English Chess Forum

Carl,

I have a question for your clarification with regard to the House Rules.

Is leaching of this forum for the purposes of another blog or forum to be considered in accord with the House Rules. Particularly given that a free right of response may not necessarily be granted on another organ?

Kind Regards,
Paul.

Can anybody explain what Paul is trying to say here?

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

I'm going to make a crazy guess that PM is referring to http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2009/07/english-chess-needs-to-grow-up-about.html

AH comes in for a toasting being labelled an idiot.



I would suggest that name calling somewhat detracts from the otherwise high reputation of the S&B blog : I recommend the S&B blog as a model site for clubs thinking of having a web presence.

We all make mistakes but to compound them with playground insults is not appropriate, IMHO.

_________________
Chess Images: http://johnupham.smugmug.com/Chess
IT Manager for the British Chess Magazine: http://www.britishchessmagazine.co.uk
Twitter: @jeupham
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/john.upham

This forum is viewable by the general public. If you write messages on a forum viewable by the general public, you should be doing so with the knowledge that your words may be quoted elsewhere. This applies whether or not the quoter is a member of the forum.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

Naw, John, I don't think that's Paul's problem regardless of the merits or otherwise of the style of today's piece, that can't possibly be what's meant by "leaching of" (or is it meant to be "leeching off?"). And it's unlikely that choices of style made on other websites would come under the rules of this one.

I think there's a problem with writing, somewhere else, about a thread here, although I confess it's unclear how that would come under any rules here, or for that matter why anybody else would think it did. Or indeed whether there is any objection to people writing on this site about things that are written elsewhere. I confess I can't quite grasp it.

(Oh, a point perhaps worth making - despite its name, it's not a club blog. We're fans of the club but it's not officially representative of the club, only of the people who write it.)

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

As an aside, may I make a general point about linking to blogs here? A blog is, by its very nature, a site where the most recently published article rises to the top. Any given article you may want to talk about will fall quickly off the front page of an active blog, so if you want to talk about it, link to the article and not the entire blog. In this case, you'd want to link to http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2009/07/english-chess-needs-to-grow-up-about.html.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

Obtuse, to the point of having comedic value.



Someone understood, if not Justin.



Not so dumb after all. As you later say, the blog belongs to those who write it. So a discussion, nay, ill-tempered argument, that takes place here, should not be taken off to someone else's private party, where several people claim to have struggled with obtaining a fair right to reply in the past.

As for the rules, it might be sensible for the speaker of this particular forum to reserve the right to request the repatriation of any contentious discussion to this forum, to ensure that fair play is observed and seen to be observed.



That is true. However, fair play demands that contentious issues that start on this forum are allowed to finish here. The rights of participants to comment should not be abridged by the use of private "public" parties. There have been several complaints about that particular tactic in the past.

This arguement is getting irritating now...

_________________
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

The discussion has not been "taken off"; it's still there, in the General Chat section, and Justin is still taking part in that thread. His post on the S&B blog is a comment on that particular thread, not part of it.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

No, it isn't. It's not so much sensible as ludicrous. nobody has any right whatsoever to say that a discussion that starts in one place may not be commented on or continued elsewhere. if you have an argument down the Dog and Duck then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to expect that nobody will talk about it down the Headless Chicken. It's absurd even to suggest it.

(And as I observe above, many discussions on this site are about things that people have said or written elsewhere. I've not seen anybody suggesting that this was out of order. Not surprisingly, since it would be a ludicrous suggestion.)

File under "Eh?"

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

Jack, that seems a little naive. And it is certainly semantic hairsplitting. It would have been part of the thread if it had been made here. And that the "comment" was placed there does not remove the fact that it is really part of the thread here. Would Justin refrain from complaining if, for example, Alex were to set up his own blog and call Justin an "idiot". It isn't fair play.

Justin,

I'll file you under intemperate pub bore then.

Thank you and good night.

Paul.

The obvious answer is that I would, of course, if I were minded to complain, complain to the site where I felt I had been offended. That's the only appropriate place.

And if Alex or anybody else cares to start a website and call me, Paul McKeown or Saint Francis of Assisi an idiot, then I'm afraid that would be his right and nothing whatsoever to do with this site.

That's elementary, I think.

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

!!!!!

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

Of course it would, but it wasn't made here. And it wasn't made here because it wasn't part of the thread, and wasn't meant to read as such.



Whatever the rights or wrongs of Justin's calling Alex an idiot - which Alex is perfectly entitled to complain about - a commentary post on a discussion is different from a post within that discussion. Generally, posts within a discussion carry on the conversation as it was up to that point, mostly focusing on the most recent posts. Commentary posts tend to cover the entire discussion, usually giving the writer's view of the discussion as a whole.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com