No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

Thats a true statement.

I don't think anyone was automatically posting in there..

Thats True Too!

Please enough lets not continue....

---

No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

Thats a true statement.

I don't think anyone was automatically posting in there..

There was, in a thread that no longer exists.

I think I'm gonna have a lot of fun tonight...

and 120 or so spams later ..

Hmm... only 1.9 spams -- I mean, posts, per second...
Time to retool the spam script...

Let's keep history accurate.

---

No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

Thats a true statement.

I don't think anyone was automatically posting in there..

Thats True Too!

Please enough lets not continue....

---

No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

Thats a true statement.

I don't think anyone was automatically posting in there..

---

No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

Thats a true statement.

---

Who was it that got thier account deleted for automated posting and in which thread did the offense happen? And were there warnings about this prior to it happening?

A/C try to read Roms two posts in this thread. It would help not to have to go back over the sordid details again.

Okay I see it was Monday's account.

No. It was someone else I had nothing to do with automatic posting against Angus.

---

Who was it that got thier account deleted for automated posting and in which thread did the offense happen? And were there warnings about this prior to it happening?

A/C try to read Roms two posts in this thread. It would help not to have to go back over the sordid details again.

Okay I see it was Monday's account.

---

Who was it that got thier account deleted for automated posting and in which thread did the offense happen? And were there warnings about this prior to it happening?

A/C try to read Roms two posts in this thread. It would help not to have to go back over the sordid details again.

---

Who was it that got thier account deleted for automated posting and in which thread did the offense happen? And were there warnings about this prior to it happening?

---

That person had his account deleted. Next question?

Why are so many posts disappearing out of this thread?

see Friday night Discussion

Well if by that thread you are stating that all those posts were flames it's no small wonder the forum is deathly quiet.

---

me@rescam.org

That person had his account deleted. Next question?

Why are so many posts disappearing out of this thread?

see Friday night Discussion

---

That person had his account deleted. Next question?

Why are so many posts disappearing out of this thread?

---

me@rescam.org

That person had his account deleted. Next question?

---

Account frozen...

Look, bottom line is I made a judgment call.

Monday had no real posting history prior to the infraction and had a sizeable sum of credits which means that the account wasn’t created just to tick people off. Or if it was the person that created it was willing to throw a large amount of credit away.

I disabled the account and deleted all the posts made up until that time.

TBH, I really thought the account was an alternate for another user who I banned a few days before. So I didn’t even bother sending an email or anything.

I made this thread sticky and made a more forceful statement about what I would do with the accounts for future reference just in case it happens again.

Later that day/night I was contacted by the owner of the account apologizing for his actions and promising never to do it again.

The email had valid outbound headers, so my dilemma became what was fair to the project and the user of the account? For somebody who infrequently posted and contacted me after the account was banned and wanted it back it seems to me that the right choice was to reinstate the account and see how he conducts himself.

I’m still waiting for the other user who I banned a few days ago to make himself known in email or via another account. Guess we shall see what happens on that front.

No one is mentioning the penalty, if any, that was applied to the user who admittedly auto-spammed my thread (look about 30 posts back in his posting history), with support and encouragement by Misfit. While you're looking there, how about modifying the forum and user account code to not allow un-displayable user names?

I regret doing some manual retalitory posting in other threads, but at the time it was the only way to immediately attract attention to what was happening with the automated postings.

---

TIB
[quote]Am I not right in thinking that it was Beethoven himself who went off-topic (Hi-jacked) in his own thread when he changed the direction of his thread to a Chess Club? And has that fact not spawned another ... specifically for Chess?...

I am sorry Sir Bodley, but I feel I do need to respond to that.
It is strange to say that a threadstarter "(Hi-jacked)" his own thread, unless he broke the rules he set out for the thread. And there were no rules for that thread. It's not my style to make threads with rules. I like to have my threads go in the direction the participants would like to take it.
And even if it could properly be said that I went off-topic in my own thread, there is no inconsistency (in my humble opinion) in what I've said on this thread. Which was and is, (sorry to belabour the point):
" I'm not against going off topic at all, personally. I think threads have an organic life of their own. But when Rom speaks on an important issue like spamming or banning, I try to keep the thread on topic."
Respectfully submitted.

