<tbone> I just checked and there's no email there? Fckn Yahoo is freezing a lot for me too and I'm not sure if it's because "yahoo korea" went under a few years ago.

I get the worst service on two continents.

You're brother is flooding the InterWeb with chess vids, eh?

IT WORKED, DOCTOR FRANKETSTEIN!!!

<UHF Channel> Well the rich get richer no surprise there. I'm not sure <Stones> is worth 50 million, but he'll start for sure, and just as importantly he'll be yet another addition to what is now surely a long, long quality bench.

Maybe this year, when half the squad is injured at the same time (like last year), they can struggle through. I think one of the reasons Man City finished 2nd instead of 1st was because of nagging injuries for <Sterling> and a horrendous lengthy injury for <De Bruyne>. And that's not even mentioning the on again off again injury problems for <Kun "Ken" Aguero.>

He's your Chess Brah, grrrrl.

Eric Hansen

Not a bad start for Spurs 1-1 at the blue scousers ..

My club in it's usual crisis .. lol lol

Hey <Bickle/PA> has me on ignore .. the dreaded ignore ! lol

Sort it out !

It's only BANTZ on ere for me .. NOTHIN personnal ... jeeeez ! lol

He should know I respect him immensely ..

<Hozza> please don't post any scores unless they are at least a week old ok?

SPOILERS>

lol lol

And OCF trying his best to make a case for being able to post photos of children from other members families is like a Blackadder sketch, lol. Read the support forum it's downright slapstick, lol.

<chessgames.com: <morfishine> and <Abdel Irada> — Your two posts when taken as a whole illustrate the importance for tolerance. We all agree that there are some bad apples but no two people can agree on exactly which ones those are.>

<Hozza> Well I watched the game now and I don't think that's a promising start for <Spurs> at all.

Kyle Walker was Spurs man of the match for me, with Kane MIA. This new man Wayamayayaya looks interesting, and Jannssenn too. Both will have to offer something special if Spurs are going to have a good season.

I was also concerned that manager <Lake Ponchontrain> didn't seem to have his squad prepared mentally. <Everton> looked brighter, with more purpose, in both halves.

<Teem> I saw what you did there- took me a few moments though.

Jiminy Crikets that's not a good start from <Leceister> either. One goal and that was never a penalty, though the ref was directly on top of the ball. Contact was minimal and looked to be outside the 18 yard box to me. I think he slipped and made a bit of a meal of that, which turned out to be a good idea.

<Manchesters UniCities> are waiting to pounce with their pockets stuffed with 700 billion pound transfers...

Could be the end of Cinderellas for another decade unless <Sheffield Wednesday> resurrects from the dead.

<cg.com: We all agree that there are some bad apples but no two people can agree on exactly which ones those are.>

This is something I see admins do, and every time I grit my teeth.

They seem to view site members as a sort of confused herd of some mostly harmless but annoying species of cattle, too muddle-headed to stop locking horns and bellowing at each other and unable to make up our minds whether we love or hate each other, want each other banned or unbanned, gored or ungored.

They're right, of course. Statistically. (But we already know about lies, damn lies and statistics.)

What they lose sight of is that site members aren't really a herd of fractious bovines. We're individual people, with individual issues that have to be judged on their merits. One complaint is *not* just like another; superficially, to the admin, it appears so, but that is only because he doesn't really understand it.

And when admins can't keep order, and don't keep up with the complaints, they begin to punish the complainers — the whistle-blowers. Killing the messengers. But they don't do it individually; they do it by tightening, not the rules that have lain unenforced, but the rules for asking that the rules be enforced.

This may not be Daniel's fault, however. He is overburdened. It is not right that one person should moderate the whole site. I think I understand why he does this, but it's still micromanagement.

What I've never understood is why Daniel doesn't delegate a certain amount of authority (subject to his approval in case sanctions are recommended) to some volunteer admins. We already have volunteer editors, translators, historians and biographers. Why not admins?

Again, I think I understand his reasoning, and again I still think he's micromanaging. He's going to *have* to trust some people at some point, although how far is up to him.

I wouldn't object, for example, to you (<jfq>) as an admin. You know the site inside-out, and from my experience I think you'd be fair, even to people who disagreed with you.

I could name several others here whom I'd also trust to moderate forums. (Although I have to admit I could also name more than a few I wouldn't trust with the power to moderate their *own* forums.)

Anyway, apologies for the rant, but this has been nagging me for a long time. On the whole, I like this site and most of its members. But it is so poorly administered that the "bad apples" really do get to spoil the barrel.

(And then the poor admins end up with a herd of cider-drunken, lock-horned, bellowing cattle milling and reeling around the site, and that would make things worse without making them better.)