< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 488 OF 1032 ·
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Neme> I got it, you and I are golden as always. I won't have much of a sense of humor until I hear back from <Daniel>, however. |
I'd love an email from you, lots to catch up on, no?
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Colonel> everyone can see your original point. The problem is that the admins explicitly and categorically stated as recently as last Christmas that they are not going to boot <AJ> off the site.|
So, what is the next best administrative move to at least limit his and his detractors' damage, to keep it off of the games pages that aren't his?
That's the only useful thing to discuss, unless the admins change their mind.
|Feb-26-12|| ||WannaBe: <jessicafischerqueen> *sigh* never mind me, just let me live in my own happy little world. OK?|
|Feb-26-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <jessica> Well it seems that <AJ> was sanctioned around Xmas time regarding his rude comments towards <Eric Schiller>. That seemed to work for while - he was behaved and people left him alone.|
My point is that <AJ> is the common denominator. You have to isolate the problem before you fix it.
As <Neme> implied there will always be new recruits in the flame war with Goldsby...
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Colonel> I don't think we are really at cross purposes here- let's just see what, if anything, Daniel has to say about the issue at this particular point in time.|
|Feb-26-12|| ||Nemesistic: I do indeed owe you a flightless bird Jess, and it will be good to catch up and have a yap, so i promise you i'll contact you within 24hrs..|
I'm moving house this week so iv only been nipping in and out of here, but i promise you i will be in touch :)
And when did the administrators say they'd never ban AJ Goldsby, because that kind of gives him license to do as he pleases!!
Which would explain a lot...
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Neme> they said it, for the second time too, just before Christmas ("Christmas isn't the best time to conduct a public lynching"), but as <The Colonel> has just pointed out, the admins did sanction <AJ> for attacking <Eric Schiller>. That gives me cause for hope they will do something about this desecration of historical games pages issue now.|
|Feb-26-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: The bottom line is that I am not going anywhere. (Not now, not ever.) So "in your face," to all of the detractors <i.e., real losers> who deluded themselves that if they banged hard enough on the table and screamed loud and long enough ... they could "force" the owners of this site to do anything at all. |
The feeble attempt to have me banned from this site never had a chance to succeed, and I know that for a fact - and I could post the e-mails proving this ... because I save nearly everything. (Anyitme I get an-e-mail I think I will want to refer back to I copy it to myself.)
I think the admins here have too much to do already. (They have real problems like server problems and power outages and network failures and software bugs and a million and one other things that you cannot imagine unless you have helped run a business. Many of you are clueless here because you have no experience in such matters.)
I DO have a suggestion, however. Give me the power to remove all non-chess posts. I will remove all of the trolls comments, all of my links, and anything else that is not 100% chess related. ("WORD!!!!!!!") I will do this for my pages, and also any of the "historical pages" that JFQ claims to be so worried about. (I don't buy it. Its more of her posturing hypocrisy. But let's pretend for a minute that's she is sincere, even though I am sure she is incapable of this. What's really weird is that I can show you personal e-mails where JFQ claimed to be frightened of Mark Finan, and now she and him <Nemesistic> are best friends. Its too bizarre, I could not make <junk> like this up.)
Now letting one of the people in this mess help clean it up ... that's a really good idea and would not cost the owners of this site any time or money. Of course the low-life punks from "the troop" would scream bloody murder, but (for the most part), they never really contribute anything positive to this site ... anyway. So it would be a "win-win" solution for all involved.
|Feb-26-12|| ||WannaBe: <AJ>
1. Skip the email crap, no one here believes you on that.
2. Yes, the admins have a lot of things to do, but power-outages and network failures are not it. This shows me your lack of understanding of computers and networks. They have no more control over hardware and supply of electricity than you have during a Florida Hurricane.
3. <I DO have a suggestion... all of my links, ...> Why did you post them in the first place??
4. <I can show you personal emails where JFQ...> Okay, I change my mind, please show us the email, put up, or shut up.
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <WannaBe> are you out of your mind? You just suggested that one member <AJ> post a private email from another member <me> without my consent?|
Seriously, have you lost your mind?
|Feb-26-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <AJ> is not lying about that email he refers to here. However, I don't see the contradiction myself. I was indeed afraid of <Mark>, and some months later, after we got to know each other via email, I was not only not afraid of him anymore, we became good friends. Now he's a mate.|
|Feb-27-12|| ||WannaBe: <jessicafischerqueen> If, <AJ> wish to post that he knows about that info, and (I don't know/care how he got the info), since the (gist) of the content is already announced by <AJ>, no, I don't see any problem with it.|
Unless, of course, he is bluffing/lying, in that case, it would not be (re)produced. Hence, either way, logically, the info is out.
|Feb-27-12|| ||WannaBe: <What's really weird is that I can show you personal e-mails where JFQ claimed to be frightened of Mark Finan, and now she and him <Nemesistic> are best friends. Its too bizarre, I could not make <junk> like this up.) >|
So, now my questions are these, how did <AJ> get 'personal email' between two parties?
