Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

LCU blog discontinued

245

Comments

  • #52
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    I have been a keen reader of the Irish times for more then 35 years and i cannot recall a single instance of a suit against an unincorporated body as you must know that paper is the"journal of record" in such matters and would be delighted to report any such matters you may be aware that both l c u and the i c u have been threatened with suits over their long existence -all bluff. I however am always willing to learn and if anyone can give me an instance of a informal body like the i c u being successfully sued in Ireland. I will play the dragon defence for my next 10 games. However i don't anticipate having to deviate from my usual French.


  • #53
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    For effectiveness, the most important thing is that there should be one central forum/blog. I think it's fair to say that the LCU Blog was the one most people would read first. Possibly boards.ie would fill the same role, possibly not -- an ICU-supported blog would have a clear advantage. Possibly it could be restricted to paid-up members who used their membership passwords to log in, with an appointed (or elected) moderator? (Ciaran Quinn if he'd take it on.)

    I can't comment on Irish defamation law, and it sounds less favourable to blogs than what I'm used to, but how big a worry is it that someone will steal or guess someone's password? Someone could write a letter to the editor of the Irish Times giving your name and address, and you could equally well be sued for that, but I've never heard of it happening.


  • #54
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    CIanra Quinn if he'd take it on" how about some new blood? This dreadful instinct in Ireland to always keep continuity ! While he did an ok job under sometimes trying circumstances he does have a house. And why not try my idea ?


  • #55
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    If it's an elected post all you have to do is throw your hat in the ring at the AGM!


  • #56
    Irish Warrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭Irish Warrior


    Sorry to see the LCU blog go. Was a useful place to find info on not just LCU chess but Irish chess in general. Yes there were some problems with some users/posts, but that is to be expected on the internet.

    Looking at some of the replies in this thread about setting up a replacement, it seems to be getting over complicated for some very strange reasons that I never seen on the internet before.

    Making users aware that anything unacceptable in the "real world" is also unacceptable on the forum, and could get them banned, would surely be enough.


  • #57
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    give me an instance of a informal body like the i c u being successfully sued in Ireland
    I can think of one off the top of my head from the shooting world, but that predates the current Defamation Act (it was however successful and the club involved wound up saddled with both legal costs and a punitive fine in the five figure range). There was Talbot-v-Hermitage Golf Club after the Defamation Act came in. Talbot lost; however, the point is that he dragged the club into the High (and later Supreme) Courts and even though the club won and won costs, they had no real hope of ever recouping the full amount.

    Plus, more practically, they had to pay for the solicitors up front and even with winning costs, not all of their legal costs are covered. That's not a position any unincorporated association would want to find itself in unless its officers were all named parties in a legal insurance policy of some kind.

    And more practically still, all that represents time, money, manpower and stress that does not one thing to promote chess. Worse, it would be negative PR for chess (and Cork showed how novel that is for newspapers and how fast they'll jump on it).

    So really, why risk it?
    Sean Coffey wrote: »
    Someone could write a letter to the editor of the Irish Times giving your name and address, and you could equally well be sued for that, but I've never heard of it happening.
    No, in that case it'd be the Times for not verifying name and address and for choosing the letter (editorial control == legal liability). And I've had that happen to me (with the Irish Examiner and without the lawsuits thankfully, but with a tendered (unaccepted) resignation from the NGB as a result because of the poor PR it represented). It worked out okay in the end, but it could have gone a whole other way entirely.


  • #58
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    Well Sean, i never mentioned myself in the role. And it is not an elected post for the simple reason that the i c u executive will not be discussing it ffor weeks and when they do get around to it they will probably form a sub committee to discuss the matter....well you see what i mean


  • #59
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    Hmm. I may have to brush up on my dragon...but a golf club presumably owning some land equipment buildings and not have article of incorporation?


  • #60
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    Hmm. I may have to brush up on my dragon...but a golf club presumably owning some land equipment buildings and not have article of incorporation?
    Surprised me as well, most golf clubs are incorporated; but it's not in the CRO companies search and it's not listed in the legal documents (even in the labour court) as a company, but as a club.

    And skip the dragon and play caro-kann for a while, it'll seem lively after the french :D


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BTW, this is a lot of scary talk about something that's really easily avoided - we're talking worst case scenario here (I've just seen people go there in other sports and it's an absolute disaster when they do).

