LCU blog discontinued

phnompenhchess

reunion wrote: »

Some of the comments in the LCU blog should have been deleted and even some of the blog posts!

It's sad to see it shut down as so many people read it. However, I would prefer a country wide forum (such as this forum) with the same activity.

I don't see the negative in anonymous posting (someone care to tell me?). We are chess players, some of us could have been bullied in school/mocked for playing chess. Sometimes people are interested in a topic but are not confident enough to make it known to everyone. There are other reasons too (not going to start listing them), a good point is a good point made by someone anonymously or not (so too is a bad point).

I'd rather talk about chess than people's identities.

Who are you?

Edit: Lots of UL posts, I can probably guess. Good luck with the Irish Championships.

Sparks

reunion wrote: »

I'd rather talk about chess than people's identities.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Who are you?

Ah, here...

phnompenhchess

Sparks wrote: »

Ah, here...

It's a fair question. In the absence of verified registration you have the potential for individuals to register and use multiple accounts in order to drive their points home. If you don't believe that will happen here you have a lot to learn about Irish chess.

reunion

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Who are you?

Edit: Lots of UL posts, I can probably guess. Good luck with the Irish Championships.

I've no doubt you/people could guess, however I haven't ever stated who I am nor will I. Who I am is irrelevant to any discussion.

phnompenhchess wrote: »

It's a fair question. In the absence of verified registration you have the potential for individuals to register and use multiple accounts in order to drive their points home. If you don't believe that will happen here you have a lot to learn about Irish chess.

This forum should be about chess, however chess players love their drama and politics. So I have no doubt someone will resort to stupid acts to try to defend themselves and their view point. Having multiple accounts is against the terms of service which the mods can check. Tbh, with how petty some people can be, I'd rather an independent forum moderated by independent people.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

It's a fair question. In the absence of verified registration you have the potential for individuals to register and use multiple accounts in order to drive their points home. If you don't believe that will happen here you have a lot to learn about Irish chess.

You really didn't see the irony in your question?
And you honestly think that internet discussion boards control how a sport is governed, as opposed to being a place for people to talk about the sport?

Rev Hellfire

phnompenhchess wrote: »

In the absence of verified registration you have the potential for individuals to register and use multiple accounts in order to drive their points home.

We're no strangers to sockpuppets here on boards and can deal with them when required.

phnompenhchess

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

We're no strangers to sockpuppets here on boards and can deal with them when required.

My point exactly. It happens. How exactly would you deal with it if an individual registers one account on their home broadband, a second on their 3G phone and a third from their work PC?

On a verified user forum it would not happen.

phnompenhchess

Sparks wrote: »

And you honestly think that internet discussion boards control how a sport is governed

No, I never said that and I'm not sure why you would even imply that I did.

bernard palmer

Who i am is irevelant to any discussion" hey! Sorry but in the context of Irish chess at least, your identity is obvious ly revalent . In a dispute involving different unions your address might affect your opinion s . I think you may have hit the nail on the head when you mentioned you you were bullied at school. Well (hopefully) we are all adults here and nobody going to steal your pencil if you write under your own name.

Rev Hellfire

phnompenhchess wrote: »

On a verified user forum it would not happen.

I'm curious as to how you would verify a user on an open forum on the internet; perhaps for a club where you will physically meet the people allowing you to confirm their identities its possible.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

On a verified user forum it would not happen.

So first off, that's just plain wrong. Unless by "verified user forum" you mean "we physically observe each and every poster as they submit their post". Someone can always have their account hacked, and someone can always create a false account, it just comes down to a question of how much effort you put into stopping them and how much effort it takes for them to overcome that. That's rather a basic concept in computer security.

To look a specific point for a second, in your posts above where you've put forward this "verified" idea, you're talking about the ICU or LCU giving over access to their members database to a third party to verify posters. That not only doesn't prevent 100% of cases, but it exposes the ICU/LCU to legal liability because it's breaching the Data Protection Act.

But to step away from the specifics to ask a more important question, what would all of this hassle actually do for the forum?

You're talking about it as though chess was a closed community in Ireland where your opinion was only as worthwhile as your FIDE rating, and as if the forum setup should reflect that. That's a horrible attitude to take, unless your goal is to actively discourage membership of the ICU/LCU and to discourage people taking up chess.

A far better attitude would be to try to welcome newcomers, to build up the numbers of people playing chess, to bring people on in the sport and to reap the larger rewards of having more tournaments, more money in the tournaments, more training, more PR and a healthier sport.

But you don't welcome newcomers by immediately demanding that they prove their identity before they make one post and acting as though this was some sort of official voting forum with Responsibilties and Duties; instead of being a fairly easy-going place to hang out and talk about the game.

Seriously lad. Chill out a tad. This model's worked for a decade (and worked well - this site gets two million people coming to it every month, along with quite a few other markers of success). And it's already set up and free and ready to use (and has actually been in use for a decade). Give it a try, see what happens.

Sparks

bernard palmer wrote: »

Well (hopefully) we are all adults here and nobody going to steal your pencil if you write under your own name.

The history of Irish sport sadly does not support this really quite lovely hope
And that genuinely is a sad thing about the state of sport in our country. Once you get above the club level, the admin side of things by and large is (to borrow a well-known sports journalist's appraisal of it) "a crock of ****".

bernard palmer

I should make it clear that all of my remarks are directed at Irish chess. I know absolutely nothing about any sport except boxing and even then i don't comment on theirboards. One of the problems of an open forum is that the discussion tends to broaden out until it becomes irevelant to the original post. In this case i recommend our timid friend to take the plunge and reveal his secret identity. Once the Clark Kent moment is over he'll find that chess people will leave his pencils alone. Or may he's still at school?

Sparks

Bit ironic on two fronts there "bernard"...

phnompenhchess

Sparks wrote: »

So first off, that's just plain wrong. Unless by "verified user forum" you mean "we physically observe each and every poster as they submit their post". Someone can always have their account hacked, and someone can always create a false account, it just comes down to a question of how much effort you put into stopping them and how much effort it takes for them to overcome that. That's rather a basic concept in computer security.

I appreciate I am not allowed to be critical of anything you say under threat of deletion/suspension etc from your fellow mods but...

Following your line of thought then even email would not be a reliable form of communication. I would argue that it very much is and emails stand up in court when matters are being judged. The notion that unique individuals who do not share networks or computers would hack each others accounts in order to post on a forum board is in the realms of sci-fi. As regards the forum itself being hacked the only instance of that I know is this very Boards.ie which was hacked some years back giving away users emails/usernames/passwords.

By verified user forum I mean that we verify everyone who signs up. Nobody can create a false account as the idea is to manually check each sign up against known email listings, a quick check with club secretaries and if necesary making a quick phone call to verify a user. The user pool is small, the pool outside the known email listings is even smaller.

reunion

bernard palmer wrote: »

Who i am is irevelant to any discussion" hey! Sorry but in the context of Irish chess at least, your identity is obvious ly revalent . In a dispute involving different unions your address might affect your opinion s . I think you may have hit the nail on the head when you mentioned you you were bullied at school. Well (hopefully) we are all adults here and nobody going to steal your pencil if you write under your own name.

I never said I was bullied. However if you ignore the fact that some people can and have been bullied for playing chess you are ignoring lots of the chess community. Forcing people to reveal who they are on a random discussion thread on the internet is a bit bully-ish. What about someone who just picked up the game? Just learnt the rules and wants to read more? They have to give us their name, date of birth and passport number (seems a little extreme the more you ask for)?

Again I think this forum should be a safe place for anyone, regardless of power/history/friends/etc. to discuss chess. If someone feels safer discussing chess through a username and not their real name then that should be fine.

Also it's worth noting that if I said I was John Doe, there is no way to prove that. I can just search for an ICU code on the ICU site. So what is being asked for is a whole different site to boards. If you aren't comfortable using boards not knowing who everyone is, first of all welcome to the internet it must be your first time; secondly no one is forcing you to use boards.

