation rules, or I would have very little to post.<BR/><BR/>Hence my departure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155646746305940222006-08-15T21:59:00.000+09:002006-08-15T21:59:00.000+09:00Bonham:"If the agencies that I am doing it for are...Bonham:<BR/>"If the agencies that I am doing it for are not happy with me flaming people who clearly deserve to be flamed while posting in an unofficial capacity (hence not representing anything), then they can tell me that and I will consider my response at that time ..."<BR/><BR/>You, Gletsos and Duggan *ARE* the agencies. <BR/><BR/>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.DeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155646514071238552006-08-15T21:55:00.000+09:002006-08-15T21:55:00.000+09:00The blog software is truncating long web addresses...The blog software is truncating long web addresses.<BR/><BR/>To read about Kevin Bonham and his opinion of ACCForum:<BR/><BR/>http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/<BR/><BR/>and then add<BR/><BR/>Aesop/Aesops_Fables/<BR/><BR/>and then add<BR/><BR/>The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.htmlDeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155636378379902242006-08-15T19:06:00.000+09:002006-08-15T19:06:00.000+09:00Libby, I'm keen to discuss what can be determined ...Libby, I'm keen to discuss what can be determined about people's reasons for leaving based on whatever info is already on the public record. If it's not on the public record I'm not interested in asking (when I have no idea if it will be welcome or not) but I will point out when the speculations of others appear to be unfounded. Hope that clarifies it.<BR/><BR/>That you are allowed to have a view has never been in dispute. I question, however, whether melodramatic and conflict-averse views about the impact of certain actions on the game at large, are in any way empirically well-founded. That hotheads spouting trash can lead to a loss of volunteer goodwill is, in my view, clearcut. Whether people flaming the hotheads has any deleterious impact is a different matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155630362637738362006-08-15T17:26:00.000+09:002006-08-15T17:26:00.000+09:00KB:"Thank you for the link, Matt, was there any on...KB:<BR/>"Thank you for the link, Matt, was there any one in particular you wanted me to read..."<BR/><BR/>Something when wrong with the cut/paste and the link was truncated. I hope this helps - but I doubt that you have the maturity for self examination.<BR/><BR/>http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.htmlDeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155591783962873222006-08-15T06:43:00.000+09:002006-08-15T06:43:00.000+09:00Kevin, I expected no email from you over my depart...Kevin, I expected no email from you over my departure from Chess Chat. I'm sure you do have much to do other than follow such things up. I just wondered after this comment - "I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do." - why you didn't ask? It was your keeness expressed - not any concern of my own - that led me to pose the question of why you just didn't ask me yourself? The whole topic came up only after my departure seemed to continue to draw comment that I was certainly not soliciting.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest. I am allowed (I think) to feel differently to yourself on the issue of how the conduct of chess officials on Chess Chat may colour the perception of readers. (I knew nothing until recently of QLD - I now know a little of some of the people involved - that's been an interesting example) I'm not disputing your right to comment there in any way you choose. I am allowed to have my own opinion of how that refelects on our organisation. If my feeling is not widely held then it really doesn't matter does it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155565455891848692006-08-14T23:24:00.000+09:002006-08-14T23:24:00.000+09:00Libby, I'm not interested in reading anything into...Libby, I'm not interested in reading anything into your comments because I just flatly disagree with that aspect of them. Chess admin is something I do as a volunteer. If the agencies that I am doing it for are not happy with me flaming people who clearly deserve to be flamed while posting in an unofficial capacity (hence not representing anything), then they can tell me that and I will consider my response at that time - which will probably be along the lines of "and precisely how is this actually any of your business?". If they don't want someone who likes to go goose-hunting in his spare time, they should elect someone else!<BR/><BR/>Aside from those agencies, I am just not interested in anyone else's opinion, particularly not opinions of the simplistic "all flaming is bad" variety. I regard such views as no more valid than the views of those who think that chess itself is pointless. <BR/><BR/>I have better things to do than hound posters who have left with "Why did you leave?" questions that they might find intrusive, clueless or annoying. However while others have seen fit to comment on why a certain poster left, I don't believe I have done so except where they have made it reasonably clear. Libby, if I have made an incorrect statement about your reasons anywhere please show me as I will be happy to correct it.