In fairness to Gambit the recent deleted post wasn't very bad, just provocative.  My starting this is more a due to cumulative weariness with this person than to particularly bad conduct recently.  Actually he has stopped doing some bad things, like always talking about cowardice in chess, since I started deleting his posts that contain it.

P.S. So far as I know, only Tony has the power to ban, and that is as it should be.

@Chevy, I don't think the issue is Gambit's playing style or passion for the BDG and other weird chess openings. The issue is more tangential postings. 

I do recall well two particularly offensive threads - one on the Confederacy and another on the Jewish Palestinian conflict. Both were deleted. But both of these  occurred some time ago. Now I have not seen  any recent offensive posts, so I cannot pass judgement here.

As someone who tends to be somewhat irreverent in my own postings  sometimes, I am very wary of going down the slippery slope of banning persons for simply being insulting or provocative. But as I said before, I do not know the content the recently deleted posts in question. I think before we even do go down that road however, the following should be taken:

1) A set of clear rules on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable postings
2) Some kind of progressive disciplinary system. For example, perhaps a warning first, followed by a one month ban before permanently banning, depending on the nature of the offence
3) Clear protocol as to who has the authority to enforce each level of disciplinary action. For example, a permanent banning should not occur simply on the judgement of one single moderator.

2c

Is the problem really Gambit or rather people who have contempt for the way he plays chess? I see a lot of contempt from people who don't add much at all to the discussion. Why is that OK? There's more than one side to this, and I tend to have more respect for Gambit the more I see this type of thing.

There are different types of chess players. Maybe some fashion themselves after Kramnik, while others have an approach much closer to the late Chepukaitis. I think there should be room for both.

@TonyRo

I don't like where you're going with that. A lot of people are not interested in most of the openings that Stefan Buecker analyzes, but I would consider him one of the best contributors in the forum.

Maybe there should be a poll on who is more annoying: mavericks or imperialists

Well it should be said I don't have to worry too much about the former censoring me...

Yeah, you're probably right about this poll.  But to entertain the larger question would be a good idea.

Quote:


No.

No.

I don't think he's done anything outrageous enough to merit a ban, at least not in the time I've been here.

Putting this question is interesting. The first reflex should be not to answer but think how it comes to this. (Never take the first train coming if you haven't read the schedule).

A personal opinion: Never make the question of banning a forum member to a popularity contest.

No. Actually I tire a bit of the ridicule from other people when I read those types of threads. OK, you're annoyed, but is it good moderation to let that determine your decision?

I wonder how many people are going to vote "yes" without giving a reason. There have been 4 votes so far and it appears that Stefan Buecker and I are the only ones who have voted "no" up to this point.