| Author |
Message |
  
CFDS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:14 pm: | 
|
From: MAd
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Seipman
I have just banned Seipman after:
Seipman(2): Did you only want to pay for the 1 comment file, or were you
interested in the package 3 for 2 deal?
Seipman(2): DAV's phone number costs $5 extra
I do not see any reason whatsoever why we should allow back this pain in
the ass. I do not care how much he's going to whine on bugboard, or
anywhere else. He's not going to be anything but troubles.
MAd |
CFDS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
From: death
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:25:36
Subject: Re: Seipman
Out of context, this just sounds like a joke (OK, in the wrong place, by the
wrong person, so a bad joke). Was there more that indicated it was a serious
offer?
-first name deleted (death)
|
CFDS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
From: MAd
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Seipman
Just the fact that he has done that often
MAd |
CFDS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
From: SuperIntellect
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:20:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Seipman
sc Seipman
[...]
Oxymoron at Mon Dec 3, 18:31 PST 2001: time served
Oxymoron at Mon Dec 3, 18:30 PST 2001: removed from ban list.
robbo at Thu Nov 29, 20:31 PST 2001: came on as an unreg to stir up trouble
\ ItsTimeToUnbanMe(U)(4): lol I don't need to start leaking shit -
\ threatened to damage fics unless he was unbanned
Why was he unbanned in the first place? Gee. When is the abuse commitee
going to take strong actions against abusers? Less than a week for crap like
that. This is absurd.
-first name deleted(SI) |
CFDS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
From: foxbat
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:03:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Seipman
SI, explain to me why he was banned in the first place on
November 27th. The reason given is:
DAV at Tue Nov 27, 18:24 PST 2001: don't unban without consultation from me first.
Well, that explains a lot. I agreed with abuse's decision to remove
the ban. You had your own theories as to why DAV banned seipman that day,
however I won't go there... 
And regarding his recent ban for:
> I have just banned Seipman after:
>
> Seipman(2): Did you only want to pay for the 1 comment file, or were you
> interested in the package 3 for 2 deal?
>
> Seipman(2): DAV's phone number costs $5 extra
>
Are you out of your freeking mind? How the hell is this abusive? Are you now
outlawing humor on the server? If anything, this should have been referred to
abuse@freechess.org for review. What do I say to a user who emails me asking
why he was banned when I see crap reasons like this?
- initial deleted |
Mori (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 11:32 pm: |
|
So Seipman was unbanned at the time you had your admin account? So you were leaking admin information to yourself? |
Bugz (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 06:15 pm: |
|
A lot of admins seem to think that simply banning abusers will end all their problems and if they leave for good there will be no negative concequences on their server.
In reality, admins need to understand that the only thing that makes FICS special and worthwhile is their strong bughouse community, which is by far the strongest bughouse community in the world. (This is why bug players that are banned dont simply go elsewhere)
The only reason why any talented (or titled) chess player frequently plays on FICS without getting money is in order to play bughouse. Take away bughouse and FICS becomes just another junk server such as chess.net or USCL.
What happens when you start banning hardcore bug players such as gusmcclain? Thats one player that plays bug on FICS nearly every day for many hours a day. Take away Gus and it becomes a lot more difficult for 3 good bug players to find a fourth. Its a similar story to a lesser extent with players like RFrancisco, Seipman and Darkfire.
I'm not saying that these players should get away with everything they do, but what I'm saying is that these players contribute a lot to FICS and there is strong incentive not to keep them banned.
This incentive should be weighed up against the reasons for keeping them banned.
In my opinion simply annoying a few admins is nowhere near reason enough to deny bughouse a hardcore player. |
Disappointed (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
The thing is fics admins don't see it that way. They view bughouse players as much more of an annoyance than a benefit. They can care less about bughouse and bughouse players. Maybe with the exception of thedane, who actually enjoys the game.
In reading these emails one thing is very clear. Many of these admins have no diplomacy skills. In many situations they ban or nuke when it is simply unwarranted. Gilly joking around with Chessty for example. It's fucking ridiculous. And it continues to happen again and again and again to this very day. Reason being, they have no training. No policies in place on how to handle such situations, and the list goes on and on. Funny thing is even with change in head admins, the same shit happens over and over again. It is simply very poor leadership on the part of Chessty. The suggestions have been made for many years now. You can see them on Bug Board from years ago and recently from Fermy, et al. Chessty reads these posts I'm sure and if not, people tell her about them. Yet she doesn't give one ounce of effort to make things better such as establishing a reasonble protocol for admins to handle problem users and such.
