Australian Chess Federation website is a public relations disaster

[HydraTED]

Let's stick to the issue at hand [insinuating garbage deleted - KB]. Was Fg complaining or alerting?

Alerting involves telling people something they don't know. To the limited extent that his comments were in any way valid, he can't have been alerting, therefore he was complaining. Hope that helps.

Fg simply presented a reasonable list of aspects that in his view could be improved upon.

No he didn't. It is not reasonable to object to the detailed provision of Grand Prix information as being "boring" simply because it inconveniently contradicts his cherrypicked narrative of the site being not up to date. It shows that firegoat complains, and if something does not meet his grounds for complaint, he then finds another pretext and complains anyway. His central motive - always - is to whinge - and nothing will ever make him happy or cause him to stop. For him it's not really about how chess in Australia is run - it's about what nonsense he can come up with to perpetuate his personal hatreds.

It is also not reasonable to object to the copyrighting of ratings data. The ACF ratings data reflects the hard work of a very large number of volunteers collecting information around the country, and two in particular processing it. To allow these efforts to be parasitically used for commercial profit without permission, in a way that is also a threat to ACF revenue, would be not just a betrayal of those efforts but also obviously stupid. So he's just whining and trolling without thinking it through because he is a hothead. This is a pattern of behaviour proven countless times over more than a decade.

Does he have to volunteer for duty before his voice can be heard?

Anyone can be heard but "the right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously".

[HydraTED]

KB your focus on volunteering in this discussion seems at odds with your treatment of one of the biggest and most successful volunteers in Australian Chess. I of course refer to the highly dubious CC life-banning of award-winning chess organiser [..].

Unfortunately said award-winning chess organiser insisted on making persistent false and ludicrous attacks on the performance of volunteer moderators of Australia's only significant chess forum. Moreover, his account was not actually contributing to said forum and had not done so for many years.

As far as I can tell he does a fine job as an administrator. Why his internet persona is the way it is is beyond me.

[HydraTED]

yet you managed to do so. ... and again here!!

The correct punctuation for this unsubstantiated garbage comment was "??" (blunder) not "!!" (brilliancy). Awarding yourself !! for dud moves is, to put it as cleanly as I possibly can, self-indulgent.

[Axiom]

Unfortunately said award-winning chess organiser insisted on making persistent false and ludicrous attacks on the performance of volunteer moderators of Australia's only significant chess forum.

Even if this is the case, surely simply pointing out how the attacks were false or ludicrous would be enough. And if they persisted, to simply respond as you have just done here with a comment like: "He is making persistent false and ludicrous attacks on the performance of volunteer moderators"
Your case for life-banning MOZ really does not hold up to any level of analytical scrutiny.

Moreover, his account was not actually contributing to said forum and had not done so for many years.

Not relevant and hardly surprising given the shambolic way he was treated.

As far as I can tell he does a fine job as an administrator. Why his internet persona is the way it is is beyond me.

Underscoring my claim that you have allowed your subjective biases to interfere with the task of objectively and fairly moderating a chess forum.

[Axiom]

The correct punctuation for this unsubstantiated garbage comment was "??" (blunder) not "!!" (brilliancy). Awarding yourself !! for dud moves is, to put it as cleanly as I possibly can, self-indulgent.

So anything but address MOZ's argument!!

[HydraTED]

Even if this is the case, surely simply pointing out how the attacks were false or ludicrous would be enough.
And if they persisted, to simply respond as you have just done here with a comment like: "He is making persistent false and ludicrous attacks on the performance of volunteer moderators"

Responses of this kind had no effect whatsoever on the ridiculous behaviour in question, or if anything caused him to increase it as a rather juvenile form of attempted teasing. So your suggestion just shows that you were paying no attention to the situation you are complaining about, and didn't even bother to get your facts in order before whinging. As with firegoat, the point in your case is to complain whatever the reality.

Your case for life-banning MOZ really does not hold up to any level of analytical scrutiny.

You would not know analytical scrutiny if you tripped over it, as you have done hundreds of times in the past, usually responding with diversions and goalpost-shifting.

Not really relevant and hardly surprising given the shambolic way he was treated.

On the contrary he was treated very leniently and given a very large number of chances to reform. Even then, his ridiculous behaviour did not alone cause his permanent banning.

Underscoring my claim that you have allowed your subjective biases to interfere with the task of objectively and fairly moderating a chess forum.

It is entirely fair and objectively reasonable to exclude those who persist in making such objectively false attacks when there is simply no excuse for doing so. So there is no evidence whatsoever of the interference you refer to.

PS #20 = more unsubstantiated gibberish. The argument was addressed, that you don't like how is not my fault.

[Axiom]

Responses of this kind had no effect whatsoever on the ridiculous behaviour in question, or if anything caused him to increase it as a rather juvenile form of attempted teasing.

Which if true could have easily been left to stand for what is was worth. Others may or may not see it the same way as you. Hence why this ruling of yours reeks with personal bias. Again, this recourse to life-banning makes no sense.

You would not know analytical scrutiny if you tripped over it, as you have done hundreds of times in the past, usually responding with diversions and goalpost-shifting.