    If you want to avoid it, it's really quite easy - give up editorial control and you no longer have legal liability. It's only when you have editorial control that you wind up in trouble. So basicly, keep the LCU site and post the news there, but talk about it somewhere else that the LCU isn't responsible for (that could be here, but it could also be anywhere else at all). That's it, that's all you have to do to avoid the liability issues (well, assuming you don't actually post defamatory stuff as news, but if you do that, you deserve the lawsuit :D )


  • #62
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    Interesting case on the golf all right. However I note there was no blog involved: instead it was about a handicap system. To be on the safe side should the ICU scrap ratings, or let third parties develop them or whatever?

    You can be sued for anything so the goal can't (and shouldn't) be the elimination of all possible risk. Just as the rating system has worked fine without lawsuits, it's quite a reasonable step for the ICU to operate a moderated ICU blog/forum, allowing posting by ICU members..


  • #63
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


    If the purpose is to have a robust discussion about ICU/LCU matters, there's no real need to worry about defamation. However, the idea that someone would host an Irish chess blog overseas so that we can all have a go at each other without fear of legal consequences is pathetic.


  • #64
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Actually, Talbot was not so much about the golf handicap itself, but more about a member of a club taking offence at a written remark made by an official of the club (and for the purposes of the law, the LCU or ICU would be a club) -- that seems to be the kind of thing (based on my own personal experience) that happens a lot in Irish sports. It doesn't seem to be the kind of thing to dismiss out of hand as not being applicable.

    But more practically, it's an example of a defamation lawsuit being taken against an unincorporated association - and while that case was lost, the point is that such cases can be taken. So being unincorporated is not an umbrella against legal liability.


  • #65
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    I wasn't dismissing anything out of hand (the remark "there's no real need to worry about defamation" came from Zugszwang, not me). I'm saying you can be sued for anything, quite apart from the question of a blog. The Talbot case did not involve a blog, did not even involve a website, but instead involved a written remark *not made public and only seen by the plaintiff himself*.

    A blog is in essence like a noticeboard at the local club. Should noticeboards be banned for fear of a defamation lawsuit? Most people would say that's an overreaction. There's always a risk and the Talbot case shows it but it's usually not taken as sufficient reason to ban noticeboards.


  • #66
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Sean Coffey wrote: »
    I'm saying you can be sued for anything, quite apart from the question of a blog.
    In this country, yeah. But sued successfully? I'd like to think "not so much".

    However, for small amateur groups like most of those in Irish sport (and including the ICU and LCU), just the cost of mounting a defence alone can usually have a horrible effect regardless of outcome (which is why lawsuits are like unlit cigars to Nimzowitsch).
    The Talbot case did not involve a blog, did not even involve a website, but instead involved a written remark *not made public and only seen by the plaintiff himself*.
    ...and by the rest of the committee (see the comments in the judgement about minutes) and that was enough for the case to be brought.

    Incidentally, Talbot centers on a remark which was interpreted by Talbot as being an accusation of cheating and had that interpretation been upheld by the judge, the case would have gone very differently - as the judge himself said, "An accusation of cheating in amateur sport and games has for over 150 years been held to be seriously defamatory of the person accused of such behaviour." Given recent events in Cork, it would seem to be an apropos case...
    A blog is in essence like a noticeboard at the local club. Should noticeboards be banned for fear of a defamation lawsuit?
    Depends on what's posted on them - if it's just event details, scoresheets & so on, of course not. If it's an unmoderated discussion of a specific incident of cheating on the other hand...


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    I'm still not quite following your argument. The issue at hand is whether it's a good or bad thing for the ICU to create a replacement for the late lamented LCU Blog. I argue it's a good thing (it's best thought of as a noticeboard, members could be required to post under their name, and there could be suitable moderation). You're arguing ... what, exactly?

    "Depends on what's posted on them - if it's just event details, scoresheets & so on, of course not. If it's an unmoderated discussion of a specific incident of cheating on the other hand..." (sorry I'm not using the "Quote" feature correctly)

    Event details, scoresheets, etc. -- great stuff but presumably already covered by the ICU web site so not that relevant to the LCU Blog.

