(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing General › ChessPub.com Forum › A vote to ban members?
(Moderators: GMTonyKosten, Smyslov_Fan)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) A vote to ban members? (Read 55861 times)
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #50 - 03/16/09 at 18:16:05
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 03/16/09 at 13:54:04:
Tony

Not sure that a tiny 'abuser' will stop this idiot rampaging through your site. 

Walking around his small town wearing 'I am foolish, and even worse, I have no sense of humour' may not even do that I fear, but would garner him the attention he appears to so dearly crave. 

I really do not understand why anyone would be so desperate to either annoy or to be noticed? A lack of maternal attention? Severe case of Seasonal Affective Disorder in northern Finland? Incarceration? 

Sort it out - ban him or give Lev plenty of lithium, then we can get back to some chess...



Bibs,

I don't drink lithium, and in any case, you are too far away to administer it to me. By the same token, I would not force you to drink wine if you did not want to. So back off on that.

My views on banning are pretty clear. I do not think anyone should be banned for saying something. This is a forum where people exchange opinions, chit chat, analyse, and so forth. By this logic, people should understand that just because you disagree with an opinion, you should not be banned.

Attention craving is the least of your worries. Jesus, look at the number of posts we all make! The highest category, "God Member", is the one posting the most. MNb, with due respect, has over 5200 posts.
So is he an "attention craver"? What about you, Bibs?

Dude, all the  posts on this forum are made to get people's attention! Everyone here is an attention craver, some less so than others. So, let me turn this back on you. Do you say we should ban attention cravers? Wow! That means banning people who have hundreds and thousands of posts, per your logic!

Bibs,  you  are spouting utter nonsense with your drivel about northern Finland and the like. You presume to make assumptions about a person you do not even know. You are not my doctor, sir. For this reason, you have no right to make assumptions about my medical history. Me, I do not do that about you.

Angry
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #49 - 03/16/09 at 17:55:33
Post Tools
Yes, good point! Why do people compplain about the threads they contribute voluminously to?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 902
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #48 - 03/16/09 at 17:46:29
Post Tools
The mods exist to make these sorts of decisions; to abdicate the tough decisions to the mob is just wrong (and impractical to boot).

Also mystifies me why people complain about threads that they contribute voluminously to. That seems a bit silly.
  
'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #47 - 03/16/09 at 14:43:16
Post Tools
What I like most is the possible combination of  "abuser" and "god member".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3194
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #46 - 03/16/09 at 14:39:00
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 03/16/09 at 13:54:04:

Not sure that a tiny 'abuser' will stop this idiot rampaging through your site.

Maybe something in CAPS?
  
Back to top
WWWFacebookTwitter  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #45 - 03/16/09 at 14:38:54
Post Tools
I agree, and I say, ban him.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2342
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #44 - 03/16/09 at 13:54:04
Post Tools
Tony

Not sure that a tiny 'abuser' will stop this idiot rampaging through your site. 

Walking around his small town wearing 'I am foolish, and even worse, I have no sense of humour' may not even do that I fear, but would garner him the attention he appears to so dearly crave. 

I really do not understand why anyone would be so desperate to either annoy or to be noticed? A lack of maternal attention? Severe case of Seasonal Affective Disorder in northern Finland? Incarceration? 

Sort it out - ban him or give Lev plenty of lithium, then we can get back to some chess...

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #43 - 03/16/09 at 12:53:01
Post Tools
Nonsense, Markovich! The caps are not there to annoy, but to highlight a title in large letters, as some newpapers do. And the "Cowardice in Chess" is there precisely to discuss what constitutes cowardice. 

For example, Staunton refused to play Morphy. Karpov refused to play Fischer. Alekhine avoided giving a rematch to Capablanca.
The list goes on and on.

It is another thing that not everyone is happy with that thread. But as I said, if you are not happy with it, don't read it. Me, I am not happy with some posts, but I don't call for any poster to be banned. In the American tradition, I respect freedom of speech. That's something a lot of people here need to learn: respecting freedom of speech.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #42 - 03/16/09 at 12:50:35
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 03/16/09 at 05:30:22:
Maybe this whole thread should not have been started in the first place?


Maybe the umpteenth thread devoted to "cowardice in chess," announced in all caps, should not have been started in the first place, Lev.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #41 - 03/16/09 at 12:41:16
Post Tools
This is not a free speech issue.  Free speech doesn't give you the right to sound off in just any forum whatever. 

This is one of the most polite internet forums, on any subject, of which I am aware.  I am very sorry, however, that it has become the occasional venue for, how to put this? - juvenile behavior.

One of the absolute worst things is the occasional chess ignoramus who comes here and spouts nonsense, and when someone points out his errors, either launches into ad hominem attacks or starts spouting off about the supposed prejudice of the chess world. 

The other thing other thing bothers me is the incessant appearance here of threads designed to annoy, frequently with the topic announced in all caps.  For example, I have seen the question of what constitutes "cowardice in chess" raised here repeatedly over the past few years, and I feel safe in asserting that the entire purpose of raising it is to annoy.

Although it would seem to be a very minor offense, the practice of posting a topic in all caps has become annoying because it frequently announces a highly provocative topic.  So I think that any thread with the topic announced in all caps should instantly be deleted.  It should be the responsibility of the thread originator, not the moderators here, to cast the topic into correct form, and immediate deletion would supply the correct incentive.  Really the broader point is that any thread whose clear purpose is to goad or annoy should be removed.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3194
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #40 - 03/16/09 at 11:36:58
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 03/13/09 at 06:20:59:

That's why we have freedom of speech in United States of America.
The First Amendment allows anyone to state his/her opinion on any subject.

Why keep harping on about free speech? It simply doesn't apply to Forums.
I've decided to try out the 'abuser' idea with various limitations on rights to see how that works in practice.
  
Back to top
WWWFacebookTwitter  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #39 - 03/16/09 at 05:30:22
Post Tools
Maybe this whole thread should not have been started in the first place? It would saved everyone a lot of time, among other things.
But now that it is here, well... You know my views on the subject.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 454
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #38 - 03/16/09 at 02:27:18
Post Tools
1 Require registration with valid email address.
2 Move to Chit Chat

There are a lot of other good suggestions but i think they usually are rather complex to see through. It's not worth spending to much time on. 

The Moderater rules. Let's focus on chess.
  
What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #37 - 03/15/09 at 20:04:54
Post Tools
Why do you think this discussion is limited to just one thread? Because it is best that way. 

Btw, moving stuff to Chit Chat is the best solution.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: A vote to ban members?
Reply #36 - 03/15/09 at 19:51:52
Post Tools
"I want some rules."

Societies only write rules when the unwritten norms have already been broken.


3 Strikes and you're out:
There are people who have been privately warned several times.  Does that mean they should already be kicked out?  What about a person who does such an egregious thing that there is no mistaking his intention to harm the site?

I am still opposed to having a public vote in which only those who are interested and know about the issue cast a vote.  

This would limit the numbers and run into two contrary problems:  the first is that the person in question could be so disliked that even if his posts are acceptable he is removed. The second problem is also one of popularity:  While interest in banning a person would be limited, the defendant could conceivably bring in a number of friends to become members and have them all vote for him to stay.


Also, (I have seen this happen), opening up the vote to all members will either necessitate making public some private information and messages or water down the case so much that there seems to be no legitimate reason to ban such a person.  

If either Tony makes the decision or a small group, with a record of trust and sworn to privacy, make the decision, then a precedent will have been set and we can consider codifying the rules.  Btw, there already are rules for posting on this site! 

This issue needs to be resolved one way or another quickly.  The longer it is debated, the less this site looks like a chess site.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge