< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 69 ·
|Mar-28-12|| ||MarkFinan: Tony Palmer..
The things you come out with are just so *pathetic*, my 10yr old Niece would probably have a good giggle with you...
Please don't make subliminal/outright comments about me and my Father...AGAIN! NEVER AGAIN! Not even funny..
Iv'e no intention of ever having any kind of conversation with you, as if i wanted that type of chat id just take my niece's offer of "will you come play <insert childs game> with me Uncle Mark???
I dont know if you have real, genuine "problems", but if you do i will apologise for this post...
If you don't, please remind me how old you are, and that you're actually a decent chess player, again??
And remember *you* told me the rules, what 18 month ago now?? (well you have followed me around all that time reminding me those rules yourself since then!!)
If you'd like me to quote you, WORD FOR WORD, let me know in my forum and il show you to be the childish, strange, interfering, and downright trouble causing hypocrite you really are??
Iv'e made promises to certain people here, that i intend to keep, so i *have* to stay away from people like you and LMAJ... So please don't carry on inciting trouble with people who i consider friends, and quit all that BS psychobabble nonsense...
This is plain English im speaking to you in Tony, not "code words", no outright <insert stronger word for RUBBISH>.....
Delete this if you wish, i'll repost in my forum...
And don't ever mention my dad on this site again, freak...
|Mar-28-12|| ||tpstar: T-M (SJL 3/28/12):
click for larger view
RTG W E
M-T (SJL 3/28/12):
click for larger view
MATE B M
|Mar-29-12|| ||moronovich: Dear <tpstar>
Couldnt you please stop this fight with frogbert.
Try to leave the past behind you and move on.
Nobody here cares what have been said and done, but some do care how we behave in this global village and I do remember how often you have treated newcommers so well on this site and in other ways have given valuable inspiration to others and I dont wont you to end up in a corner were many member have lost their initial respect about you.
Smile Tony ! I am shure you can still manage, put your verbal gun aside and realise we dont live in a westernmovie but we are all here in flesh and blood as behind every avatar there is a human with feelings just like your self.
I am not asking you to marry frogbert, just leave him alone or perhaps take his offer about contacting him via e-mail.I am shure you also know as a doctor that it is communication that solves the problems and not running away with the head in the clouds.
I can almost guarentee you that you will feel pride if you swallow your pride/anger or whatever and take the more peacefull road.Same pride as someone who quits the cigarettes,gambling and the like.
It is actually easy to create enemypictures but letting them go is actually something ells.But it can be done.And the choice is yours.Do you wanna be a bra or a star ;).
If it is too difficult to do on your own I could easy imagine frogbert would be willing to let someone mediate e.g. user <once> who has professionel skills in this department.
That was all for today Tony,and remember I am not taking side in the story between you and frogbert but I am only talking as a member of this site who wants it to work as well as possible.
So let us focus on the now and move on
and smile :)
And if any questions and for a friendly visit you are always welcome at my cafe.
All the best - moro - .
|Mar-29-12|| ||tpstar: <moronovich> Thank you for your interest in making things better and not worse.|
Your friend is an unrepentant rulebreaker who has used the Internet to attack and bully and harass and threaten over several years. He wants me to forget his previous damage so he can do it all again to other people. Past behavior is the best predictor for future behavior, so no deal. The site awards were only two months ago, yet he caused so much hassle that now someone else gets to do it. Moreover, it was only two months ago that he cyberstalked my chessforum, and then again just now, so your admonition to "leave him alone" is pretty hollow. You and your group may Blame the Victim all you want but nobody is buying it.
I will do what I think is right.
|Mar-29-12|| ||moronovich: <tpstar> Thanks for reading.|
There is no group.I am acting as a member on my own.
Do what you think is right,but try to listen to others.
E.g. I dont like to see you comming closer to the point were people dont take you serious any longer.
So I take your answer as you dont want to mediate !?
|Mar-29-12|| ||tpstar: <moronovich> I do listen to others, and I made up my mind long ago. People may read these posts for themselves and make up their own minds.|
This was all a coordinated effort off site, and it failed. Spectacularly. And it won't work next time either.
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <moronovich: There is no group.I am acting as a member on my own.
i would like to believe you, <moro> , but many other would be sceptical , i would imagine.
if you ask frogbert to apologize to tpstar for threatening tpstar in tpstar forum in a very belligerent fashion, the situation will be ameliorated and it would also be easier to believe that you are not in any group, <moro>.
|Mar-30-12|| ||tpstar: <quantum.conscious> Happy Good News Friday!|
Thank you for improving your profile. That was a great way to make things better and not worse.
The person you are addressing was trying to help, although I disagree with the presumption that myself and you-know-who are two halves of the problem. That guy is the problem, and everybody can see it for themselves.
Respect the R's! ;>D
|Mar-30-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <tpstar: although I disagree with the presumption that myself and you-know-who are two halves of the problem. That guy is the problem, and everybody can see it for themselves.>|
i think so.
<tpstar: Respect the R's!>
|Mar-31-12|| ||Shams: Jing-a-ling-a-ling:
|Mar-31-12|| ||Check It Out: Don't give in, <Shams>.|
Waaaait a minute, that bride's about 8 months pregnant at the wedding...
|Mar-31-12|| ||quantum.conscious: "A few years later, the site gave Moderating control to all players with their own page, fixing the temptation for NN to take shots at name players. There are set restrictions due to a name player who would visit while intoxicated and delete posts en masse. (If you don't know who that is, then you don't know who that is. :P) Therefore each person gets to Moderate their own player page as they see fit. In this case, the site responded to a very bad suggestion about removing "non-chess content" related to a flame war because a certain someone who posted terrible feedback comments off site (even naming the Webmaster) continues to expect special treatment.|
And that is how you get your points across without breaking the rules.
|Mar-31-12|| ||OhioChessFan: You are correct in your example of posts that are not personal attacks against others. It seems to have disappeared, but you were correct. I belong to an organization that has a strict prohibition against personal attacks when at the microphone at conventions. Every time, it has to be explained to people that comments like "The previous speaker is an idiot" or "The delegate from Michigan is out of his mind" are quite within the rules. By definition, a "personal" attack is in fact naming them. If Chessgames.com has the same understanding, then the only prohibition would be to name them or use their kibitzer name when discussing them. (FWIW I think quoting a person without referencing their name and responding would amount to the same thing as naming them but recognize that's a bit of a gray area) That is the generally understood meaning. If it isn't what Chessgames.com has in mind, it's incumbent on them to say so.|
|Mar-31-12|| ||tpstar: Once upon a time, when this used to be a chess site, there was a clear and present understanding that off topic discussion was discouraged. I remember a fascinating thread about Ashkenazi Jews and genetic markers of intelligence which got the ax simply for being off topic. In the old days, even the Kibitzer's Cafe was supposed to be about chess and not the wide open chat room it has become today. There was a significant loosening in their restrictions about off topic conversation with the institution of Premium Membership in 2004, and a substantial loosening with the chessforum format in 2006. The salient point in this present case was how "non-chess content" on someone else's player page was actually a code term for something that person didn't want to read again, and he took it upon himself to complain about it, even though he is the last person on this site who should be advising the Administrators about their policies. If he meant what he wrote off site, he needs to be gone.|
March 2012 has been a very successful month towards countering unrepentant rulebreakers who use the Internet to attack and bully and harass and threaten over several years. After the public discipline, a certain contingent of Carlsen fans had this bright idea to combine their efforts and drive off senior members of the group who remember their damage. They have their act down to a science:
1) They make personal attacks against one user.
2) They immediately accuse them of breaking the rules.
3) They all Blame the Victim.
For some reason they confused me with another user who would routinely fly off the handle, but as always their tricks backfired with me. Now it is only a matter of time before their wives read this, and before Mrs. Carlsen reads this, and that was the ultimate goal.
Never post anything on this site that you wouldn't want your favorite player to read. He'll be reading it now.
|Mar-31-12|| ||King Death: <tpstar> We can still hope that that user will get sent out of here. Even the week off was a good start though he's started airing it out on somebody else's games page. But I guess that's OK as far as he's concerned, it isn't his own and that other player hasn't maxed out his magic list.|
|Mar-31-12|| ||tpstar: <King Death> In 2004, when the group was much smaller, that user asked to have Moderating power here. More than once. Since then, he has requested absolute control over kibitzing on his games. More than once. It has been generally understood that he would be a terrible choice for a Moderator, which is evidently obvious given how he runs his chessforum, his player page, and his YouTube presentations.|
He has the annoying habit of posting suggestions on the site forum like a perfect angel, then running his mouth off everywhere else. It was about time he got disciplined, and next time should be it.
|Mar-31-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <ocf: "The previous speaker is an idiot" .. are quite within rules>|
i would say this is a personal attack in the sense that it is talking about that person instead of his speech. instead saying that previous speech was idiotic is not a personal attack but in this case it should be shown how the speech was idiotic . then it could be argued that some word which is 'gentler' than 'idiotic' should be used. lastly , it could be argued that 'idiotic' is a subjective assessment and not all would agree on it even if it is shown why someone is considering the statement idiotic.
|Mar-31-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I remember years ago this user posted a political opinion on his forum, I posted something in disagreement, and then he said, "Only chess posts here," and deleted mine. Left his own political comments up, though.|
|Mar-31-12|| ||quantum.conscious: <tpstar : For some reason they confused me with another user who would routinely fly off the handle,>|
yes, they would have very much liked tpstar to lose temper and composure, i would imagine.
even when they are 'wrong' they think they are 'right' if they can make others lose temper.
|Mar-31-12|| ||tpstar: <quantum.conscious> Good thing that guy has been ignoring my posts for months, or hasn't he told you that ten times yet? =)|
Now that his efforts have failed, we should redouble our resolve to make things better and not worse. You have noticed the double standard where they routinely mock others, but any of our posts constitute mocking on our part. So don't respond.
<Jim Bartle> In the earlier editions, especially 2004 and 2005, there was a working agreement not to drag that Angelfire page over here, and instead debate his specific opinions over there. Interesting that he was widely suspected of using this site to attract new students. Sadly, since then nobody could have ruined his reputation more than he has.
|Mar-31-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Don't know anything about any Angelfire page.
In truth I kind of like the guy (now). He just wants attention and admiration, and goes about it the wrong way. Some people seemed to enjoy getting him riled up, but that seems to have abated since the suspensions.
|Apr-01-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <ocf: "The previous speaker is an idiot" .. are quite within rules>|
<qc: i would say this is a personal attack in the sense that it is talking about that person instead of his speech.>
That's fine, but it passes muster with a rule in place that you may not reference (much less insult) an individually personally.
< instead saying that previous speech was idiotic is not a personal attack but in this case it should be shown how the speech was idiotic .>
I know everyone says that, but I think that's a crock. I go along with it, but mostly because everyone else thinks it's such a swell idea. I really don't see much difference between telling someone they are an idiot and their post is idiotic.
< then it could be argued that some word which is 'gentler' than 'idiotic' should be used.>
The problem with that is everyone has their own ideas of what crosses the line of acceptable discourse.
<lastly , it could be argued that 'idiotic' is a subjective assessment and not all would agree on it even if it is shown why someone is considering the statement idiotic.>
Yes, that is one example of differing views. I think in general, you really <could> find a consensus of what is acceptable. Currently, this site is being overrun by a handful of back slapping children, who don't realize that the 10 people cheering them don't compare to the hundreds who quietly loathe them.
|Apr-01-12|| ||Annie K.: <Ohio: <I really don't see much difference between telling someone they are an idiot and their post is idiotic.>>|
The difference is that even the smartest people can have an off day, but being an idiot is a permanent (and often congenital) condition.
So if you tell somebody that their post/speech was idiotic, you're saying that was not one of their most shining moments, but you haven't passed judgment on their overall mental capacity... yet. ;)
|Apr-01-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <JB: I remember years ago this user posted a political opinion on his forum, I posted something in disagreement, and then he said, "Only chess posts here," and deleted mine. Left his own political comments up, though.>|
I think I remember that. Or I remember you mentioning it. But thhere is no point in being surprised by irrational behavior from an innately irrational individual. I admit I still am, but whatever. What's that? I must mention a few examples of when I was surprised? Okay, when a person is very publicly being smacked around by a stronger player, I think 99% of the populace would quietly resign to shorten their discomfort. I am surprised even that individual thinks it's a great glory to be publicly trounced in competition and wished to remain on the public stage as long as possible. And I'd be embarrassed to be over 50 with a rating of about 2200 and allow my player page to mention I want to become a GM some day.
|Apr-01-12|| ||tpstar: <Some people seemed to enjoy getting him riled up, but that seems to have abated since the suspensions.>|
Things are quiet because his games are shut down, for the second time. Even so, it is clear that the other six would not have needed any intervention if it weren't for him in the first place.
The moral of the story is how disciplinary matters should be handled privately. The chatter only makes it worse.
<Currently, this site is being overrun by a handful of back slapping children, who don't realize that the 10 people cheering them don't compare to the hundreds who quietly loathe them.>
By now everybody has voted, or else chosen to abstain, so any childish behavior by any of us babies should go way down. Really. =)
Things weren't really better in 2004 and 2005 when this site was one continuous argument about Kramnik and the cycle. Hopefully after the public discipline, fewer individuals will use this site to act out against other kibitzers or sabotage the Wikipedia entry.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 69 ·
Times Chess Twitter Feed