    Unmoderated discussion of a specific incident of cheating ... well I agree that any such board should be moderated. As indeed the LCU Blog was.

    By focussing exclusively on worst-case scenarios and extreme cases, it's possible to lose sight of the positive case. Some examples of interesting LCU Blog threads that were useful without being inflammatory were the ones on the AGM motions (cited here earlier) and Irish championship format, participation, and locations. There were also many informative notices from people without posting rights on the main ICU web site, and above all several running threads on tournaments in progress -- i.e., actual chess commentary. The tipster competition from last year's Irish championship was excellent. This year it seems we won't have anything like that, on the basis of what, exactly? Fears of some defamation parade of horribles, it seems. That's a major step backwards.


  • #68
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Sean Coffey wrote: »
    You're arguing ... what, exactly?
    That if the LCU shut down the blog owing to concerns over legal liability (which is perfectly understandable) then the function the LCU blog performed in allowing discussion about chess in Ireland can still be performed elsewhere; but if the LCU want to run that elsewhere, they'll be right back to where they started with concerns over legal liability. And none of the suggested measures to allow them editorial control of that elsewhere without the legal liability actually work.

    By focussing exclusively on worst-case scenarios and extreme cases, it's possible to lose sight of the positive case.
    I completely agree, reading the blog was enormously educational when I started back into the game; but if the LCU have shut down the blog, then someone is looking at the worst case scenario and deciding it's too likely to continue to risk it.
    This year it seems we won't have anything like that, on the basis of what, exactly? Fears of some defamation parade of horribles, it seems. That's a major step backwards.
    Why do we have to lose it? Just because the LCU don't think they can afford the risk doesn't mean the function has to go away; it just means that somewhere else has to host it. That's no big deal. Here's been around for a decade and I'm sure there are other places as well (I don't see why you'd have to set up a new forum but you could do that too I suppose). None of the positive things you mention would be lost, and anything defamatory would be treated in the same way there as they would have been on the LCU blog.


  • #69
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    Sparks wrote: »
    How do you force someone to post under their own name and always know that it's them posting and not someone who guessed/was given their username/password?
    And if (say) the ICU sets up such an "unmoderated" (it really is moderated if you've got posting policies, its just not moderated enough to keep you safe from lawsuits) forum, and they don't catch such a thing happening, how open are they to be sued for allowing defamatory postings by the person being impersonated?

    I think perhaps you haven't fully thought through what you're proposing.

    You don't get seem to get it at all. I did not suggest the ICU sets up an unmoderated board just that if they will not own and moderate one then we should go down that route.

    No problem to verify each user for the ICU as it already has the paid member database with unique login/password. A little more effort to do that on a third party board but most member emails are in the public domain so it's doable with some effort linked to these email addreses and perhaps some club assistance.

    I don't know what to make of your suggestion that people would lose their username and password combination. That could happen on any platform but it is unlikely. One place I have lost my username/email/password combination in the past is Boards.ie when they were hacked some years back.


  • #70
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    Sparks wrote: »
    That if the LCU shut down the blog owing to concerns over legal liability (which is perfectly understandable)

    I don't think it's quite like that. Even if there was no legal liability whatsoever, it seems the LCU just didn't want arguments on topics that were mostly not LCU-related to be hosted in their site. Understandable enough, I think. The problem was compounded because posters didn't have to give their real names and there were various other ways in which the setup wasn't ideal.

    However, live and learn, perhaps it's possible for the ICU to set up a replacement with improvements based on experience.


  • #71
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    The problem Sean, is that the present l c u executive did notwant comments of any kind but the most insipid to appear on the site we are not talking about a group terrified of being in court, but a group confined by the 'd Irish axiom "whatever you say , say nothing"and a cure for this ailment i have yet to find. I t remains to be seen if the i c u executive will pick up the gauntlet but don't be to surprised if no action is taken "for legal reasons"


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    EnPassant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 277 ✭✭EnPassant


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    CIanra Quinn if he'd take it on" how about some new blood? This dreadful instinct in Ireland to always keep continuity ! While he did an ok job under sometimes trying circumstances he does have a house. And why not try my idea ?
    I'm with Bernard on this one!
    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    You don't get seem to get it at all. I did not suggest the ICU sets up an unmoderated board just that if they will not own and moderate one then we should go down that route.