It's sad to see the state of affairs. |
Marv
Senior Member
Username: Marv
Post Number: 317
Registered: 09-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
I think its true that bughouse and its community make FICS a distinct place in the net today. Theres a discussion about which chess server people recommend on a german chess forum and many havent even heard of FICS, since there are servers such as "schach.de" (FRITZ online server with lots of features FICS lacks, but without bughouse) and of course ICC. On the other hand it seems pretty obvious that the biggest part of abuse cases emerges from the bughouse community while its a small minority in the overall FICS population. Considering that i guess few admins will see bughouse as a benefit.
I have problems understanding the meaning of what your post suggests though bugz. You mean to say that the "tolerance" towards abusers should grow with higher bughouse abilities? That would be an awful idea, i hope i misunderstood you. |
Skacz
Senior Member
Username: Skacz
Post Number: 630
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 02:38 am: |
|
I have to agree with Bugzilla main view.
I hope soon will be banned all strong buggers and it will open space for crating some new bughouse server with full support for bughouse which we can imagine
Btw exists many kinds of abuse and everybody should personally select which he wish or wish not risk to play with such abuser.
For example when Gus kibitzing to game for me its not the same abuse as when alamar played rated simul and not the same when somebody lagging and not accept abort or promising playing tournament and then eacaping when ++rating like Horkko.
And its total nonsense that for example Alamar which never cheated by disconnection now as abuser losing game when disconnected (by server spmewhere on the way), becasu this way losing game his pard, this is one of 100 cases which FICS making biggest abusing on users than users personally. U think if all games could be played unrated (what is better than nothing saying rating) and somewhwre could be logged all infos about users, then everybody can select who wish play. But I feel that describe here something is waste of time because of total lack of logic and vision and of ignorance from fics side ...
FICS is in dark age in present ... |
Skacz
Senior Member
Username: Skacz
Post Number: 631
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 04:43 am: |
|
Well more close to true is to say that FICS is absurdistan.
Such things like that You cannot have in finger notes attention that somebody is liar because he lied, but You can lie in fingernotes for example,
making from FICS really crazy and funny place,
FICS is like parody on OTB chess organizations.
If will be here one abuser less or more signed as abuser or without abuser sign, who care, it will be not first and not last ...
( SKAcz automatic FICS Warning filter:
Warning Warning Attention Attention any time spent with dissussion about FICS is in danger to be totally losed time of life !!! Better is to go smoke, it will also make Your life shorter maybe, but still is chance that not for nothing ) |
Bugz (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 05:50 am: |
|
Marv, strong players are less common then weaker ones and hence their absence hits harder and therefore they are more valuable to the server.
I'm speaking from experience because it usually takes me hours to find a partner and opponents of similar strength (within 400 points), while a player rated 1600 can usually find similar rated opponents as soon as they log on. If a 1600 player dissapeared then the other 1600's wouldn't really notice because they would still have plenty of similar rated opponents to play against.
Ofcourse many weaker players contribute to the community by writing bots,websites, running tournaments etc but thats beside the point.
I know that its politiclly incorrect to think this way and everyone should have equal rights however I'm just trying to demonstrate that players add value to the server and they are not just guests here to enjoy themselves, like some admins claim, and this value is most noticable at the higher levels of play.
I also mentioned frequency of play and I think its obvious that if a player who logs on twice a month and has a similar comment file to one who plays several hours a day then the player who spends more time on fics should be treated more leniently because he commits less abuse per time.
|
Skacz
Senior Member
Username: Skacz
Post Number: 632
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 06:42 am: |
|
Yes,
should be allowed to play everybody and its risk of player to play such opponent marked Abuser (level from kibitz abuser to . . . timeseal hacking admin cheater)
[FICS discussion filter warning : time of life lost again for nothing useful] |
guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 08:28 am: |
|
I agree with bugzilla; a lot of the times I log on to fics only to watch good bughouse players play.