I would like to see an ICU forum created with paid members being allowed to post either with a username or their ICU code. Mods would be able to see the usernames ICU code and moderate the forum appropraitely. Though that might be a bit of time, money and would end up being exclusive when there are free versions of the same thing (like boards) open to new people interested in starting to learn.

Rev Hellfire

bernard palmer wrote: »

In this case i recommend our timid friend to take the plunge and reveal his secret identity. Once the Clark Kent moment is over he'll find that chess people will leave his pencils alone. Or may he's still at school?

No one is under any obligation to reveal their 'secret' identity here.
The merit of the discussion should be based on the content rather than who supplied it.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I appreciate I am not allowed to be critical of anything you say under threat of deletion/suspension etc from your fellow mods

As was already explained to you, that's not the case.
(And seriously snarky thing to say, btw)

Following your line of thought then even email would not be a reliable form of communication.

That is correct and it isn't considered 100% secure by anyone (reliable is a whole other measuring stick)..

I would argue that it very much is and emails stand up in court when matters are being judged.

Only when proven to have come from the individual, and if that individual denies sending the emails, proving that is doable, but nontrivial.

The notion that unique individuals who do not share networks or computers would hack each others accounts in order to post on a forum board is in the realms of sci-fi.

Sadly not. It's a daily occurrance. Welcome to the future, you're living in it.

As regards the forum itself being hacked the only instance of that I know is this very Boards.ie which was hacked some years back giving away users emails/usernames/passwords.

(a) That's not a very good relaying of what happened with boards. Try reading something with more details, like this: http://www.techcentral.ie/article.aspx?id=16977

(b) you're not watching or reading enough news if you've never heard of this happening before. Notable places hacked in the last year alone have included various banks, VISA, hospitals, police forces, and even the pentagon.

By verified user forum I mean that we verify everyone who signs up. Nobody can create a false account as the idea is to manually check each sign up against known email listings, a quick check with club secretaries and if necesary making a quick phone call to verify a user. The user pool is small, the pool outside the known email listings is even smaller.

Wow. Well, if you had to come up with a way to kill off the sport, that'd do it allright.

Look, quick reality lesson here, allright? This forum exists and isn't closing. You can create your own one, make it a pain in the backside to find and a bigger pain to get access to and you will:

• have to pay the bills,
• have to deal with the legal liabilities from both defamation suits and from suits for breaking the Data Protection Act, even if the club secretaries will cooperate with you,
• have to do the work to moderate the forum,
• be left with a small place to let a few of your mates chat away online about how the game of chess is getting smaller and smaller on the competitive stage and how all that's left is us patzers on the outside having fun playing the game, mostly online. About how there aren't any real chess players anymore and so on.

Me, that's not my idea of a good road to go down, it strikes me as being a slow lingering death for the sport and a dull dreary clique-ridden existence for the players; but you're free to do so if you want. Personally, I prefer this place, but really, I'd prefer anywhere that wasn't run the way you're talking about. And quick point - this forum will still be open.

Rev Hellfire

Sparks wrote: »

This forum exists and isn't closing. You can create your own one

I'm not sure anyone suggested closing this one down ; perhaps they're not looking for an inclusive forum but rather one simply for the sole use of their members. So both can happily co-exist.

Sparks

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone suggested closing this one down ; perhaps they're not looking for an inclusive forum but rather one simply for the sole use of their members. So both can happily co-exist.

I don't think they had, but I don't think that everyone had explicitly realised that this one wasn't going anywhere - a case of bad board vision

Ciaran

phnompenhchess wrote: »

By verified user forum I mean that we verify everyone who signs up. Nobody can create a false account as the idea is to manually check each sign up against known email listings, a quick check with club secretaries and if necesary making a quick phone call to verify a user. The user pool is small, the pool outside the known email listings is even smaller.

If my club secretary gave my email or phone number to someone running an internet forum, I'd want them gone from the post immediately.

phnompenhchess

Ciaran wrote: »

If my club secretary gave my email or phone number to someone running an internet forum, I'd want them gone from the post immediately.