    No problem to verify each user for the ICU as it already has the paid member database with unique login/password. A little more effort to do that on a third party board but most member emails are in the public domain so it's doable with some effort linked to these email addreses and perhaps some club assistance.
    I don't think a forum should necessarily be restricted to ICU members - an open forum that anyone with an interest in Irish chess could join would be much better. It should allow for people living abroad, former players, tournament organisers, organisers of junior clubs, etc.
    Sean Coffey wrote: »
    By focussing exclusively on worst-case scenarios and extreme cases, it's possible to lose sight of the positive case. Some examples of interesting LCU Blog threads that were useful without being inflammatory were the ones on the AGM motions (cited here earlier) and Irish championship format, participation, and locations. There were also many informative notices from people without posting rights on the main ICU web site, and above all several running threads on tournaments in progress -- i.e., actual chess commentary. The tipster competition from last year's Irish championship was excellent. This year it seems we won't have anything like that, on the basis of what, exactly? Fears of some defamation parade of horribles, it seems. That's a major step backwards.
    I don't see why a tipster competition could not run on this site this year and there is no reason why people could not post on the Irish Championship here either.
    bernard palmer wrote: »
    The problem Sean, is that the present l c u executive did notwant comments of any kind but the most insipid to appear on the site we are not talking about a group terrified of being in court, but a group confined by the 'd Irish axiom "whatever you say , say nothing"and a cure for this ailment i have yet to find. I t remains to be seen if the i c u executive will pick up the gauntlet but don't be to surprised if no action is taken "for legal reasons"

    The Scottish Chess union have a forum here: http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/index.php - is this what people want? Would the boards.ie forum be closer in spirit to the old LCU blog than anything else?

    [Note: I am speaking for myself here not for the LCU]


  • #73
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    Well, again I find it hard to be too critical of the LCU. It's their website after all, and it's not as if they're blocking anyone else from setting up something similar. If the ICU doesn't do anything, it could also be on the basis that they'll be blamed no matter what they do: if they moderate it, some people won't be happy, if they decide to end it later, people won't be happy, etc. etc.


  • #74
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    EnPassant wrote: »
    I don't think a forum should necessarily be restricted to ICU members - an open forum that anyone with an interest in Irish chess could join would be much better. It should allow for people living abroad, former players, tournament organisers, organisers of junior clubs, etc.

    The idea not being to restrict it to ICU members but to stop random troll users coming on and shouting the odds (as happened earlier in this thread and often happened on the LCU blog). If people have to put their name to their posts they might think twice about being out of order. The ICU database would make it very easy for them to verify people, the few non members that want to sign up could be vetted using a manual route. I have already offered the ICU my assistance in terms of man hours that this might involve should they take this on.

    My main issue with setting up the blog here on Boards.ie is that users cannot be verified by us in advance thus allowing the trolls easy access to cause bother. As a separate issue I am also concerned about non chess people moderating our forum as their lack of knowledge leaves them open to being manipulated.


  • #75
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    My main issue with setting up the blog here on Boards.ie is that users cannot be verified by us in advance thus allowing the trolls easy access to cause bother. As a separate issue I am also concerned about non chess people moderating our forum as their lack of knowledge leaves them open to being manipulated.
    I think, based on about a decade of moderating a fairly contentious forum in here (seriously, you think chess is contentious? Try shooting, it'll reset your metric quite quickly), that you're horribly overestimating the problem.


  • #76
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    as happened earlier in this thread
    If people have a problem with activities on this thread report them.


  • #77
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    Sparks wrote: »
    I think, based on about a decade of moderating a fairly contentious forum in here (seriously, you think chess is contentious? Try shooting, it'll reset your metric quite quickly), that you're horribly overestimating the problem.
    You think you would do a good job moderating a chess forum, I don't. I have been involved with Irish chess for over 25 years, you haven't. In my view you can't do a good job because you don't understand the content or context of what is written.

    In any event that doesn't get away from the verification of users which you can't do here.


  • #78
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    You think you would do a good job moderating a chess forum, I don't. I have been involved with Irish chess for over 25 years, you haven't. In my view you can't do a good job because you don't understand the content or context of what is written.
    Ah, now I understand your concern :)
    Rest easy lad. I no more want to mod another forum (any other forum) than I want to pull off all my fingernails with a pliers, slowly. I don't mod this forum either (you can see the ones I do over there on the left, and believe me, that's more than enough for my plate - shooting alone needs four mods just to keep up), and I don't want to. You should have said this was your concern right from the start, your worry could have been put to rest a lot sooner.
    In any event that doesn't get away from the verification of users which you can't do here.
    (a) You'd be surprised at how much of a fig leaf the anonymity in here actually is. Take a read of Rule #5 of the Shooting forums, specifically this part:
    Anonymity in these forums is a social construct, not a real fact.
    ...
    If you abuse it in order to defame someone else and they were to produce a court order, boards.ie will provide them with your real identity, which is far less anonymous than you think. Further, abusing that anonymity to take cheap shots at people is not only utterly rude and obnoxious, it also violates rule number one in the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another - and will get you banned in a hurry.

    (b) you can't actually do what you're saying will be easy. You can kinda-sorta-mostly get there, but frankly, you can't depend on the results and even trying exposes you to legal liabilities if you fail and someone uses that failure to defame someone else; which brings us right back to my point that if the LCU or ICU want to avoid the legal liability, they can do so easily, but not without giving up editorial control. The one is tied to the other pretty securely.


  • #79
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Let me be clear, if people can't conduct themselves in a civilized manner they'll not be posting here for much longer.


  • #80
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


    Moderating a chess discussion is no different from moderating any other forum. Sparks has convinced me of that anyway, and doesn't deserve the snide remark made above.

    One massive benefit to being on boards.ie that no one has mentioned is the visibility it gives chess in Ireland. There are many people who follow chess on boards.ie but don't play in a club -- with a bit of coaxing they might come join a club, play some tournaments. It's a great opportunity.


  • #81
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    My previous post here was deleted by a 'mod'. It appears criticism of any admin user of this board is unacceptable. Anyway this is the wrong place for us in my view and I believe no valid argument to the contrary has been sufficiently made.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    We accept criticism freely here as long as you're civil about it.
    If you have a problem with the moderation please use the Dispute Resolution Procedure


  • #83
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


    @phnompenhchess, surely you can see on reflection that that what you wrote was an insult? You could have criticised Sparks without the added insult. This is exactly why boards.ie is a great place to discuss a topic, because the mods cut out the stuff that cause discussions to degenerate into trading abuse, which is what the LCU blog was a lot of the time.


  • #84
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    Zugszwang wrote: »
    @phnompenhchess, surely you can see on reflection that that what you wrote was an insult? You could have criticised Sparks without the added insult. This is exactly why boards.ie is a great place to discuss a topic, because the mods cut out the stuff that cause discussions to degenerate into trading abuse, which is what the LCU blog was a lot of the time.
    I don't know who you are (one issue which would be nice not to have on a forum with verified registration) but thanks for your input. It is for this very reason that this is not the place to hold our forum. I was factual in that previous post, maybe the statement of that fact is not nice to hear but so be it. Apparent lesson is not to in any way offend any admin associated with this site or be met with deletion and a link to the 'rules'. Now take his further to heated debates on actual chess matters. Mod, who is only finding out that chess is a sport, makes calls depending on the wind direction. Doesn't work. Anyway my point is well made on that and until read something to change my mind I'll comment no further.

    Another thing that jumps to mind is that whilst the ICU may not currently be in shape to run a forum it may well be in the future. To maintain continuity setting up a forum of our own now which could be handed over at a later date would be wise. If anyone is interested in collaborating on a new forum please drop me a note to Phnom Penh Chess Club's Facebook page. Maybe time to get this moving.


  • #85
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I must admit, I'm surprised to hear that Chess in Ireland has so many players and so much support that they have to actively dissuade people from having anything to do with the sport by being by turns caustic and derisory, but hey, if that's how the ICU feel and you're speaking on their behalf, then I guess that's how it is.


