Quote:

I can live with that and with any other solution as long it is working. I just want a chess discussion here - no more. No self-promotion, no caps-shouting, no bad jokes - this is a virtual analysis room and not a chit chat corner (well there is even a chit chat section - why do people not use it?). Did you try to post something in a BDG thread - you may end up as "chicken" at least   - or dont you find it annoying starting a thread and ending up looking at a completely irrelevant personal discussion between forum members  


Chesspub has to be   and   and   and   


Edit: reminds me of the logo discussion (there has to be a thread somewhere) - if we continue Tony should change the logo from a beer glas to a red cross

More often Galloway's is a self-imposed ban, preferring as he does not to visit the commons all that often.  Speaking on behalf of your constituents and doing the job you're being paid for is much less fun than rubbing shoulders with Syrian generals or Darth Vader, or hosting radio free-Hackney, or whatever it is he does.

For the most part, he too is indulged, even when he's off telling the enemy that we're the worst thing since teutonic sliced bread.

Still, he learned Norm Coleman good, eh?!

Far from a volte-face, asking the moderators to use their discretionary powers with discretion is surely the best solution, Matemax?

I don't know how, or why, you'd legislate for bad manners. 'any hint of obstreperous behaviour and you will be banned'? Again, at the discretion of the moderator.

The machinery is in place, let's not manufacture further hysteria.  If the powers that be can't just have a quiet word with an offender, inform them as to what they consider to be civilized comportment, then quietly erase them should they persist, and instead prefer to put it to the vote, everything grinds to a halt.

Would administrators be inconvenienced more or less by a new set of rules to enforce?  Bitter experience in the world beyond jolly little internet forums suggests, perhaps, more

You miss the point, Matemax. I don't think -- and plenty of people agree with me -- that anyone should be banned.

As I write, this thread has 491 views, and 29 posts. Other threads, such as the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, have hundreds of posts and at least a thousand or even thousands, of views.

Just to show which threads are more popular, more viewed.

Viceroy, Bibs,

If you read the posts, quite a few of my threads have been read thousands of times. That alone should tell you something. With regard to attention-seeking drivel, let me turn the argument on you. By your logic, anyone, including you, who posts on this site, seeks attention.
Just take a look at who has how many posts.

You don't like my threads? Start one of your own. Nobody is stopping you from doing that, but you are trying to stop me. I don't think that's fair.

I do not think it is right that we are even discussing banning someone. You don't like a thread, don't read it, plain and simple. If anything, as MNb, Roger Williamson and a few other honest people pointed out, why make a problem bigger than it is? But you two, judging from the tone of your posts, would ban anyone you do not like.

Personally, I don't much care about some of the things said about me.
In fact, I find them to be inaccurate and offensive. But the thing is, I would never write Tony and ask him to ban someone. Why? Because I respect a poster's right to freedom of speech. I don't agree with what's said, but I will defend your right to say it. That's U.S. tradition.

Viceroy, Bibs, grow up. Realize that you cannot ban someone from saying things that you disagree with. You are basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater by arguing for a ban. How so? You start banning people left and right, pretty much there won't be anyone left.
Even in Britain, people have the right to say what they think. Member of Parliament George Galloway is controversial, but he is not banned from the House of Commons for saying what he thinks.

I don't agree with Galloway on a whole raft of issues, but that neither here nor there. The  point is that people should not be banned for saying what they think.

Finally, you say this forum lost members? How about you show us some statistics to back up your claim? Because if you have no proof, then it is all hot air. If on the other hand, this forum gained members, then your claim has been refuted.

Case in point.

3 strikes and out from Tony:
1. Warn politely, thank for efforts, encourage to post more productively.
2. Warn again.
3. Out

Or perhaps a sin bin as the result of the out would be more appropriate for a certain period (e.g. 3 months, then 6 months, then total)

Then Lev/Gambit (or whomever) could be allowed back with a signed note from their mum or home room teacher that the post had been checked for politeness and lack of idiocy.

This is all so very dreary that behaviour has to be discussed. Oh, tedium. Tony - time to take control and sort it.

MNb wrote on 03/14/09 at 21:28:26:

True, but I still receive regular PMs asking me to ban a certain free speech enthusiast, and there is no saying the same problem won't arise again in the future.
The question is: do I make a unilateral decision to ban someone, do we have a team of Moderators, say (as per Smyslov_Fan's suggestion), or a public vote?

Hmmm... Both MNb and Roger Williamson make good arguments, with which I agree. Now what the heck was that "infamous 1 e4 e5 thread" all about? Sounds like it was a really controversial one, all right.
I don't usually post there, so I guess I missed something...

The "Anonymous" guy, I think he was pretty rude. I have only seen a few of his posts, though, months ago. Anyhow, the colorful discussion is what makes this forum lively. Without such colorful discussion it would be about as interesting as a class in Calculus.