Who would be asking your club secretary for your email or phone number? I said nothing of the sort.

In an extreme case the email cannot be verified from known emailing lists, a mail is sent to a club secretary asking them to forward it to an individual. That's very very different from what you wrote above.

The phone number (last resort) would be requested from the individual signing up.

Where does the revenue from boards.ie advertising go to? I'm beginning to smell a rat here in terms of wanting to boost traffic to this site.

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Where does the revenue from boards.ie advertising go to? I'm beginning to smell a rat here in terms of wanting to boost traffic to this site.

Are you serious?

Total number of posts on boards - 37,558,461. Total number of posts on this thread - 124. Total number of active threads in the chess forum this year - 8. This forum is insignificant in overall boards terms.

phnompenhchess

cdeb wrote: »

Are you serious?

Total number of posts on boards - 37,558,461. Total number of posts on this thread - 124. Total number of active threads in the chess forum this year - 8. This forum is insignificant in overall boards terms.

So loads of people won't sign up if we decide on this forum as our main vehicle?

And in terms of giving chess exposure we will be a dot in the horizon on here?

bernard palmer

My my , i seem to be on a loser when suggesting transparency in this world! Id forgotten id wandered ibtoa place where people preferred to be known as"bullmoose" or "quango" but in the real world "reunion" would probably not dare to say boo to me. So i suppose it gives a voice to the voiceless . I must respectfully disagree with the mod. There are many cases where it is nessacery to know where the contributor is "coming from" eg disputes between clubs ect. I doubt if any of you out there will agree however.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Who would be asking your club secretary for your email or phone number? I said nothing of the sort.

a mail is sent to a club secretary asking them to forward it to an individual.

So you wouldn't ask for a phone number, you'd just ask for a phone number?

(And seriously, you'd ask for a phone number before letting someone post?)

Where does the revenue from boards.ie advertising go to? I'm beginning to smell a rat here in terms of wanting to boost traffic to this site.

Wow.
Just... wow.

You lose the LCU blog.
They point out that there's a perfectly functioning forum here that you could use.
You object. But your logical grounds make no sense, your technical grounds are wrong, and when that's explained to you at mindnumbing length, you start slinging mud (even though the finances of this site have been discussed in the feedback forum with the site's owners many times).

Quick question - why do you want so desperately to control who can and cannot post on a forum to discuss Irish chess?

Sparks

bernard palmer wrote: »

There are many cases where it is nessacery to know where the contributor is "coming from" eg disputes between clubs ect. I doubt if any of you out there will agree however.

I wouldn't, not in every case. There are many cases where you would like to know, but that's more curiosity and a wish to evaluate the source instead of the argument.

Give me one good, solid example of where the source of the argument is more important than the merits of the argument.

(Inter-club dispute? You're assuming that people would be allowed to post defamatory material...)

Rev Hellfire

bernard palmer wrote: »

I must respectfully disagree with the mod.

As is your right.

bernard palmer wrote: »

There are many cases where it is nessacery to know where the contributor is "coming from" eg disputes between clubs ect. I doubt if any of you out there will agree however.

Absolutely a lack on anonymity may be preferable in certain circumstances, but boards caters to a wide range of subject matters.

In many of the forums which it supplies using a moniker is preferable, for example those looking for advice on personal matters etc.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

So loads of people won't sign up if we decide on this forum as our main vehicle?
And in terms of giving chess exposure we will be a dot in the horizon on here?

In simple terms, there are two million people looking at this site every month. Chess threads pop up on the front page of this site when people post in them (this one's there now if you look fast enough). This thread alone has been read nearly four thousand times since it started. The ICU has what, 900 members?

Some horizons are so large that even dots are fairly big.

phnompenhchess

It's you who wants to moderate posts posts from unknown people, not me.

Phone calls, yes but after the other checks there would be next to none. Because I have an idea of what's going on in terms of numbers I have a fair idea. You don't. I would say more here but better restrict myself in case your fellow mods take exception to anything that doesn't follow your train of thought.

cdeb

Ah Shane, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself; seriously.