Beethoven, you might be puzzled by this reply, but ...
I have NO problem at all with your post above ...

I was merely responding in a FACTual sense to the post by Chris ...

BTW ... Although I was in self-imposed exile at the time, I was fed the Chess problems by Elina. Some were easy ... some of the later ones I had to think twice ... and one occasion ... I gave up. I had only less than moderate success! I assure you that had nothing to do with my main thesis here though!!!
(My problem was that getting the result in the stated number of moves was debatable for me ... for it presupposed that the opponent made all the RIGHT moves!!!!!) Keep safe.

Thank you for your courtesy Bodley, to which I have become accustomed but never take for granted.

If you ever need a solution to a chess problem that I posted, just post a query on the forum (or have Elina do it), and I will be happy to post a solution to it.


Best regards, Bodley.

---

TIB
[quote]Am I not right in thinking that it was Beethoven himself who went off-topic (Hi-jacked) in his own thread when he changed the direction of his thread to a Chess Club? And has that fact not spawned another ... specifically for Chess?...

I am sorry Sir Bodley, but I feel I do need to respond to that.
It is strange to say that a threadstarter "(Hi-jacked)" his own thread, unless he broke the rules he set out for the thread. And there were no rules for that thread. It's not my style to make threads with rules. I like to have my threads go in the direction the participants would like to take it.
And even if it could properly be said that I went off-topic in my own thread, there is no inconsistency (in my humble opinion) in what I've said on this thread. Which was and is, (sorry to belabour the point):
" I'm not against going off topic at all, personally. I think threads have an organic life of their own. But when Rom speaks on an important issue like spamming or banning, I try to keep the thread on topic."
Respectfully submitted.

Beethoven, you might be puzzled by this reply, but ...
I have NO problem at all with your post above ...

I was merely responding in a FACTual sense to the post by Chris ...

BTW ... Although I was in self-imposed exile at the time, I was fed the Chess problems by Elina. Some were easy ... some of the later ones I had to think twice ... and one occasion ... I gave up. I had only less than moderate success! I assure you that had nothing to do with my main thesis here though!!!
(My problem was that getting the result in the stated number of moves was debatable for me ... for it presupposed that the opponent made all the RIGHT moves!!!!!) Keep safe.

*I* am the one who started Beethoven's Chess Cafe.

Surely "WHO" started it ... in the context of my post is totally immaterial.
I had no way of ascertaining "WHO" started the Chess Club, except my own memory, as the majority of the posts have been expunged and none of the pertinent data is available. However in that the name of the originator of the Chess diversion is lost to relatively recorded history one must take it that he is not central to the argument - which assumption proves to be, eloquently, the case.
My memory, insofar as it is required by the reply to the post by Chris, is however correct in every cogent particular.
I cannot remember your name ... maybe there is a reason for that also ...

Your are correct, at the end of the day, all of this is immaterial. Including your arguments you cite from your memory.

---

*I* am the one who started Beethoven's Chess Cafe.

Surely "WHO" started it ... in the context of my post is totally immaterial.
I had no way of ascertaining "WHO" started the Chess Club, except my own memory, as the majority of the posts have been expunged and none of the pertinent data is available. However in that the name of the originator of the Chess diversion is lost to relatively recorded history one must take it that he is not central to the argument - which assumption proves to be, eloquently, the case.
My memory, insofar as it is required by the reply to the post by Chris, is however correct in every cogent particular.
I cannot remember your name ... maybe there is a reason for that also ...

TIB

[quote]Am I not right in thinking that it was Beethoven himself who went off-topic (Hi-jacked) in his own thread when he changed the direction of his thread to a Chess Club? And has that fact not spawned another ... specifically for Chess?...

