Page 73 of 74 FirstFirst ... 236371727374 LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,095 of 1099

Thread: Bullying on Chess Chat

  1. | #1081
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Say what you will about Net Bots, but they go absolutely crazy over this thread!
    I looked at your post from a few angles, and couldn't quite be certain about which aspect you are drawing attention to.
    So, I took out my own personal prism .... metrics.


    The Battle of Hastings was 1066, and your post is superior at 1080.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  2. | #1082
    Senior Member OzChessFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    I looked at your post from a few angles, and couldn't quite be certain about which aspect you are drawing attention to.
    So, I took out my own personal prism .... metrics.


    The Battle of Hastings was 1066, and your post is superior at 1080.
    Stranger Days


  3. | #1083
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham on Chesschat
    ...There has been a complaint from a person who was accused of computer-cheating on this thread. As I do not have time to deal with this at the moment, the posts have been temporarily deleted and will be reviewed tomorrow at an as-yet unknown time. No further posts on the matter are to be made in the meantime. Any discussion of this may occur in the Help and Feedback section only and must not name the person involved.
    This is typical behaviour from Chesschats resident control freak. Another classic example of how these ACF types are dictatorial and actively prevent informed discussion on important chess matters.

    Bonham has censored Chesschats community from openly discussing a cheating ban in a MCC online tournament. In doing so, he actively sides with the interests of an alleged cheat over alleged victims. Now the regular posters on Chesschat have little opportunity for venting their frustrations until Bonham decides whether it satisfies his personal satisfaction. It is beyond pathetic that the chess community cannot name and shame an online cheat without Bonhams permission. An incident like this needs social media attention. ACF officials like Bonham should be less concerned with controlling the chess community and more in tune with discussion incidents in chess that are controversial.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  4. | #1084
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham on Chesschat
    ...The matter is still under consideration as after looking at the player's games I wish to consult with other mods and consider the matter further. I don't know how long this will take, maybe a few days. No further posts on the matter are to be made in the meantime. Any discussion of this may occur in the Help and Feedback section only and must not name the person involved.
    OMFG Talk about complete ego maniac. Hasn't the player already been banned? WTF are you trying to do? Do you think you have more authority then the tournament organisers on the matter? I have a suggestion before you consult with your clown buddies have a good long think about how little chess the ACF organised during the Covid Lockdown.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  5. | #1085
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Bonham has censored Chesschats community from openly discussing a cheating ban in a MCC online tournament.
    There was no discussion of a cheating ban. There was discussion of a player who some players considered to be cheating but at the time no action had been taken. If I find out that the player has been banned for cheating then that will be taken into account and will probably lead to the restoration of the posts.

    I have responsibilities for protecting Chesschat from potential defamation actions. You don't understand the concept of responsibility so I don't expect you to comprehend that. If you were financially liable any time Chesschat got sued that would be one thing but I doubt you could afford it.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  6. | #1086
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    There was no discussion of a cheating ban. There was discussion of a player who some players considered to be cheating but at the time no action had been taken.
    Here in lies the key problem. You speak with confident authority on the subject and nobody can challenge your privileged viewpoint because you are, in fact, in control of censoring the subject matter. I completely disagree with your statement on the matter because I viewed the material.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    If I find out that the player has been banned for cheating then that will be taken into account and will probably lead to the restoration of the posts.
    Considering that in the context of the discussion you are not democratically elected and have no legitimate authority in chess circles to act upon the matter, then it becomes a moot point as to why you believe your opinion on the incident even matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydrated
    I have responsibilities for protecting Chesschat from potential defamation actions. You don't understand the concept of responsibility so I don't expect you to comprehend that.
    This is just overactive extremism. You have no responsibility to ban free speech. Nobody can be defamed if the allegations are true. And it is ridiculous to suggest that chess players should not be allowed to discuss a chess tournament without you being personally "responsible" for "protecting" a chess site from litigation. You bear no responsibility for the matter, it is a complete joke to suggest that it is even possible for you to be personally liable.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  7. | #1087
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Here in lies the key problem. You speak with confident authority on the subject and nobody can challenge your privileged viewpoint because you are, in fact, in control of censoring the subject matter. I completely disagree with your statement on the matter because I viewed the material.
    You viewing the material is irrelevant because you are deluded, extremely biased and have poor comprehension skills. The posts were made on the day of the event and at that time posters explicitly stated that no decision on banning the player had been taken. The final post in the string said "Well, the ''good move'' has not happened ...not yet at least . Lets see, apart from obvious anonymity i sent analysis to MCC....now its up to the committee."