Sparks has said he doesn't want to be a chess mod, full stop.

This notion that you know more than he does because you're an ICU member (half a world a way) and he isn't yet is just nonsense. And I'm saying that as an ICU member, in case that lends my view any extra credence.

Mods don't take exception to things that don't follow set lines; they take exception to abusive posts, trolls and the likes. I've been a mod on a (different) forum; that's how it works. People have already called you up for your post which was deleted.

If I've to give a phone number and take a call to post on a blog, I'm not going to bother my hole tbh. It's a silly idea.

The very idea that you think the chess forum here could skew boards' advertising revenue shows you have next to no idea about numbers at all, to be honest.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

It's you who wants to moderate posts posts from unknown people, not me.

I don't want to moderate at all, thanks, I have enough work to do. There are already moderators on here, so I don't need to either.

However, if you plan to verify everyone's identity and then let them post whatever they want, I hope you've got a good solicitor on retainer because sooner or later, someone is going to file a defamation lawsuit and because you had an editorial policy to not moderate, you'll be unable to avail of the protection afforded to publishers who are just acting as channels instead of sources. And being in Cambodia won't be much use as a defence unless you plan to never come home and have no assets in Ireland. Court cases and jurisdictions are nasty, hairy beasts, as many before you have found.

Because I have an idea of what's going on in terms of numbers I have a fair idea. You don't. I would say more here but better restrict myself in case your fellow mods take exception to anything that doesn't follow your train of thought.

You really aren't a very good ambassador for chess, you know? It's a darn good thing I didn't meet you when I first came back to the game, I'd have dropped it like a hot potato and have gone away with a very poor opinion of chess players indeed.

phnompenhchess

"Sparks;84964857"]In simple terms, there are two million people looking at this site every month. Chess threads pop up on the front page of this site when people post in them (this one's there now if you look fast enough). This thread alone has been read nearly four thousand times since it started. The ICU has what, 900 members?

Some horizons are so large that even dots are fairly big.[/quote]
People read the recent threads list on a forum as diverse as this? I've never heard anything as silly. There must be a new post every few seconds given the millions of posts quoted above. Methinks you might be overselling your greatness.

Anyway its Friday night in Phnom Penh, the weekend fun has begun. Will leave ye to it for a bit.
Prople

bernard palmer

Your being far too cerebral sparks. The rly majority of punters looking, not posting on the l c u site were not how shall we say, overly sophisticated. If some club were to induce say 20 of their members to write contributions supporting certain person or motion a t a a g m im willing to bet these same punters, attending the meeting, would not be influence d . Far fetched? I wonder.

Sparks

And you know, the really sad thing about this thread?

It's old. We've done this theme before, many times. Surfing's "secret spots" list. Shooting's utter horror at the idea that they wouldn't control who said what. The many, many rows in athletics. And the same points being made by people with the same mindset, over and over again, from every small and large sport on this island.

And every time, the end result is the same - either they embrace the change and prosper or they try to avoid the change and become irrelevant in the process because everyone else is already talking away and have been for years.

phnompenhchess

Sparks wrote: »

I don't want to moderate at all, thanks, I have enough work to do.

You really aren't a very good ambassador for chess, you know?.

For the third time you are taking this personally. The "you" referred to are boards.ie 'mods' of which you are one. Which specific 'mod' does what is of no interest to me.

When you have done something for Irish chess let's compare records. Until then I don't think you are in any position to judge me.

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

I've never heard anything as silly.

You post this less than half an hour after suggesting that the chess forum was being deliberately pimped to boost boards' advertising revenue?

Ciaran

phnompenhchess wrote: »

In an extreme case the email cannot be verified from known emailing lists, a mail is sent to a club secretary asking them to forward it to an individual. That's very very different from what you wrote above.

The phone number (last resort) would be requested from the individual signing up.

And who are you going to get "known mailing lists" from? They're none of your business either and if you asked for my phone number to sign up, I'd tell you where to go.