Did one side share it with <AJ>? And does that stil make it personal, if <AJ> come out and discloses it?
|Feb-27-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <WannaBe> get your hoof out of your mouth, and stop encouraging <AJ> to publish private emails I sent to him.|
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID AND INSENSITIVE.
<AJ> is not mixed up- he is referring solely to an email I sent to him. As I said ALREADY he is not lying about its contents.
|Feb-27-12|| ||frogbert: wannabe, i don't think you want to start any email disclosure trend, even if i (for one) have no problem in believing in the existence of cg.com kibitzers who write one thing in private emails and very different things here on the site. i say, let it rest.|
i'm slightly surprised about jfq's attitude towards kibitzing on certain game pages of this site, though. here's how she feels about this "pollution":
<If you will not refrain from this behavior, you are not only no better than him- then YOU are also as damaging to this website as he is.
It means you don't give a rat's ass about the website. It means you don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.>
in the past i know other kibitzers had strong feelings about how "historical player pages" were being polluted by noise and nonsense of various kinds. for some reason this desire to make certain "historical player pages" a representative window outwards, for cg.com and the players in question, was met with the following attitude from jfq: (paraphrased, not an actual quote)
"this is *censorship*. anyone can post whatever they like on any cg.com page they like as long as the posting guidelines are followed. trying to influence anyone's posting habits is megalomania and tyrrany. only very bad people would do such a thing."
jessica, have you changed your mind about this? or is the relevant issue <who> cares for something, not *what* one cares for?
if you want to discuss my allegations about your past attitude, i suggest we do it over at dom's instead of polluting the cg.com support forum further. however, if you simply have changed your mind, no discussion is needed.
|Feb-27-12|| ||frogbert: <Unless, of course, he is bluffing/lying, in that case, it would not be (re)produced. Hence, either way, logically, the info is out.>|
just for the record, wannabe: that anyone <claims> anything about any private email, discloses no information about the email per se.
|Feb-27-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <frogbert> first, thank you.|
Second, I don't dispute the gist of my quote you paraphrased, but I don't see how it applies to what I'm objecting to?
<as long as the posting guidelines are followed> is the key point in what I said earlier.
The <AJ> v the <World> flame war does not <follow the posting guidelines>.
First it was merely trading insults on <AJ's> own pages. Now it has spread to actual master game pages, some famous, and involves not only the trading of lengthy batches of infantile insults, but also this "Troll spam" link that both <AJ> and his attackers have been liberally spreading around the master pages.
|Feb-27-12|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <AJ> <The feeble attempt to have me banned from this site never had a chance to succeed, and I know that for a fact - and I could post the e-mails proving this>|
|Feb-27-12|| ||frogbert: <I don't dispute the gist of my quote you paraphrased, but I don't see how it applies to what I'm objecting to?>|
then either you were never much up to speed about some issues you had very strong opinions on in the past, or you fail to see that you're trying very hard to influence other kibitzers' behaviour at this very moment. or both.
i think i'll leave it at that. i can relate more to your current initiative of "protecting" useful commentary on game pages, than to some of the things you fronted in the past. :o)
|Feb-27-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <frogbert> thank you, I appreciate you giving me benefit of the doubt. I don't think administrative censorship of posts should be taken lightly- but as I've been arguing, too long the last two days, admittedly- is that this is a crisis situation, at least to my mind.|
And yes, ironically, gusting up to hypocritically, I've been "polluting" the admin forum the last two days.
Finally, I'd like to thank you again for further elaborating on privacy ethics and the difference between the contents of an actual private email and someone merely referring to those contents in public.
And as I said twice already, <AJ> was not lying about the content of the email he referred to. I did write and send that to him, he's not exaggerating even.
<frogbert> I'm going to take your implied advice and abandon this topic on the admin forum for the moment. As I said earlier, I'll wait to see what <Daniel Freeman> has to say about the email I sent him.
|Feb-27-12|| ||chessgames.com: ♔ IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ♔
As most devoted Chessgames members know, the Kibitzing areas of Chessgames--like any large internet forum--have had their share of flame wars. Vitriolic exchanges fly back and forth between people who scarcely know each other. Lately, one of them in particular has become very visible, spilling onto pages of all sorts of classic games. This longstanding problem has now proliferated to the extent that nearly every Chessgames member has been exposed to it.
Lately, the Chessgames.com admins have had a flood of complaints, and as a result they've deleted many messages. We decided to start to keep score, and determine exactly which members are the cause of most of our disturbances. Not surprisingly, we found that the same names crop up again and again.