ICC gives titled players free membership for the same reason. So indeed, better players are more valuable to a server in the sense that they attract more people. |
Marv
Senior Member
Username: Marv
Post Number: 318
Registered: 09-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 08:39 am: |
|
Bugz, it is true that there are less stronger players than average players. The same is true for extremely weak players. Neither is a deep insight, its probably a normal distribution. Why you think that strong players are of higher value is unclear to me. How do you measure the value? Maybe their value to you is higher as you point out that you have problems to find a four player round, but don't confuse your interests with those of the server. I would think that for "the server", i.e. the poplulation of ch 24, its of much higher interest to have competition in their own average range than wether or not there are 4x2400+ players playing a series without letting anyone from outside in anyhow.
Overall when you bring in values such as transparency, credibility and protection of other users, the bug or chess ability of a player should not play any role when considering sanctions. Besides most of the really strong players are intelligent enough to not run into abuse problems and keep a pretty low profile lately. |
ideaman (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
To shed more light on this, here is what I propose:
Get all the buggers together and start a new server dedicated mainly to bughouse. You can have RubberDuck programming, elected admins, and even a transparent judicial system and legistative branch if you want.
This will settle things once and for all since either it will be a grand success and FICS will take a big hit (if bughouse really is as critical to FICS as some bugboard posters suggest), or the server will struggle to find itself for a bit and eventually the people who keep it afloat will get sick of dealing with the idiots (see MEWIS, DNCS, etc.). Either way, the people involved will get a better understanding of what it takes to run all the aspects of a chess server, and that will give them a better insight into FICS's good and bad points. |
Fermy
Senior Member
Username: Fermy
Post Number: 149
Registered: 03-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 02:49 pm: |
|
I understand Bugzilla's argument, and I, myself, often log in just to watch a good bughouse game.
Still, Marv is right. Let's look at that from another angle. If it's possible to let Gus back after 2000 dupes, surely one can let some 1600 back too on the similar condicitions. |
Bugz (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:08 pm: |
|
Ideaman, its not feasible to create a bughouse-only server because such a server can never grow without a chess population to get new members from.
Hovever it is possible that bughouse moves to ICC if a critical number of bug players gets banned.
This nearly happened once but then the FICS admins did the smart thing and unbanned a few people.
I should also mention that bug players prefer FICS over ICC because FICS is free and also because the FICS server code is more bug-friendly. |
Chessty
Moderator
Username: Chessty
Post Number: 10
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 04:44 pm: |
|
After a lengthy and intense effort to remember my blasted password, I finally have and can post a reply.
As for the posting of private emails, I submit:
Posting Private E-mails
The users may post copies of private emails to Bug Board if and only if 1) he/she is the originator of the email in question or 2) has the consent of both the originator of the email in question and the intended recipient of that private email.
The expressed consent must be posted along with the email post.
If there is a complaint by either the originator of the email or the recipient, the post in question may be modified or deleted by the Bug Board Moderator(s).
Copies of private emails which are posted to The Bug Board without permission (as described above) may also be deleted. Deletion of such posts are at the sole discretion of the Bug Board Moderator(s).
I am rather surprised that posting emails in violation of bugboard policy was allowed. I certainly do not see "express consent" from any admin on the list whose emails are now posted.
I suppose as moderator I could simply just remove the emails but that would be pretty pointless at this time. *shrug* the emails simply show how hard FICS admins work and how much they try to help the server..and often how frustrating it can be when getting stuck dealing with an abusive user.
I would certainly NOT like to see any further violations of bugboard policy, however. The admin list emails are private emails, sent by the admins and to the admins. None of us have granted permission to have the emails posted. Removing names or editing does not honor the privacy of the admins in question. Editing is the sole discretion of the moderator...as long as it conveniently fits that moderators interpretation of the rules. I would think in most cases the emails would not have been allowed to be posted at all out of respect to privacy of the users in question, but this does not serve the moderators personal agenda so the emails were posted. |
Chessty
Moderator
Username: Chessty
Post Number: 11
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 08:12 pm: |
|
My heartfelt apology to SuperGrover for my above-post. This board is not a battlefield and I have no intention of making it one. My objections were better served in a private forum and it was inconsiderate of me to air them here. I also extend my apology to knighttour for that same reason. |
Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 171
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 09:44 pm: |
|
No problem Chessty. However, since you are inquiring about the situation on the board, I'll clarify what happened.
As you know, I hardly check Bug Board anymore. Before turning the admin duties to you, knighttour, and jamesbaud, I specifically told the bug board admin team that I'm pretty much hands off in terms of moderating the board and I only read the board occasionally.
I did, however, check the board on the day Seipman made his posts about 7 hours into it. I removed his posts and put them in the 'Bug Board Administration Trash Bin'. I subsequently made a post on May 07, 2005 - 05:58 pm clearly reiterating the guidelines regarding the posting of emails and informed seipman he could repost as long as he had permission from the senders and receipients in question. I was then told that the FICS admins anticipated Seipman would post and that one of the FICS admins said posting the emails were ok with the FICS admins as long as the timseal code was removed. As a result, I moved the posts back and deleted my post. However, I told kt to go ahead remove the posts if there were any objections. I took the time to monitor my email box more frequently to make sure there were no objections. I did not receive a single email objecting to the posts. However, based on your post, clearly it was not okay. I think kt misinterpretated of the events of the townmeeting and his discussion with volcano and consequently the email posts were erroneously reinstated. I take full responsibility for the error. However, I'd like to point out that you are moderator of this board and you have the power to control the content of this board as well.
Chessty wrote: "...this does not serve the moderators personal agenda so the emails were posted."
I am disapointed in you to say the least. On a personal level, I thought you knew me much better than that. First of all, I don't have a personal agenda with FICS. Secondly, as a moderator of the message board I have always set my personal feelings aside regardless my viewpoints and have always attempted to judiciously moderate the board to the best of my ability, as I have done so for many years in the past. I'd never leave emails up there as some sort of 'revenge'. You should know that. My track record in moderating the board should speak for itself. To assume I had some sort of agenda would be an unfair accusation and an unfair characterization of me.
One last note. You are a moderator of Bug Board. I asked you quite ahile back if you wanted to do it and you agreed. If you are an admin of the board then please take it seriously and do your best to do a good job. If you don't want to do it anymore you don't have to (like JamesBaud). It's on a volunteer basis. However, to accept the position but not fulfill the responsibilities as moderator of the board then blame other moderators and blindly accuse them of leaving emails posted deliberately because of personal agendas is unfair.
P.S. - There is a link at the top menu bar "Forgotten Passwords". If you forget your password you can click on that link to reset it. |
Grishezz
Senior Member
Username: Grishezz
Post Number: 77
Registered: 09-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 12:26 am: |
|
There's really a lot to be said about the whole affair but I will just stick to one short point for now;
Like fermy pointed out somewhere recently FICS is really a community. The bugboard functions as the press. It surely feels a little strange that the head of the potentially-critisized organizaion is one of the very few moderators of the "press". That being said, Chessty really makes an impression of an excellent admin on FICS, probably one of the best. Therefore it's just a general note, rather than a personnal one. |
Fermy
Senior Member
Username: Fermy
Post Number: 150
Registered: 03-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 02:16 am: |
|
shrug* the emails simply show how hard FICS admins work and how much they try to help the server..and often how frustrating it can be when getting stuck dealing with an abusive user.
The e-mails clearly showed two groups of admins. One group tried to find solutions to the problem: (DAV, foxbat, chessty). Another (larger) group contributed nothing constructive to the table. Their participation was essentially down to two points:
1. Did we already sue gilly?
2. We are so wonderful, spend so much time here. I'm tired to deal with all sorts of assholes, let's burn all the abusers and be done with them.
Hello, if you really want to sue gilly, why don't you do some homework yourself, talk to a lawyer, find out legal cost, submit the proposal?
Incidentally, that amdins of the second group that users had/have most problems with. |
ideaman (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
quote:Ideaman, its not feasible to create a bughouse-only server because such a server can never grow without a chess population to get new members from.
Okay, so buggers need FICS at least as much (most likely more) than FICS needs buggers. This begs the question: why in the hell are you suggesting that buggers should recieve special treatment from admins when they abuse regular players? Shouldn't the bughouse community be concerned that some of them are hurting FICS and therefore reducing the number of people who bug? It seems like a contradiction to acknowledge that the bughouse community owes a great debt to FICS, but then say that the bug community is somehow more important than FICS and deserves special treatment. |
Knighttour
Moderator
Username: Knighttour
Post Number: 398
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 11:18 pm: |
|
The consensus of the moderators is that these emails will stay up unless there are specific complaints from the senders, but any future emails posted will be deleted. |
TheRaven (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 11:57 pm: |
|
You know the "confidential email admin list" was a bad idea when the biggest FICS abuser of all time is able to get his dupe admin'd and read all the emails. (and then DAV rants and raves about how all admins obviously can't keep their mouths shut, telling their wives about things they read on the listserv - god I can't stop laughing).
Oh the irony.
Raven |