  • #86
    Sean Coffey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭Sean Coffey


    There's another aspect of all this that hasn't been discussed. The LCU wants to get out of the blog business, fair enough, it's their decision. But what about the basic leinsterchess.com site? This has excellent coverage of the leagues, and last year had equivalent coverage of the Branagan (and Killane and William Brennan). But what's happened to the Branagan coverage this year? The link still takes you to last year's coverage, despite this year's competition being more than half over.

    (One of the useful features of the LCU Blog was that you could post a question like that. Oh well.)


  • #87
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Losing the website itself would seem to be monumentally ill-advised. There's no reason for it. If anything, the site could do with being expanded, there are whole aspects of the sport that don't get huge coverage there.


  • #88
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Sean Coffey wrote: »
    (One of the useful features of the LCU Blog was that you could post a question like that. Oh well.)
    You just did post the question though?

    Whether it'd be answered is another thing; many of the LCU committee didn't post on the blog (including, afaik, Peter Scott, who'd be best placed to answer your query).

    But the best way to get an answer to your query would be to e-mail the LCU. People seem to think posting on the internet is a sure-fire way of getting everything solved. It's not.

    And you've missed the main issue with the Cup coverage actually - the semis start in two weeks' time, but we don't know who's likely to be in them.


  • #89
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    You think you would do a good job moderating a chess forum, I don't. I have been involved with Irish chess for over 25 years, you haven't. In my view you can't do a good job because you don't understand the content or context of what is written.
    .

    So, by your logic Sparky would be terrible moderator of the String Theory Forum. The point of the moderator is not to punish people for false facts or mistakes. Everyone gets sh*t wrong, sometimes there are no truths, sometimes people intrinsically disagree on what the 'truth' may be.
    The point of the moderator is to ensure that discussion flows smoothly and civily. That doesn't require any expertise in chess. It simply requires the ability to discern when other people are making abusive or potentially defamatory comments. Or worse (contempt of court, plagiarism, piracy etc.).

    In fact, the 'ideal' moderator would probably the be one who has no opinion on the subject matter. So they're unlikely to be prejudiced in their judgement in what is worthy of being infracted. All they have be able to do is discern an attack on the post from an attack on the poster.


  • #90
    Col Dal
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12 ✭Col Dal


    Well having read just a few of the posts here and with consideration for the potential positive usefulness of Leinster Chess and Irish chess in general having a resource that enables people to share news and ideas regarding chess issues I have decided to put up a blog similar to the LCU blog called Irish Chess Cogitations.


    http://www.dublinchess.com/topic.php?id=2

    http://www.dublinchess.com/topic.php?id=3

    If people just avoid libel, defamation, or hate speech then they can pretty much express their views as they wish. Just try to keep on topic.

    If things work out well there can be a useful tool to share news and information, share ideas for us all with an interest in Irish chess.

    As to the totally red herring about people not giving their full name or details, some of the best posts have been by people who prefer to use fake names or profile, nothing wrong with that as long as we simply put that into the equation when judging the objective merits of a post.

    The most awful posts on the LCU blog were often from the most well known poster who had almost made the blog his own personal mouth piece. The simple fact is that people should judge comments on the merits of the points made regardless of who is making the point.

    There are many good reasons why people prefer to not use their real life names on a blog on the internet. We just need concern ourselves with the points and views expressed. Address the post and not the personality of the poster as much as possible.

    We can give this blog a try and see how we get on. If people want to make it relevant and useful then they will be civil and avoid libel,defamation and hate speech. Such material will be deleted ASAP so if people just concern themselves with chess matters and ideas then all will be fine.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Hm.
    "These players should work at their game and when of the sufficient standard of 1900 only then should they be allowed to play with us.
    It demeans our beautiful game when you allow wood pushers who barely know how to move the pieces to play against real chess players."
    What, seriously?


  • #92
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    Sparks wrote: »
    Hm.

    What, seriously?

    This seems to be what happens in Go, at least in the clubs of South East Asia. The advice is generally not to attend a club until you play yourself up to 1800 or 1900 Go standard (can't remember which level this is). It has always put me off playing their game. Could you imagine the Leinster Leagues with a 1900 floor.


  • #93
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    DublinChess.com? An interesting name for a Leinster chess blog!

    Nice to see everyone going by their real name...as people wanted here.

    And no harm Col Dal, but I'd take an anonymous boards moderator over your good self any day of the week!