Now we're prepared to take extraordinary measures to try to stamp out this flame war: we have now placed a number of members on kibitzing probation. All of these individuals have been identified as the main participants of this flame war.
There are seven of them (at current count) and all been placed on kibitzing probation for one week, in what we call a "cooling off period". They are as follows: <Colonel Mortimer>, <JoergWalter>, <LIFE Master AJ>, <Nemesistic>, <Robed.Bishop>, <SimonWebbsTiger>, and <TheFocus>.
We hope that when this week is over, some degree of civility is restored.
The primary rule broken by all of these individuals is rule 3, "No personal attacks against other users", the rule tailor-made to discourage flame wars.
However, many of the deleted posts were also guilty of rule 1 (obscenity) and rule 3 (spamming/duplicating posts). We are not going to address the infractions on a post-by-post basis, but if you are earnestly confused at our posting policies, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org, and we'll be happy to clarify your question.
During this cooling off period, our admins will continue to clean up some of the mess created during the past few months. However, they aren't going to try to bail water out of a leaking boat. If any antagonist tries to revive the flame war during this period, he or she will be placed on kibitzing probation without compunction.
We know that some people will have many more questions, so a list of notes is compiled below. Other questions are best addressed directly to email@example.com.
The following individuals were not placed on the list in spite of identified posting violations. They are instead hereby issued warnings: <King Death>, <KKDEREK>, <Rob Lob Law>, and <theagenbiteofinwit>.
The "cooling off period" extends from 12:00am midnight, Monday, February 27 to 12:00am midnight, Monday, March 5.
This list is not perfect. There may be one or two people on it who don't deserve to be there. Meanwhile, there are surely people who deserve to be on it, yet aren't mentioned. So it goes.
If you are on probation and want to communicate to an administrator for any reason, contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Do NOT create an alternate account for any reason whatsoever.
If you are on probation and feel a great need to voice your opinion about this matter in public, you have only two sanctioned methods: 1. Post something on your "bio" area, so that people can read it if they choose to pull up your profile page. 2. wait a week.
If any member attempts to subvert this one week cooling off period by registering a second "sockpuppet" account, or using a sockpuppet account already established, they will be subject to an extended (if not indefinite) probation.
Finally, let us remind everybody that the purpose of this action is not to single out specific members, nor to "make an example" of out anybody, but rather to restore civility and decency to the forums. Please help us accomplish that goal by contributing to a peaceful Chessgames, in whatever way you are inclined.
|Feb-27-12|| ||frogbert: (wow - i got reply #13500 in this forum in my previous post here... ;o)|
i used to have one minor quibble with how the game pages with java viewers work in at least firefox: when a game page initially is loaded, typically the applet grabs focus - which is nice, because you immediately can start playing through the game by using arrow keys only.
however, moving down and up the page with the keyboard doesn't immediately work, and surprisingly clicking <outside> the java applet (the chess board) doesn't help either - the (keyboard) focus remains with the pgn viewer.
recently i noticed that <hitting tab> (the standard way to move between input fields and buttons/links on a web page in any browser) may take one out of this situation, so that moving down the page using the keys again starts to work as i'd like it to. but sometimes, after having got "keyboard control" back, the focus returns to the java applet after scrolling only one (half-) page down. and then the only two "work-arounds" i've found are to
1) use the scroll-bar to move to the kibitzing textarea, click inside it, click outside it, or
2) change back and forth between the current and some other tab (using the mouse)
after those exercises, moving around in the browser using the keyboard again works as desired.
this doesn't appear to be related to the change from 'chess viewer deluxe 1' to the newer 'cvd 2 (beta)'. it might be a general java/applet issue in firefox (i'm on 10.0.x now, but i've experienced the same thing in many earlier releases too), but somehow that appears a bit odd, too. in fact, it seems to happen <only> with 'cvd' (1 or 2) - not the other java viewers.
can you (or anyone else) reproduce this, and if so, do you think there's anything configurable on your side that will influence how focus is handled in browsers (the problem only occurs with game pages when a java-viewer is selected)? is there possibly a bug in the applet itself, or can it be loaded (from the game page) in a different way?
this isn't a big show stopper, but it's a minor annoyance. i strongly doubt that i'm the only one affected by it, but my preference for using keys over the mouse might be stronger than for the average user. :o)
|Feb-27-12|| ||dakgootje: interesting change
Equally interesting will be the effects of it
|Feb-27-12|| ||OhioChessFan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hy5...|
|Feb-27-12|| ||chancho: You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind... you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't mess around with Freeman. :-)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 488 OF 1032 ·
100% Cotton Chess Puzzle Shirt