tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post116803161395414759..comments2023-09-30T18:56:06.919+09:00Comments on The Closet Grandmaster: SMH on Aussie ChessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169254045341013322007-01-20T09:47:00.000+09:002007-01-20T09:47:00.000+09:00AO,are you sure Kevin has feelings?50 comments mus...AO,are you sure Kevin has feelings?<BR/><BR/>50 comments must be close to a record response for a blog item.<BR/><BR/>What is the record,Amiel?<BR/><BR/>More than 60?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169195506215670572007-01-19T17:31:00.000+09:002007-01-19T17:31:00.000+09:00AO, you could not eliminate an impossible if it sa...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169183224756597732007-01-19T14:07:00.000+09:002007-01-19T14:07:00.000+09:00Actually Kevin, my basis is perfectly logical.When...Actually Kevin, my basis is perfectly logical.<BR/><BR/>When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Hence, the conclusions I drew were most likely correct!<BR/><BR/>Regards<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169181835339327362007-01-19T13:43:00.000+09:002007-01-19T13:43:00.000+09:00You're doing it again, AO. You're trying to tell ...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.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169160457888751752007-01-19T07:47:00.000+09:002007-01-19T07:47:00.000+09:00KevinI am not your psychiatrist nor am I your coun...Kevin<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>(a) Unfairly criticise Trevor's efforts as a mod on ACCF; and<BR/><BR/>(b) lash out at everyone, myself included, who says you need to pull yourself up by your boot straps.<BR/><BR/>You should take the latter as a compliment. <BR/><BR/>We do not expect Bill Gletsos to lift himself up by his bootstraps as we know his limited 'abilities' preclude that from ever happening.<BR/><BR/>My Advice: Less lashing out at me and others, more self reflection (by you).<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169118704126644012007-01-18T20:11:00.000+09:002007-01-18T20:11:00.000+09:00AO, I would describe your repetitive unsubstantiat...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169104428752571992007-01-18T16:13:00.000+09:002007-01-18T16:13:00.000+09:00Quoted by Kevin Bonham: You follow this up with th...Quoted by Kevin Bonham:<BR/><BR/><I> 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". </I><BR/><BR/>An old adage states that the dog would have caught the rabbit if it hadn't stopped.<BR/><BR/>It is therefore disappointing that you've given up the chase to be a better moderator by following Trevor Stannings fine example.<BR/><BR/>Regards<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169056817330842072007-01-18T03:00:00.000+09:002007-01-18T03:00:00.000+09:00Post from Kevin Bonham, 3:16 PM, January 16, 2007-...Post from Kevin Bonham, 3:16 PM, January 16, 2007<BR/><BR/>------------------------------<BR/>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.<BR/>---------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Wasnt Alex Toolsie's caq membership terminated by the caq council and his appeal rejected by the caq club delegates?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169036860037323302007-01-17T21:27:00.000+09:002007-01-17T21:27:00.000+09:00There are many reasons why antichrist gets modded ...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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169032919994464332007-01-17T20:21:00.000+09:002007-01-17T20:21:00.000+09:00Is power-tripping a hobby for Kevin and Bill? it's...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!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1169020780343294352007-01-17T16:59:00.000+09:002007-01-17T16:59:00.000+09:00Steve, I am well aware of (and enjoy) Mig's contri...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.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Kasparov's "exclusives" to Mig probably stem from Mig's close involvement in the now more or less deceased kasparovchess venture.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>You're a lightweight, mate. Give it up!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168933680207712252007-01-16T16:48:00.000+09:002007-01-16T16:48:00.000+09:00Quoted by Kevin Bonbot: Hmmm, I wonder who might b...Quoted by Kevin Bonbot:<BR/><BR/><I> Hmmm, I wonder who might behave in such a manner? Be a good little tiger and try using your real name in future! </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I> 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. </I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I> 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. </I><BR/><BR/>Bonbot, please admit that bans issued at chesschat are:<BR/><BR/>(a) Subjective<BR/>(b) Usually unwarranted; and<BR/>(c) Based on favourism.