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the link, Matt, was there any one in particular you wanted me to read for more vivid insights into your homespun tryhard psychoanalysis? <BR/><BR/>Frosty - what I found strange was that you cited a particular rule in leaving, but that was a rule that would have been applied anyway in any really contentious case (as such we had not changed anything), and was something that virtually never comes up on the site (quoting from private conversations). As such I don't see why you saw that rule as an issue. We weren't about to go deleting cases where someone quoted something uncontentious. The aim was to make it clear that the kind of nonsense where A says that B said exactly C in private (and then B denies it, and nothing is ever proven) is out. If you can see merit in a person being allowed to quote from a private convo in such circumstances, please explain it to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155545422974333402006-08-14T17:50:00.000+09:002006-08-14T17:50:00.000+09:00Hi Kevin,You wrote:> ... or whether a range of peo...Hi Kevin,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>> ... or whether a range of people<BR/>> have just left for a range of <BR/>> reasons, most of them unrelated<BR/>> to site moderation<BR/><BR/>The reason I left was because of moderation rules. But it wasn't the only factor. In order of priority from my perspective, the reasons that I departed were:<BR/><BR/>1/ Moderation rules<BR/>2/ Dissatisfaction with the level of abuse going backwards and forwards<BR/><BR/>I did hear, after my departure, that you (?) had posted some qualifying comments about my concerns over the moderation rules. Perhaps this would have answered my questions/objections ... but since I had already left Chess Chat by that stage, I shall probably never know (apparently the comments were posted in the Coffee Lounge, and of course, once having left I had no access to that area).<BR/><BR/>I have no personal objections to, or problems with, any of the moderators, the administrator, or the site owner. But from my perspective, its ancient history now and I don't even really read the Chess Chat board much nowadays and have no desire to post there again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155539231366058792006-08-14T16:07:00.000+09:002006-08-14T16:07:00.000+09:00Kavin - "I prefer to respond to them in as informe...Kavin - "I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do."<BR/><BR/>Which must have been why you bothered to ask me???? Given all the so-called "speculation."<BR/><BR/>You may also choose - or not to - to read between the lines of my comments about the way people who hold dual & official capacities are representing our sport on Chess Chat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155529600402453582006-08-14T13:26:00.000+09:002006-08-14T13:26:00.000+09:00Bonham said:“Matt's point about no-one inviting me...Bonham said:<BR/><BR/>“Matt's point about no-one inviting me to join ACCF is moot since (i) he has no idea whether anyone has contacted me privately about this or not (ii) in any case I have expressed no interest in joining. “<BR/><BR/>I have a link for you:<BR/><BR/>http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.htmlDeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155528017898221522006-08-14T13:00:00.000+09:002006-08-14T13:00:00.000+09:00"would be nice if ppl could use real names on here..."would be nice if ppl could use real names on here so we know who is commenting, instead of speculation, which can be incorrect."_ggraygray<BR/><BR/>why speculate on the "who"? <BR/><BR/>why not simply critiquE the "what"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155526945139387232006-08-14T12:42:00.000+09:002006-08-14T12:42:00.000+09:00Libby, people care why anyone leaves chesschat bec...Libby, people care why anyone leaves chesschat because there has been some debate about whether there has been something of an upsurge in departures for any specific reason recently, or whether a range of people have just left for a range of reasons, most of them unrelated to site moderation. Those sorts of discussions are usually started by those criticising the mods and intending to lay blame on us for supposedly driving off Libby, Jenni or (whoever else). I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155506710873200802006-08-14T07:05:00.000+09:002006-08-14T07:05:00.000+09:00Not interested in your contact details "Raised E",...Not interested in your contact details "Raised E",just wondering if you are the poster known to all as "Eclectic"....lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155505199461217382006-08-14T06:39:00.000+09:002006-08-14T06:39:00.000+09:00Hi KevinWhy does anyone care why I left Chess Chat...Hi Kevin<BR/><BR/>Why does anyone care why I left Chess Chat? Having attempted to depart without a public dummy spit or any of the "drama queen" scenario that Howard has attributed to me since, I really don't get it?