Ban of member

[BrendanJNorman]

But I guess the future of this forum is to be run as a triumvirate dictatorship.

"It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

[BrendanJNorman]

Again: Everyone who felt molested could have put him on the ignore list. That's why I wouldn't ban him. That's my opinion, and there is no need to toll eyes, kid.

[Jjaw]

[chessica]

Again: Everyone who felt molested could have put him on the ignore list. That's why I wouldn't ban him. That's my opinion, and there is no need to toll eyes, kid.

That is NOT the point.

[chrisw]

Again: Everyone who felt molested could have put him on the ignore list. That's why I wouldn't ban him. That's my opinion, and there is no need to toll eyes, kid.

That is NOT the point.

What is the point?
Maybe it’s best to see what actually happened and place it in context.
History: a few years ago, the political sub-forum here was forever deleted. Strong sentiment was that not only should there be zero politics on talkchess, but there wouldn’t even be a password protected sub-forum, even though members didn’t need to click on it if they didn’t want. I think the slogan for elimination of the forum was “ban the shit” or something, hgm will remember. It’s an expressed view of the majority of this forum - absolutely no political arguing about anything. Only computer chess.
You need to see the posting of a highly visible YouTube which takes up all the screen real estate and which was about as contentiously politically provocative (one sided Ukraine-Russian war propaganda) as it is possible to be as a pretty flagrant act of attention seeking and shit stirring as it is possible to get. It’s also in direct contravention of moderator demand that the poster stopped with YouTube links in his signature. It goes against every expressed desired aspect of the forum, its members and its moderators. Similar to lighting matches in a barn, imo.
That said, if you want moderators to overrule the decision (only takes a majority of two) you’ll need to request that they internally take a vote.

[jefk]

Well Mr. W., I agree with most of your points. I wasn't aware that the Chess 'Thinkers' forum was discontinued for such reasons, but it doesn't surprise me. Chess players, in general, tend to express some odd opinions occasionally (*).
Regarding CQ, he didn't just post YouTube clips in his signature; he also shared a lot of off-topic content and nonsense (checkers, losing chess, claims about Stockfish being beaten by humans, etc.). He wasn't interested in rational discussion, not due to a lack of mental capacity i suspect but rather due to a certain attitude (or booze), which often bordered on trolling. While putting someone on your ignore list is an option, it doesn't remove their messages from the forum and you still see the headings (and maybe some yt links as well). In the programmers subforum i've seen some complaints about him already for years; apparently, CQ had been warned several times by a moderator. If someone doesn't heed these warnings, they get banned—that's been the reality on the internet for nearly three decades. So, while I understand Mr. Schmidt's tolerance, if you were in the moderator's position, you might eventually act similarly. Alternatively, you could organize a poll to see how serious members, particularly in the programmers' section, would vote on a suspension or ban (although it's now already almost democratic, except the 'lifetime' duration (until next moderator). In my opinion, CQ should have posted his tabloid gaming content in the Chess Players forum, not in the General Topics section. Maybe consider -for later- allowing subforum-specific bans(**), like banning me from the Programmers forum due to my talks about GUIs—LOL

Jef

PS (*) Some chess players certainly often express strong opinions specifically about politics and religion (remember rec.games.chess.politics?). Regarding CQ's specific anti-Russian clip, I didn't have any personal issue with it, although it was off-topic and repetitive, thus annoying On the other hand, I suppose news about bombing a children's hospital might be regarded as Western 'propaganda' by Sputnik and RT News. However, in my opinion, it was yet another -heinous- war crime. Sorry for going off-topic here, but it also was related to the ban measure, isn't it
(**) something for a technical todo list maybe, being able to ban suspend someone only from a subforum

[chessica]

Again: Everyone who felt molested could have put him on the ignore list. That's why I wouldn't ban him. That's my opinion, and there is no need to toll eyes, kid.

That is NOT the point.

What is the point?
Maybe it’s best to see what actually happened and place it in context.
History: a few years ago, the political sub-forum here was forever deleted. Strong sentiment was that not only should there be zero politics on talkchess, but there wouldn’t even be a password protected sub-forum, even though members didn’t need to click on it if they didn’t want. I think the slogan for elimination of the forum was “ban the shit” or something, hgm will remember. It’s an expressed view of the majority of this forum - absolutely no political arguing about anything. Only computer chess.
You need to see the posting of a highly visible YouTube which takes up all the screen real estate and which was about as contentiously politically provocative (one sided Ukraine-Russian war propaganda) as it is possible to be as a pretty flagrant act of attention seeking and shit stirring as it is possible to get. It’s also in direct contravention of moderator demand that the poster stopped with YouTube links in his signature. It goes against every expressed desired aspect of the forum, its members and its moderators. Similar to lighting matches in a barn, imo.
That said, if you want moderators to overrule the decision (only takes a majority of two) you’ll need to request that they internally take a vote.

Hello moderator, I don't want to discuss this here because you have given good reasons for your decision and I would decide exactly the same way.
an ignore list does not remove the garbage of the blocked user, that's the point.

[Jjaw]

The forum member had to accept responsibility for his acts and paid the price. It is a heavy one , but he abused and hurt a lot of people.

[Viz]

This is literally still going?
Mind you - this guy spammed a ton of useless posts.
Overquoted one every occasion.
Made youtube videos in his description despite being asked not to do so multiple times.
Blatantly lied by editing pgns while trying to "prove" that some engine is a clone.
Blatantly cheated on lichess and was boasting there that 2200-2500 lichess players don't understand chess and then was hiding his face in the sand after he was banned and exposed for this.
I'm absolutely disgusted that some people still defend this guy who
a) never wrote any sort of meaningful post - despite being the most active poster, which is a pretty amazing achievement;
b) refused to follow basic guidelines and rules on multiple occasions;
c) was caught as a cheater and liar on multiple occasions and never admitted/apologized for anything.
If not to ban this type of people then who do you even ban? Guys who post swasticas with pseudographic in every post?
The fact that this took so long is already pretty abysmal, this should have literally been done years ago.

[Wolfgang]

+1