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you're fooling youself by claiming otherwise, but everyone else knows the score.<BR/><BR/>I think you're just bitter because I sided with Phil Donnelly in the dispute you two had.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, have a good day Kevin.<BR/><BR/>Regards<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168932764793941302007-01-16T16:32:00.000+09:002007-01-16T16:32:00.000+09:00KB: ... but starter was nowhere near Mr Nice Guy i...KB: ... but starter was nowhere near Mr Nice Guy in all this. <BR/><BR/>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.DeNovoMemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01773096216388932939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168932331918141322007-01-16T16:25:00.000+09:002007-01-16T16:25:00.000+09:00Kevin, The site I referred you to is one of the be...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Steve KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168923135852345812007-01-16T13:52:00.000+09:002007-01-16T13:52:00.000+09:00Quoted by Anonymous:The quicker we get rid of peop...Quoted by Anonymous:<BR/><BR/><I>The quicker we get rid of people like you (Kevin) and Bill from Australian chess the better we will be. </I><BR/><BR/>I do not entirely agree. <BR/><BR/>We simply need to get Billbot and Bonbot out of positions of chess authority (including their little mod powers at chesschat).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168920998252116332007-01-16T13:16:00.000+09:002007-01-16T13:16:00.000+09:00Steve K said that in his experience boards worked ...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168916005679090082007-01-16T11:53:00.000+09:002007-01-16T11:53:00.000+09:00Anonymous quote:Until Chess Chat changes its moder...Anonymous quote:<BR/><BR/><B><I>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. </B></I><BR/><BR/>This is very true. The situation at chesschat has become farcical.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>AOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168760835700357852007-01-14T16:47:00.000+09:002007-01-14T16:47:00.000+09:00Anonymous writes " I disagree that Bill was the on...Anonymous writes " I disagree that Bill was the only one using the childish 'dribbler' label on Stanning. "<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, your comprehension skills are deficient at best. Next time, try disagreeing with something that someone has actually said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168686686965133792007-01-13T20:11:00.000+09:002007-01-13T20:11:00.000+09:00I disagree that Bill was the only one using the ch...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168664952606088862007-01-13T14:09:00.000+09:002007-01-13T14:09:00.000+09:00I believe I've made my views on the inappropriaten...I believe I've made my views on the inappropriateness of "bullying" in this context known before, and for "harassment" see above. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168631810480062052007-01-13T04:56:00.000+09:002007-01-13T04:56:00.000+09:00"However, Libby should consider whether, in a work..."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."<BR/><BR/>Glad to see the "asked for it" defence invoked.<BR/><BR/>Is harrassment (bullying) in work or social environments OK if -<BR/><BR/>a) I disagree with the person generally<BR/><BR/>b) I thought their contribution was silly/obfuscating/insert other as required<BR/><BR/>c) everyone else is doing it so I joined in<BR/><BR/>d) all of the above?<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168622582148741512007-01-13T02:23:00.000+09:002007-01-13T02:23:00.000+09:00Further to the above, Boris has never used "dribbl...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!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168602577184597982007-01-12T20:49:00.000+09:002007-01-12T20:49:00.000+09:00Thought I'd check out one of the claims originally...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.<BR/><BR/>In fact Bill was the only poster to ever employ this line against starter in a thread.<BR/><BR/>The inaugural use of AMOBR came on this thread: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=100726<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168554373678684682007-01-12T07:26:00.000+09:002007-01-12T07:26:00.000+09:00PSLast anon was Libby.I usually remember to take c...PS<BR/><BR/>Last anon was Libby.<BR/><BR/>I usually remember to take credit for my ramblingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14539885.post-1168549799909001852007-01-12T06:09:00.000+09:002007-01-12T06:09:00.000+09:00Irrespective of the legal definitions I wouldn't f...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com