<BR/><BR/>My position on the behaviour of some posters - with official capacities - is well known. I don't think public slanging does their "official" status or activities any favours. In persisting at Chess Chat I saw no sign that I could expect anything but that kind of behaviour - including from myself.<BR/><BR/>Sure, I could have created a locked thread for event announcements etc but that wouldn't prevent me (or others) engaging in the same sort of unedifying discussions as we have in the past. What's more there are numerous more appropriate opportunities for me to promote the events to the principal stakeholders. I am easily contactable via both the event and ACTJCL websites, contact through the ACF Bulletin etc. Those airing their concerns so vocally on Chess Chat have never contacted me directly but at least the suspension of my account leaves no-one expecting a response from me in that Forum. If my account remained active there may well be just that expectation. <BR/><BR/>And given I did wear a level of "flack" over aspects of the ACTJCL bid it is worth noting that all the proposals were put to the ACF with the option for them to decline any changes. In relation to the Aus Schools, we indicated a preference for the December dates but gave the option of retaining our November arrangement. Although, given recent communications over the FIDE rating of the Open Under 18 events at the Aus Juniors I am not sure if the content of the documents sent to the ACF is completely familiar to those who voted on it.<BR/><BR/>LibbyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155467169358573272006-08-13T20:06:00.000+09:002006-08-13T20:06:00.000+09:00would you also like my full name address and telep...would you also like my full name address and telephone numbEr?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155457946193779472006-08-13T17:32:00.000+09:002006-08-13T17:32:00.000+09:00Can the anonymous with the raised E confirm whethe...Can the anonymous with the raised E confirm whether they are Eclectic from chesschat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155442848867131052006-08-13T13:20:00.000+09:002006-08-13T13:20:00.000+09:00With respect, anonymous, I am only being realistic...With respect, anonymous, I am only being realistic. <BR/><BR/>To achieve a norm in a nine round event, five opponents must be titled, including at least three IMs (for an IM norm) or three GMs (for a GM norm). Furthermore, no more than two opponents can be (FIDE) unrated, and at least [b]three[/b] opponents must be from other federations. Not to mention the minimum average rating requirements.<BR/><BR/>Like I say, it is theoretically possible, but I would be astonished if any player was to meet these conditions in an Open Swiss (with no parallel divisions) in Australia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155433845682513562006-08-13T10:50:00.000+09:002006-08-13T10:50:00.000+09:00Matthew shows contempt for prospective members of ...Matthew shows contempt for prospective members of his forum (not that I am one at this stage) by ignoring the fact that joining his forum is a very substantial effort compared to most forums. On that basis a prospective member should at least know what the rules actually are rather than finding them out later ... maybe ... oh, that's right, they're still hopelessly vague.<BR/><BR/>Matt's point about no-one inviting me to join ACCF is moot since (i) he has no idea whether anyone has contacted me privately about this or not (ii) in any case I have expressed no interest in joining. As previously stated Matthew Sweeney must apologise for posting and failing to moderate irrelevant and false slurs about my personal life on UCJ before he can be considered competent enough as a site admin for his site to be worth considering joining. <BR/><BR/>The rest of Matt's dribble (essentially mudslinging about mudslinging, how quaint) is just another hysterical rant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155392090875083732006-08-12T23:14:00.000+09:002006-08-12T23:14:00.000+09:00why not turn the doeberl into an open next year ad...why not turn the doeberl into an open next year adding an extra day to it to enable 9 rounds and have brian jones's sio follow on from it? ... and the word from sesame street is ... co ... op ... er ... atE :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1155391104744026382006-08-12T22:58:00.000+09:002006-08-12T22:58:00.000+09:00Pax,whith the kind of money on offer for the Sydne...Pax,whith the kind of money on offer for the Sydney international open I would imagine there will be plenty of IM's and maybe as many as 5 GM's...which doesnt make norms so impossible to achieve.<BR/><BR/>Why are you such a negative person?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com