You disagree? Well, okay. It's pretty clear to me that neither you nor <jbc> get along with <morf>, though. I could look up old posts to demonstrate this if you'd like. But I didn't deem it necessary since I thought I was pointing out something rather obvious.

There's for instance this recent post by <morf>:

chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #30915)

<Yep, I disagree. If you've got to look for "old posts", then I think you're overstating the problem.>

Oh really? As it turns out, I don't have to look up "old posts" at all. You wrote this gem around ten days ago:

<But if there were a game imposed on me, whereby I <had> to vote one person off this site, it would be <morfishine> And it would be an easy vote. And I am certain I wouldn't be the only one to cast that vote. His incredible coarseness and vulgarity and chiding and hypcocrisy and what have you are off the rails.--IMHO, he's a punk who purposely provokes people, and when they respond 1/10th as much in kind as he provokes, he runs and tells.>

Robed.Bishop chessforum (kibitz #111)

NONSENSE. This site will remain online for the foreseeable future.

With "old posts" I simply meant earlier posts>

Much better to use posts that haven't happened yet.

For example:

<OhioChessFan: You stink!>

<morfishine: No, you stink!>

<john barleycorn: Both of you stink!>

I respectfully request that these fundamental questions are addressed urgently. Otherwise, I fear for this site as subscribers may be increasingly reticent to renew and contributors to submit new material.>

Your concerns are well taken but misplaced. This site will remain online, and continue to improve. We'll post a general announcement to this effect forthwith.

That's good news! Thank you for posting this update.

<Chessgames.com will be covering the upcoming Olympiad, hopefully using a newly developed feature which will support the coverage of multiple live games. Rest assured that many features will be improved in the coming weeks. We will be posting formal announcements on the new tournaments panel as well as at the top of the homepage.>

Also good news! However the Olympiad is due to start tomorrow and I notice there is still no forum!?

<New moderation policies and procedures are being sorted out, and there will doubtless me more suspensions if certain posters don't straighten up.>

More good news! Can you advise as to when the lifetime ban for Mark Finan will come into effect?

I can't find the particular post, but that is eerily reminiscient of a kibitz our late great site admin said in response to <jfq's> concerns about the long term viability of this site. I think it not an exageration to say <jfq> has put in 10's of thousands of hours on this site. And others have, I'm sure. <Tabanus> <zanzibar> <twinlark> and <Stonehenge> come immediately to mind. I'm sure I'm good for thousands, as are <MisScarlett> <FSR> and a bunch of others.

And in your 2 posts in 8 weeks, you manage to address suspending people in both? Really, now? All the good things you might address, and that's it?

I am reminded of this post from Daniel:
<While I worked on that, I set Lee on the task of deleting things like the puerile name jokes, and some 2nd grade quality pun posts, but later when I checked up on him we was struggling with pages I just wasn't sure about.

After a few hours he was getting into tiny little enclaves were people had some harmless jokes, usually not very funny, some of them actually hilarious. I saw at that point he had gone, in my opinion, too far. I wanted the filth gone—not a discussion of how Bach's Air on the G String is actually in the key of D.

That was the point I told Lee, "stop." I was afraid he went too far, and by looking at some of the things deleted I am guessing perhaps he did. The goal is not to get rid of every off-topic post. I'm hoping nothing of importance was lost but I can review the deletions and even undelete if need be. >

Since I sometimes write about classical music I must aver that this comment did not come from me. (actually I didn't even know that).

What really pisses me off about this post is JFQ didn't even mention suspensions. So this comment, <New moderation policies and procedures are being sorted out, and there will doubtless me more suspensions if certain posters don't straighten up.>, is what? A threat to suspend JFQ?

<Boomie: No posts for 18 days and then this. This guy is a social moron. Proves that techies should remain in the shadows.>

I'm with <OCF> and <Boomie> on this one. Ironically, <Sargon> defined himself as a libertarian in this post:

<<Daniel> was a staunch <libertarian>—like I am—..>

chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #30849)

Yeah, right. A libertarian whose first order of the day was to start banning people for what can only be described as "thought crimes", and then, as <OCF> noted, focuses on announcing that more suspensions are to come.

Wow, some libertarian.

The former webmaster, a free spirit and a very kind person, clearly believed in the free exchange of thoughts and ideas with very little censorship, except for the most glaring violations. Now, the winds have changed here, and of course, <Sargon> has every right to execute his vision for this site, that is his prerogative-this is a private site after all-and new features like multiple live games sound great. I'm sure that <CG> is in good hands in that regard.

Just do not pretend to be a libertarian carrying on in the same vein as the late, great Daniel Freeman.

Are you making Aliyah in 2019?

<what can only be described as "thought crimes"> Realy? Prisoner of conscience? I'm getting associations to some poor Russian sod in a godforsaken Gulag. Not some schmuck unable to post at a chess site.

Some opportunists took advantage of the temporary lack of administration to pollute the site, amplifying their already exhibited disrespect both of the site, and other <CG> users. This has been fixed, and the site is better because of it.

Sure, communications from the adminstration could be improved, and were sorely missing in the early days. But <CG> never went offline, and <chessgames.com> should be thanked for that.

We will never replace <Daniel>/<Sneaky>, who was both an administrator and good member of the community. To expect communications to be as good as it was is, well, simply unrealistic.

I do too. I think this place is nowhere near as insane with the new management, Sargon's <not afraid> to put his foot down and he made a perfect example out of someone - and I know my time will come with a big suspension at some point too so I'm not complaining. Just reading some of the kibitzing and I hope y'all know that when it comes to permanently banning someone I'm not for it, but BP went too far and he shouldn't be on the internet let alone a chess site or even a computer with access to the net, that guy was just mental. As far as what's happened with <Morf> and <Jay-B> I do not know, I can't even be bothered looking but until it's sorted <Morf> goes on ignore... I never saw Jay-B talking to say.. tpstar or Keyser Soze after what they've been up to since Daniel died. I <definitely> saw <Morf> talking to <Tga> after Tga agreed with <Big Pawn> and even started inventing reasons and creating false narratives claiming I had something to do with Daniel's death. I can't get my head around why he'd make conversation with someone like <Tga> who's quite obviously a drunk or a <complete d--k> with crazy conspiracy theories coming out of his backside.

Me and Daniel weren't best mates or nothing but I wouldn't disrespect him in death - regardless of <who> I didn't like or <what> I didn't like, there's more important things in life than a few idiots arguing on a website.

<I think it not an exageration to say <jfq> has put in 10's of thousands of hours on this site>