EXXXXCUUUUUSE ME?!?!??
The SS Lusitania carried munitions contrary to the Cruiser Deal agreement and was a viable target. Though her sinking was used as a propaganda tool over 2 years to convince Americans to join WW1!!

On the contrary he was treated very leniently and given a very large number of chances to reform. Even then, his ridiculous behaviour did not alone cause his permanent banning.

yes you can hardly life-ban an award-winning chess organiser solely for "ridiculous behaviour"

It is entirely fair and objectively reasonable to exclude those who persist in making such objectively false attacks when there is simply no excuse for doing so. So there is no evidence whatsoever of the interference you refer to.

could you name one or two instances where this is in fact the case and not the result of simply personal bias?

PS #20 = more unsubstantiated gibberish. The argument was addressed, that you don't like how is not my fault.

you call that addressing MOZ's argument?
Readers - Please note.

[HydraTED]

Which if true could have easily been left to stand for what is was worth. Others may or may not see it the same way as you.

Then they are delusional and irrelevant. For instance (and this also addresses your request for examples), MOZ frequently claimed that Chesschat moderators banned members in order to reach a quota of bans. He claimed this irrespective of actual large variations in the banning rate, irrespective of the total lack of evidence for the claim (beyond that banning actually happened, for some posters frequently for short periods) and he would not desist from claiming it no matter how many times he was told it was false and despite his complete inability to provide any evidence for it. The opinion of anyone who thinks his claims were valid is of no more account to any rational or even sane person than the views of someone who thinks that 2+2=637.

Hence why this ruling of yours reeks with personal bias.

Your premise fell over so your conclusion does likewise.

EXXXXCUUUUUSE ME?!?!??
The SS Lusitania carried munitions contrary to the Cruiser Deal agreement and was a viable target. Though her sinking was used as a propaganda tool over 2 years to convince Americans to join WW1!!

A fine example of what I was talking about. In a previous debate re the Lusitania, I asked you "when was it first publicly reported that munitions were carried on board? choose your answer very carefully". Even after being alerted to the need for care, you wrote "2008". When I pointed out that munitions in large quantities had in fact been reported in the days after the sinking you then tried to shift the goalposts to "munitions as in unlawful munitions !" I wrote at the time:

When you prove that what he is saying is wrong, he claims he was saying something entirely different, then abuses you and claims victory on the basis of some claim he never made and you never disputed.

If you ever learn anything about how to debate the Lusitania case successfully it will be because you have very slowly managed to weed out the blunders by learning from my critique of your poor efforts.

yes you can hardly life-ban an award-winning chess organiser solely for "ridiculous behaviour"

We can and we did. The notion that him winning an award for chess organisation should result in him giving a free pass for his behaviour towards our forum and its posters is simply discriminatory. He was judged for his conduct, not for who he is.

you call that addressing MOZ's argument?

It is barely worth addressing since it is silly posturing based on the spurious idea that updatedness demonstrates the officialness or otherwise of a site, which is just another of his silly little word games. But in #7 I did address #6 by pointing out that substantive updating of the official ACF website does occur. This - if I must spell it out - shows that the claimed dichotomy of sites (one up to date, one not) is illusory.

Indeed very little official ACF information of the sorts MOZ mentions appears on Chesschat that does not also appear either on the ACF website or in the ACF newsletter. So the whole thing was a beatup just to start another conflagration.

I'm impressed though with how quickly you have allowed the topic to drift to silly people who got themselves banned from CC and how much they deserved it though

[Axiom]

Then they are delusional and irrelevant. For instance (and this also addresses your request for examples), MOZ frequently claimed that Chesschat moderators banned members in order to reach a quota of bans. He claimed this irrespective of actual large variations in the banning rate, irrespective of the total lack of evidence for the claim (beyond that banning actually happened, for some posters frequently for short periods) and he would not desist from claiming it no matter how many times he was told it was false and despite his complete inability to provide any evidence for it. The opinion of anyone who thinks his claims were valid is of no more account to any rational or even sane person than the views of someone who thinks that 2+2=637.

Your inability to appreciate MOZ's crypto-wicked sense of humour is scarcely his fault.

Your premise fell over so your conclusion does likewise.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves bigboy.

A fine example of what I was talking about. In a previous debate re the Lusitanica, I asked you "when was it first publicly reported that munitions were carried on board? choose your answer very carefully". Even after being alerted to the need for care, you wrote "2008". When I pointed out that munitions in large quantities had in fact been reported in the days after the sinking you then tried to shift the goalposts to "munitions as in unlawful munitions !" I wrote at the time:

When you prove that what he is saying is wrong, he claims he was saying something entirely different, then abuses you and claims victory on the basis of some claim he never made and you never disputed.

If you ever learn anything about how to debate the Lusitanica case successfully it will be because you have very slowly managed to weed out the blunders by learning from my critique of your poor efforts.

First of all learn to spell Lusitania correctly. You cheeky fucking monkey.
Secondly, you provide a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees, as per my ever central claim:

"The SS Lusitania carried munitions contrary to the Cruiser Deal agreement and was a viable target. Though her sinking was used as a propaganda tool over 2 years to convince Americans to join WW1!!"