    Considering that in the context of the discussion you are not democratically elected and have no legitimate authority in chess circles to act upon the matter, then it becomes a moot point as to why you believe your opinion on the incident even matters.
    You think it matters enough for you to whinge and froth irately about it. Of course I have legitimate authority to act as a moderator on Chesschat. In a liberal democracy, another very basic concept that you are utterly clueless about, people are free to own chess forums and appoint moderators however they like.

    This is just overactive extremism.
    Coming from you that would be a considerable compliment if it was even remotely sincere. You almost never make a moderate statement about anything!

    You have no responsibility to ban free speech. Nobody can be defamed if the allegations are true.
    Seems you're as clueless about defamation as the liewyer in charge around here. Truth is a defence but only if the defendant can prove the material to be true. If it is true but the defendant does not have the information to prove it, the defence fails. There was not enough information in the posts as they were to make it clear that the player was definitely cheating.

    And it is ridiculous to suggest that chess players should not be allowed to discuss a chess tournament without you being personally "responsible" for "protecting" a chess site from litigation.
    I do not suggest that. I suggest that if they want to discuss it without reaching a very high standard of proof then they can do it on their own websites at their own legal risk or on any other website that would have them.

    You bear no responsibility for the matter, it is a complete joke to suggest that it is even possible for you to be personally liable.
    It is a complete joke to suggest that I suggested that. The forum owner is potentially liable.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  8. | #1088
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You viewing the material is irrelevant
    Umm No, The key point is that "nobody" can view the posted thread, without your permission, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Of course I have legitimate authority to act as a moderator on Chesschat. In a liberal democracy, another very basic concept that you are utterly clueless about, people are free to own chess forums and appoint moderators however they like.
    I don't believe anybody is in doubt that you can act as a totally shit moderator on Chesschat, that goes without saying, the issue is do you have the authority to censor chess players on such a subject. That is a very different thing Mr fake libel law nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It is a complete joke to suggest that I suggested that. The forum owner is potentially liable.
    Yes It is a complete joke for you to care about imagined libel laws when you are not even employed by the site. Your legal concern for the forum owner is just a feigned cover story when you actually assume no personal risk. Just be honest and call it what it is Dr Kevin Bonham pushing a bullshit fake narrative that represses Australian chess discussion on social media.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  9. | #1089
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Umm No, The key point is that "nobody" can view the post.
    If that was your supposed point you should have left it at that instead of then making false statements about the content of the material in an attempt to claim that I was misrepresenting it. Of course now that that has been blown out of the water here you are trying to pretend you were only talking about one thing when anyone can see that that is wrong.

    I don't believe anybody is in doubt that you can act as a totally shit moderator on Chesschat, that goes without saying,
    If it went without saying you wouldn't bother saying it. What is really worth saying here is that you were among the worst moderators on the internet in your tenure here so if you insult someone else's modding skills that is just another backhanded compliment.

    the issue is do you have the authority to censor chess players on such a subject. That is a very different thing Mr [sic] fake libel [sic] law nonsense.
    Of course I have the authority. I've got the tools to moderate the forum and permission to use them, what more authority are you going to pretend that I need?

    Yes It is a complete joke for you to care about imagined libel laws when you are not even employed by the site.
    Looks like you've never heard of the concept of voluntary work then. It is true I am not paid by CC to moderate but I have a voluntary agreement with the site. You know about this because in one of your few not totally insane moments you started a thread here on the subject.

    Your legal concern for the forum owner is just a feigned cover story when you actually assume no personal risk.
    Total nonsense. If you used any remaining brain cell between your ears that has not yet been hatefrothed or drugged into a premature demise, you would realise that I would not like to see CC shut down as a result of defamation actions and therefore I have reason to work as a moderator and protect the site from them. This should be extremely obvious even to you.

    Just be honest and call it what it is [..] pushing a bullshit fake narrative that represses Australian chess discussion on social media.
    Rubbish; people are free to discuss it on other "social media".

    Once again it seems you need to repeat political philosophy 101 as you have now failed the course seventeen years in a row.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  10. | #1090
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    anyone can see that that is wrong.
    Sticking strictly to the facts of the matter. No at this moment anyone can not see since it is still removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Of course I have the authority. I've got the tools to moderate the forum and permission to use them, what more authority (do) I need?
    Basic Intelligence. Or more to the point an authority to repress discussion about chess on social media.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It is true I am not paid by CC to moderate but I have a voluntary agreement with the site.
    Thus demonstrating you are personally not at risk from ANY defamation

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I would not like to see CC shut down as a result of defamation actions and therefore I have reason to work as a moderator and protect the site from them. This should be extremely obvious even to you.
    Inconsistent. You assume no personal risk for content and justify being a guard dog of what exactly? This imagined need to protect people from a chess discussion seems a little bit too precious to be a real belief.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  11. | #1091
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Sticking strictly to the facts of the matter. No at this moment anyone can not see since it is still removed.
    No this is just you failing to follow the birdie, so I will spell it out for you because you are so thick. "anyone can see that that is wrong." referred to the idea that you were only significantly making claims on this here thread about the secrecy of the removed posts, whereas anyone can see that on this here thread you were also falsely accusing me of mischaracterising the now removed posts. Anyone can see that your representation of what happened in posts on this here thread is bogus.

    Basic Intelligence.
    Look there are whole families of worms in my backyard with more of that than you. Don't suggest concepts that you do not understand.

    Or more to the point an authority to repress discussion about chess on social media.
    I'm not doing so as I have no power to prevent the discussion from doing so elsewhere. Moreover even if I was being pseudo-repressive in the specific context of Chesschat, I would be taking disciplinary action against the posters, whereas actually I have already announced none will be taken. I've just moved some posts offline pending review and further developments, that's all.

    Thus demonstrating you are personally not at risk from ANY defamation
    In terms of risk of being sued, I never said I was.

    Inconsistent. You assume no personal risk for content and justify being a guard dog of what exactly? This imagined need to protect people from a chess discussion seems a little bit too precious to be a real belief.
    Now you've just gone into word salad mode. What part of this do you not understand - I value the forum's continued existence and therefore have a motive to work to keep it going, including by removing material that might otherwise result in lawsuits and cause the forum owner to not wish to continue hosting the site?
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  12. | #1092
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    anyone can see
    Always remember that in the context of the discussion anyone can not currently see the posted thread

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I have already announced none will be taken. I've just moved some posts offline pending review and further developments, that's all.
    On Ozchess we are not interested in the self justifications of Chesschats resident thought policeman. We just call it as it really is.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I value the forum's continued existence and therefore have a motive to work to keep it going, including by removing material that might otherwise result in lawsuits and cause the forum owner to not wish to continue hosting the site?
    Total propaganda. You have a special vested interest in exercising your own illegitimate power and maintaining undemocratic social media.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  13. | #1093
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Always remember that in the context of the discussion anyone can not currently see the posted thread
    Again, I was talking about your comments on this thread that you are currently posting on. Anyone can see it who wants to, not that anyone much wants to, but if they hypothetically did want to they could see that you were contradicting yourself.

    We just call it as it really is.
    No you don't. You make up hostile gibberish motivated by almost 20 years of personal hatred. It doesn't matter what the facts are, you feel you must attack us and you will just jump from one pathetic facade for doing so to the next. Your claim that I was siding with the alleged cheater was just more fake outrage on your part, since in another thread you said that computer-cheating was sometimes something to be proud of. You are the one who has made excuses for cheating.

    Total propaganda. You have a special vested interest in exercising your own illegitimate power and maintaining undemocratic social media.
    So you call my comment "total propaganda" while finally agreeing that I have a reason to work to keep CC going and hence finally conceding the truth of the statement you are attacking. (This is a good sign of how mindlessly aggressive you are - you can't even agree with something I say without attacking it!) However in this process you use the misleading term "vested interest" (misleading because you fail to qualify that it is non-financial - really it's just that I enjoy having a good chess forum available). You also continue to impose your ridiculous hyper-democratic delusions on structures that don't have any reason to require them, so your claims "illegitimate" and "undemocratic" can be ignored.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  14. | #1094
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Again,
    deceitful, manipulative and dishonest.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  15. | #1095
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    deceitful, manipulative and dishonest.
    Indeed you are. Glad you admit it! Making good progress on your therapy I see!
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

Page 73 of 74 FirstFirst ... 236371727374 LastLast

Members who have read this thread : 166

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •