You do realize that people are planning to not renew their memberships don't you?

How do you think it makes Premium Members feel when <AJ> can come in here on your own page, insult members, and then you only delete their responses to his attacks and leave his attacks alone?

HYPOCRITE is an ugly word, don't you think?

Where in your logic does that make any sense?

There is nothing for us to understand the reasoning behind their continual stay here after witnessing some of their kibitzing,

Individual privacy and any actions taken should be kept still,

His hypersensitivity to the perception of attack and his over-the-top responses are the real problem.>>

A prime example would be his attacks on homosexuals, who have terribly offended him by daring to exist.

<chessgames.com: Whatever actions we may or may not decide to perform, the determination won't be made by petitions on this forum. This forum is not a courtroom.>

You are a true martyr. Your name will be written in the Book of Life.

Yes, I would love it if you made me an official page!

I would feel like Pinocchio when you turned him into a real boy.

Did <hms123> send you that FAQ information you were asking for a few months ago?

Do you need any more information before making me a real boy?

And you do an admirable job, no doubt.

First of all, you narrowed down the discussion to the question of whether to ban him or not. This was a stroke of genius, as you could now play the <Freedom of Speech card> (btw, the complaints and criticism here are also covered by freedom of speech).

I fear that no place on earth lives up to your high standards of freedom of speech or is there any country not sanctioning disgusting insults as they have been uttered by your client for the last 10 years? Would you walk up to a stranger on the street and tell him that he should bunjee jump without a rope or that you would like to beat him up (I do not recommend testing the boundaries of free speech that way and am not liable in case of resulting trials or stays in hospital)?

There are certainly other possibilities than banning your client completely. But at least it is a more than valid question why there has been a double-standard in effect for the last 10 years, which granted your client almost complete protection, while several other members were banned. But who I am telling that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have first-hand experience that <chessgames.com> bans people, <Domdaniel>.

Then you went on to greatly exaggerate your client's contribution to this site. Even if the point was granted you, this does not allow for treatment of others as if they deserved no respect and were not equally human beings, who had to swallow everything. And <chessgames.com> seems to be of the same opinion as <keypusher> pointed out in some examples already. People who contributed in much shorter time much more valuable information than your client (this does not mean that I share all their views, especially outside chess). It has to be admitted that your client is stronger than the average amateur, especially when using Fritz 13. So his analytical work is of some merit and deserves such. And he also submitted games to the database and not all of them are wins against people rated 1500 (USCF rating). He also tries to clean the database from obviously wrong game scores (i. e. his losses). Yet we should not act as if your client was the only kibitzer here and his work pales in comparison to other analysts' work. I don't want to create the impression that it should be dismissed out of hand. But a certain tendency of glorifying it has been noticable (e. g. when your client posts a statement which repeats what had been said before and you act as if he had just revealed a great truth). His contributions to chess history are of such quality that <chessgames.com> would be better off without them. However, neither positive contribution nor the lack thereof should be decisive.

But I don't want to leave your last assertion unchallenged either (we all embrace freedom of speech, don't we?). You say that it is your duty to defend him as no one else does. Your client could do that himself. Although not even a defense would be necessary, but maybe just an explanation. A mere explanation why he treats others the way he does. An explanation which contains more than that all the others were just trolls who should be banned.

Anyway, the freedom of speech argument loses most of its force when you review the discussion and see that a ban was not actually demanded but rather bafflement expressed and explanations sought. It loses the rest of its force, when you keep in mind that this site is a private enterprise and not a country. And freedom of speech is also restricted to avoid off-topic discussions (non-chess related) on most pages or advertising (will you start critcising these restrictions also?). And insulting others is, allegedly, also not allowed.

Kidding

Why not highlight <TheLyingAuthorcus> posts in a lovely dog muck brown colour, representing the things he posts on this site? All this talk about NN1 when <TheDrunkenWannabeAuthorcus> is ten times worse!

Nothing to do with free speech at all.

And given that <hayton3> was permanently banned, I'll auto credit myself with some knowledge in this area.

Personally speaking however, Mr Goldsby does seem to have a gilded gift for breaking the rules on this site with relative impunity. Relative being the operative word.