We can and we did. The notion that him winning an award for chess organisation should result in him giving a free pass for his behaviour towards our forum and its posters is simply discriminatory. He was judged for his conduct, not for who he is.

And his conduct, given a jury of his peers rather than a dictator, would i dare say show that life-banning was an excessive response.

[HydraTED]

Your inability to appreciate MOZ's crypto-wicked sense of humour is scarcely his fault.

So, did those who posted "ALERT, MOP AND BUCKET REQUIRED" in his direction have a "crypto-wicked sense of humour" too?

If he didn't actually believe it and was just being stupid he had ample opportunities to say so.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves bigboy.

You can hardly get ahead of yourself - you're permanently there.

Secondly, you provide a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees, as per my ever central claim:

No, the "wood" here is actually my claim that "You would not know analytical scrutiny if you tripped over it", and your mention of the LooseSatanica provided another opportunity for me to demonstrate this by reference to a debate in which you lost the plot on your own special subject!

And his conduct, given a jury of his peers rather than a dictator, would i dare say show that life-banning was an excessive response.

But there is a jury of his peers. As he himself has been telling us, the CC mods are also chess organisers! He can appeal to the others to be reinstated any time he likes.

[george]

Hi All,
I will ask the SACA ACF Councillor to place on an upcoming ACF Council Agenda a discussion of having a paid position of ACF Webmaster (the agenda for the next meeting may already be determined but it could be considered at the earliest suitable time, which may not be till early next year). This position would enhance and in a timely fashion update the ACF Website.

Hopefully the SACA ACF Councillor with the permission of ACF President could enable such a discussion. Understanding to some extent the workings of ACF Council it may well be necessary for the SACA ACF Councillor to prepare a motion which could then be discussed and voted on after any possible amendments.

I believe this would be a reasoned approach.

[Firegoat7]

Hi All,
I will ask the SACA ACF Councillor to place on an upcoming ACF Council Agenda a discussion of having a paid position of ACF Webmaster (the agenda for the next meeting may already be determined but it could be considered at the earliest suitable time, which may not be till early next year). This position would enhance and in a timely fashion update the ACF Website.

Hopefully the SACA ACF Councillor with the permission of ACF President could enable such a discussion. Understanding to some extent the workings of ACF Council it may well be necessary for the SACA ACF Councillor to prepare a motion which could then be discussed and voted on after any possible amendments.

I believe this would be a reasoned approach.

Huh? You don't want to have a wall of text discussion with KB? hahahahahahaha

[Axiom]

So, did those who posted "ALERT, MOP AND BUCKET REQUIRED" in his direction have a "crypto-wicked sense of humour" too?

No that was more crude and base.

If he didn't actually believe it and was just being stupid he had ample opportunities to say so.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You can hardly get ahead of yourself - you're permanently there.

Let's just say i'm where it's at.

No, the "wood" here is actually my claim that "You would not know analytical scrutiny if you tripped over it", and your mention of the LooseSatanica provided another opportunity for me to demonstrate this by reference to a debate in which you lost the plot on your own special subject!

I have refuted that claim. I'm more than happy for readers to draw their own conclusions.

But there is a jury of his peers. As he himself has been telling us, the CC mods are also chess organisers! He can appeal to the others to be reinstated any time he likes.

We can only hope Barry and Bill are a little more big picture thinking when it comes to putting chess ahead of personal squabbles.

[Axiom]

Hi All,
I will ask the SACA ACF Councillor to place on an upcoming ACF Council Agenda a discussion of having a paid position of ACF Webmaster (the agenda for the next meeting may already be determined but it could be considered at the earliest suitable time, which may not be till early next year). This position would enhance and in a timely fashion update the ACF Website.

Hopefully the SACA ACF Councillor with the permission of ACF President could enable such a discussion. Understanding to some extent the workings of ACF Council it may well be necessary for the SACA ACF Councillor to prepare a motion which could then be discussed and voted on after any possible amendments.

I believe this would be a reasoned approach.

Excellent george.

[HydraTED]

No that was more crude and base.

Come on now. "Crude and base" is firegoat threatening people with violence or MS vulgarising the names of new posters who had done nothing to deserve it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case it is compelling evidence that whether he was serious or not he was willing to be taken seriously and to have people believe his accusations to be true and/or meant seriously, whatever the consequences.

If someone is so devoted to making stupid, repetitive jokes at the expense of others that they get themselves banned over it then they are hardly a martyr to anything.

Let's just say i'm where it's at.

Let's not. It isn't true.

We can only hope Barry and Bill are a little more big picture thinking when it comes to putting chess ahead of personal squabbles.

Actually your insults and hopes are irrelevant since MOZ has made no attempt to apply to Bill or Barry to be unbanned. In my view he never will but is happy for you to waste your electronic breath with your pointless fake vicarious outrage.

Moreover given that MOZ was contributing nothing to CC, the idea that banning him was harmful to chess is unsubstantiated piffle.