  • #94
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    phnompenhchess wrote: »
    Could you imagine the Leinster Leagues with a 1900 floor.
    It's not hard to imagine 68 people playing away in a thinly populated armstrong while 850-odd people sit around outside watching everything else grind to a halt. It's even easier to imagine them deciding that paying for those 68 people to play while not being allowed play themselves was a rather odd use for their hard-earned money and then those 68 finding that they had to pay all the costs of the armstrong themselves. Why on earth you'd want to imagine such a scenario is harder to fathom.

    But the thing that struck me most on reading the quote wasn't the thing it was supposedly about (because everyone in sport anywhere in the world and their aunt knows that competition should have classes or similar mechanisms to try to ensure that novices and intermediates can compete with each other instead of with the most experienced players). What struck me instead was the tone of the quote. It wasn't concerned with encouraging more people to play and develop and thereby ensure the sport is kept healthy; it was concerned with keeping the riff-raff out.


  • #95
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    That poster has, let's say, a history of such posts. I'd say one in five of his posts on the old forum was on that topic (even though he's not much above 1900 himself). It was the kind of tedious stuff which dogged the old forum too often. No-one's fault (bar the contributor) really; just people would be driven away by that kind of stuff over and over. A new forum could only really do well with a slightly broader spectrum of topics.


  • #96
    bernard palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 18 ✭bernard palmer


    All kinds of good reasons why people use pseudonym " like what? The usual people who hide behind monikers like t"chess weapon"ect. Usually produce pretty sad excuses for contribution. Just what are these people afraid of? I c u members going to their house in the middle of the night with a firey cross and pillowcase hoods?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    Just what are these people afraid of? I c u members going to their house in the middle of the night with a firey cross and pillowcase hoods?
    To use an example taken from the Bad Old Days in target shooting, they might not be afraid of the KKK treatment, but being banned from tournaments could be a concern. I know personally of people who were unofficially (but utterly effectively) blackballed out of target shooting unfairly (and we're talking national champions here) because they dared to make completely reasonable criticisms publicly and unfair people took notice and acted unethically. I doubt you'd see that in the ICU, but that doesn't mean it might not worry people.

    Moving away from sport, there is of course the most famous reason and that is that people profile you according to your real name. I knew a bernard once and he was a git for example, or she's a girl, girls can't play chess, so I won't listen to her, or that's a johnny foreigner name, what could they possibly know, eh old bean?, or... well pick your poison. This is kindof why we invented pen names to begin with and the fact is that the reasons that were around when they were invented are still around now.

    But that's the question "why would you use a pseudonym?". You're not really asking the other question - and you should - of "what's wrong with using a pseudonym?". I mean, it might not be my cup of tea (yes, Sparks actually is a name associated with me in real life and has been for about 20 years, and yes that is a photo of me on the left and yes, that is my real name in my profile data) -- but that's personal taste and the thing about personal taste is that it's personal :D If someone wants to use a pen name, what harm?

    PS: don't forget, defamation is something that isn't linked to using or not using a pseudonym - it's banned either way. So that concern doesn't affect the use or nonuse of pseudonyms: ie. you ban Defamation, not pen names.


  • #98
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    All kinds of good reasons why people use pseudonym " like what? The usual people who hide behind monikers like t"chess weapon"ect. Usually produce pretty sad excuses for contribution. Just what are these people afraid of? I c u members going to their house in the middle of the night with a firey cross and pillowcase hoods?
    I'll direct you to an expert opinion on the matter:
    Solove, Daniel J., 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy. San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565


  • #99
    phnompenhchess
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭phnompenhchess


    bernard palmer wrote: »
    All kinds of good reasons why people use pseudonym " like what? The usual people who hide behind monikers like t"chess weapon"ect. Usually produce pretty sad excuses for contribution. Just what are these people afraid of? I c u members going to their house in the middle of the night with a firey cross and pillowcase hoods?
    +1


  • #100
    Zugszwang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Zugszwang


    Boards.ie is proof of the success of this type of moderated, semi-anonymous discussion group. Most of the trolling and slagging posted on the LCU blog came from named sources. Robust moderation would have removed this. Each to their own of course!


  • #101
    reunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement