Yes, indeed, the other site point is the crux of the counter argument. I won't bother to introduce the re-counter since I expect you can anticipate it.

<I didn't say he should be automatically ejected. Just that, having done what he did with that complaint, I think he should walk away with whatever dignity is left.>

A rational person would walk away. QED

<Others may disagree.>

I disagree any dignity is left.

<It just gets sillier and sillier. He is apparently outraged for being put on probation along with a selection of 'troop' members, as though - how absurd - he was *anything* like them.>

And i was *never* going to bring up you're Irish, because its not exactly an insult! Just like you calling me English!! We'd have ended up laughing at each other lol..

And no posts were deleted from the Colonels gaff, so i think you're correct, it's probably just some naive person who doesn't realise its a big bad world out there.. Either that or it's personal, but i really am done with all that argumentitive crap..

And the only reason i "fessed up" about my past, is because i want people to see that even though im not your stereotypical chess player, that doesn't mean i cant play chess.. It was genuinely my first love! And now im fully rehabilitated i want to start playing tourney's again, but one step at a time... I need to know whether i'd be humiliated OTB first!!

Oh yeh, what do you call this opening 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b4?? (apart from crap, lol).. I tried it in a game with a 1600 yesterday and won!

No worries. It happens all the time. I think it's something to do with magnets.

That would certainly help to distract the people who (like me) occasionally let themselves be dragged into these idiotic disputes.

There are two exceptions, as I see it: a small hardcore of people who have no interest in chess *at all*, and are only motivated to make trouble. They don't always know this themselves, as they're swimming in outraged self-righteousness. Some have chips on every shoulder, and are determined to show they're as smart as anyone else. Hence those grotesquely grandiose troll vocabularies.

Ah, yes, trolls. By the strict definition, a dedicated troublemaker and ordure-stirrer on a website is 'simply' a troll. My old friend Annie expressed that opinion about the said hardcore types. I think they come in a few different types: I'm not sure if it makes any practical difference.

*Another* quarrelsome group consists of those who consume chess like football fans -- their main interest is in the progress of the players they support, and in slagging off supporters of rival players. Are they interested in chess? Not very. Would they be distracted by a big event? It depends who might be playing, I guess.

<quylthulg> - who knows more than most - says the trolling is no worse than it used to be. I'm not sure: *something* changed in the past year. Sure, I can distantly recall earlier outbreaks like the First LMAJ War, and they were vicious too.

A lot of very good chessplayers have done time, including a few famous ones. Even Alekhine was locked up after the Russian revolution, though that was political. I can't see AA as a mugger or whatever.

Years ago, I knew a guy who'd learned to play chess inside, and became a strong player. The only catch was that every game he'd played began with 1.e4 e5, and he assumed that those opening moves were part of the rules of the game.

He got out, and went to a chess club, where people were a bit afraid of him because of his past. But someone sat down to play him, and responded to his first move, 1.e4, with a Sicilian, 1...c5.

He looked at it in puzzlement for a few seconds, then politely reached out and put the c-pawn back on c7. His opponent, plucking up his courage, repeated the move 1...c5, and back the pawn went for a second time.

I find it worse than ever but I may I have missed a lot. Regular dust-ups are to be expected, even necessary, but somehow I feel like the stakes have gotten higher. Or maybe there's some new manic quality to it that I hadn't noticed before.

Mostly though it just feels slightly out of control. Even the admins must think so since they are intervening like I've never seen before.

In the end, though, it will probably all just burn itself out.

<MarkF>: I think most people won't hold your prison time against you. God knows some of us are just lucky we never got caught. But there are people who are going to use this information, you know, people who are going to try to provoke you and make you self destruct.

I'm only saying this because I sense you are really trying to turn your life around and that you feel chess can help you to do this. Maybe you are trying to rediscover a lost part of yourself.

< God knows some of us are just lucky we never got caught. >

A. The concerted, determined, applauded, encouraged, boastful effort to continue the trolling upon AJ was beyond disgusting. I found it quite disturbing and a little frightening. It evoked some thoughts of Lord of the Flies. Yes, AJ is to be blamed, but I don't think the lone bad actor was a new development on this site.

And yeh, i realise telling people my past may give people ammo, but after my arguement with Dom last year, and especially the last few days, i just thought "What am i doing arguing on a chess site.... Of all places!".... Chess wars!! Lol. Come on guys...

And im well aware of the ridiculous preconceptions about jail, that people could say... But thats laughable too!

And everyone who's been incarcerated isn't a tough guy, trust me on that.. So if i were the bloke who kept having his pawn put back on c7, i would have responded the same as i would with anyone else..

One quick story.. The first time i went to prison, i was being booked in the reception area with about 20 other guys.. I heard two guy's arguing, and then a fight started and the brawl kind of came right past the room where i was sitting and waiting... It was two senior officers!!

Extra points to <Switch> for another brilliant entry with this fine piece of recursive irony. Loved it. :)

Fine posts by <Ohio>, <boz>, and <twinlark>.

<By the strict definition, a dedicated troublemaker and ordure-stirrer on a website is 'simply' a troll. My old friend Annie expressed that opinion about the said hardcore types.>

Wrong, what I said was that they were *trolling* (verb), on the flagship forum. You really should know (me) better?

I haven't the time right now to to give <frogbert> his moment in the light and tweezers for his charmingly opportunistic attempts to helpfully pour oil on the fire. Maybe some other time. :)

<MarkFinan> first, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of your posts with your new account that would justify whistle blowing.

Now, a question for you. To put it mildly, I have never treated you with kid gloves. And yet, you have never, ever, seriously tried to hit back (apart from some very mild expressions of petulance, that I really couldn't blame you for). I am going to assume this isn't because I'm female, based on the precedent that being female didn't help Jess any, when you were going after her. And I am going to assume this isn't for Dom's sake, because being a friend of a friend didn't help Dom any, after you befriended Jess.

So, I would like you to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury... say, do they even *have* juries in England...? Uh, objection, I digress.

First, good to see you back, on whatever terms.

Second, don't you think that raking up the past like this, asking questions about old crimes, is itself part of the reason that feuds and flame wars keep simmering back to life? No matter who's doing it, and how well-intentioned the query.

I'll let MarkF answer the actual question, if he wants to. But I don't think you were *that* visible or outspoken against him at the time, though you and I had several conversations on the subject.

Anyway, nobody's daft enough to attack a female Israeli-trained experienced site admin. Instant web death.

Best,

And you still aren't.. So i'm not really bothered if you call me "Sub human, psychotic, filth"... It just doesn't bother me..

Now, i will politely put you on ignore..... This is not the droid your looking for lol

OK, to recap: Finan had not been leaving me alone because I'm a woman, as both his history with Jess, and a stray toxic comment or two he had, at some point, thrown in <Deffi>'s direction, proves.

Also, given his history with AJ and many, many others, it's pretty clear that in fact *nobody* has ever been "below his attention threshold" for retaliation purposes.

Oh, and somebody thank him for the compliment on one of my cheezburger site pics, the one that says 'this is not a part of the car you are looking for'. I'm glad he liked it. :)

So what's the actual deal with the unaccustomed avoidance of conflict? Not just now, when he's trying to start over, but all along?

Finan hates my guts, which is perfectly understandable. He would really be in big trouble mentally if he didn't. But he - to revert to his language again for a minute - "doesn't mess with me".

<Dom> what you forgot for a moment there, is that I specialize in communication. :) And I will also remind you that I have concluded where Finan comes from, a long time before anybody else took the possibility seriously (as in, not just to "insult him back"): Domdaniel chessforum.

I have simply applied this insight, and have been speaking to - well, "about", technically, but of course I always knew he was reading - him in his own language, a language of raw force.

And it was an effective strategy.

Q.E.D. :)

Hopefully, he will try harder to remember that he is now out of the jungle, and trying to fit into a civilized community, upon the members of which he has no right to impose the atmosphere of a jail.

That's all. I wasn't trying to get him into trouble here, actually. He can get himself into trouble all by himself if he wants to, but he's on his last chance here, and he knows it. And good luck to him.

doesn't that mostly create a lot of black smoke?

anyway, the comment of mine that you probably refer to had very little to do with your beef with mr finan - and not so much with you specifically either. from my side, at least. i'm rather fed up with a lot of the "group" behaviour on this site, though, and even more with the labels and polarizing dichotomies that are thrown around here all too often. we're supposed to be intelligent, civil people, with a capacity for nuances and reflection. or so i thought.

I do something like that too, but I think of it as something else: analysis, tweezering, psychology. It comes, in my case, from writing fiction and interviewing people, assembling a coherent picture of what makes a human tick.

Similar, but not identical.

I sense that you don't particularly want to *continue* this thing, which is good. Remember that jail isn't "where people come from", though obviously it can affect them deeply. But let's try not to stand in the way of rehabilitation.

Gawd, I sound like a social worker.

You'll recall that I tried 'making peace' with AJ, and it blew up within a few days. I found him impossible, intolerant and intolerable, so I gave it up. Mark's original crime against me may have been worse -- but he's apologized, and he's a lot easier to get on well with than AJ was. He's got a sense of humour, for starters.

It may also be true that Mark's explosion of anger last year got *other* people going, and stoked up the flames. But that's their fault, not his.

Thank you for being protective of my innocence ... but I lost it, somewhere back along the road. Now I'm just a Spanish virgin who's seen too much and done too much. Combinations and chemistry, mostly.