I am sorry Sir Bodley, but I feel I do need to respond to that.

It is strange to say that a threadstarter "(Hi-jacked)" his own thread, unless he broke the rules he set out for the thread. And there were no rules for that thread. It's not my style to make threads with rules. I like to have my threads go in the direction the participants would like to take it.

And even if it could properly be said that I went off-topic in my own thread, there is no inconsistency (in my humble opinion) in what I've said on this thread. Which was and is, (sorry to belabour the point):

" I'm not against going off topic at all, personally. I think threads have an organic life of their own. But when Rom speaks on an important issue like spamming or banning, I try to keep the thread on topic."

To little or no avail here, I might add.


Respectfully submitted.

---

Do you therefore subscribe to the notion that the thread, whatever its subject, can go wherever it likes as long as that direction is dictated by the person who started it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the thread was started, I believe, on 8th May 2006 at 3:35:39 UTC and was given a name something like "Beethoven's Club for the Shunned" - although from memory, there was also another minor if unreported and unpublicised change.
The first Chess Board problem appeared on 12th May 2006 and was originally a Chess problem provided by Beethoven for Robert Brooke to solve (from memory - again correct me if I am wrong). It gained a corpus of a handful of afficionados ... but by no means the number of people who had posted in that thread prior to 12th May. From this point on ... the thread was almost entirely Chess specific with the inevitable deciduation of the "Shunned" members who had no knowledge of Chess and nowhere else to go.

As I had stated before, if the topic at hand, whether it be chess or something else, was not interesting to members, it is their right not to comment on said post. That doesn't lock anybody out from continuing the thread in the light in which it was created. I see no correlation between not being interested in a topic and not being able to post. I therefore, respectfully disagree.

Chris, we have never met. That is sad, because you will never know what a nice guy I really am. Indeed, for most of my life, my position has demanded absolute sincerity, probity and impeccable reporting.
It is in that vein that I take issue with you in your post, extracts of which I take, one by one. The other points you make in your post do not apply to any of my post (to which you started off referring).

I would only not know of your kindness and patience if I were to choose to not continue discussion. I do not choose to do that. Rather, I would like to know all of the members here better. You seem like a reasonable person, your thoughts are lucid, and I appreciate the candor of your replies. I respect honesty and live by that. Therefore we have something in common, and I look forward to our exchanges.

The rest of your post had nothing whatever to do with mine, and so I will leave well alone. Suffice to say, that yet again, here is a blatant example of a poster running off at the finger without first ascertaining the facts. It is of such ill-informed and ill-advised actions that people who hide behind anonymity get their kicks, and their names in print.

My only contention is if there is a topic posted in a forum, that is not of general interest to some members, then why cause discord. That does not excuse malevolent behavior but in fairness to all, you can choose not to respond "at that time." The threads all have a way of coming around to all of its participants, and if I see a post that has no relevance to what I want to talk about, I merely wait until it does. If it never does, I go elsewhere. Freedom of choice. I have started one or two threads, mostly for help, but if I wanted to "hang" there that's my choice. If nobody hung out with me, then I'd be alone. 'Nuff said.

In total equanimity, my dear Chris, I leave you to ponder. (Whether or not you apologise, is something for your own conscience and something I leave entirely up to you.)
I wish you a good evening.

Ponder, I have ( rather Obi-Wan-ish, eh? - lol) and ponder I will. I certainly do not hope that our futher interactions would require an apology first on my part as that would seem rather harsh, given the nature of your description of your character here. I will agree to disagree, therefore placing the entire thing into archive mode so we can continue onto new and fresh topics of discussion.

Agreed, future friend? *extends hand...*

Respectfully,
Chris

---

I realized the dead-end roads I ended up taking weren't always my fault. Many thanks to all that have helped in this - and you know who you are.
TheBeatenPath