If the ICU set up a board for members, fine. I don't mind them using their database to confirm people but if someone sets up their own message board, they have no right to look for personal information from people signing up. How would I be confident that the info wouldn't be misused?

Where does the revenue from boards.ie advertising go to? I'm beginning to smell a rat here in terms of wanting to boost traffic to this site.

OK... *Backs away quietly*

cdeb

phnompenhchess wrote: »

When you have done something for Irish chess let's compare records. Until then I don't think you are in any position to judge me.

Seriously - the more you repeat this, the more remarkably <snip> you appear, unfortunately.

Edit - speaking of which, I wonder has LiamMc anything more to say on his posts behind my back? Or is he gone quiet now that I'm in a position to stand up for myself?

Outsiders reading in bemusement - these people aren't representative of Irish chess!

phnompenhchess

cdeb wrote: »

You post this less than half an hour after suggesting that the chess forum was being deliberately pimped to boost boards' advertising revenue?

Yes, because it's confusing as to why these guys are so keen to control debate on our game.

cdeb

You're the one who's only going to ring some people before letting them post!

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

People read the recent threads list on a forum as diverse as this? I've never heard anything as silly.

You think things we've seen happening regularly are too silly to have happened?

bernard palmer wrote: »

Your being far too cerebral sparks.

...in a chess forum. Oh-kay...

The rly majority of punters looking, not posting on the l c u site were not how shall we say, overly sophisticated. If some club were to induce say 20 of their members to write contributions supporting certain person or motion a t a a g m im willing to bet these same punters, attending the meeting, would not be influence d . Far fetched? I wonder.

Can you restate that slightly more clearly? Because I read it as saying that clubs who voted in the AGM could have motions carried and I'm sure you had something more nuanced to say.

Rev Hellfire

phnompenhchess wrote: »

because it's confusing as to why these guys are so keen to control debate on our game.

Yes it is confusing because no one is preventing you from using this site or setting up an alternative one.

phnompenhchess

cdeb wrote: »

Seriously - the more you repeat this, the more remarkably <snip> you appear, unfortunately.

Thanks. You are arguing onside the mods so can use any turn of phrase you like.

As regards the debate I know we are supposed to be quiet and agree with you. Eh, sorry nope.

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Yes, because it's confusing as to why these guys are so keen to control debate on our game.

He said about a site that's spent ten years avoiding the control you're talking about because they knew it was a poisoned chalice (not to mention illegal the way you want to do it).

Sparks

phnompenhchess wrote: »

Thanks. You are arguing onside the mods so can use any turn of phrase you like.
As regards the debate I know we are supposed to be quiet and agree with you. Eh, sorry nope.

/blinks

Did you just effectively say we're all out to get you?

phnompenhchess

Sparks wrote: »

/blinks

Did you just effectively say we're all out to get you?

Nope, just you and Kevin but he generally opposes things and you are a Boards.ie mod so it is not surprising either of you would disagree with my preferred route. The six people who have mailed me regarding an independent forum get more credence in my book.

Of course we could all use Colms forum on Dublinchess.com. I imagine he'll make a great mod and contribute lots of (ICU insider) material to it.

cdeb

I "generally oppose things"?

Care to expand?

For the record, I'm not out to get you, but your posts have been conspiracy-theory standard at best, and I've no problems calling that.

phnompenhchess

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes it is confusing because no one is preventing you from using this site or setting up an alternative one.

There is an alternative one on Dublinchess.com although it is moderated. My second preference is for an unmoderated blog.

My first preference is for the ICU to setup a forum. As grief will most likely be directed at them (and they are all unpaid volunteers who work very hard for little thanks) I believe it is in their interest to have some form of editorial control.

cdeb

The LCU blog was relatively unmoderated, and I thought it suffered for that, even though there was mostly no anonymity. Martin and Peter drove a fair few regular posters away, I'd say.

An entirely unmoderated forum would be a disaster.

If the ICU want to set up a forum, let them. The LCU's call is to put their forum here. If others (you, Colm) want to set up a forum off you go. Free market will decide which will win out. Though it'd be better if there was general agreement obviously.