How interesting that people are now returning to these forums after the USCF
one has proved less than useful to other than the politicians who run it.

Recently the Sam Sloan impersonator has dissapeared, and we have also chased
off most other abusers by simply asking them to write on topic, any topic to
do with chess, rather than speculate about other posters as their constant
diet. Its okay to say your opinion without agreeing with others, but
negating what others say, when this is known not to be true, is plain and
simple abuse - and its going to get called

--

I have seen a few examples recently of people saying Rob Mitchell here is no
chess player - though for sure, he plays more than almost anyone else.
Certainly some dozen people now understand that since we all play in the
same team.

Neither is it respectful, and I'm going to name the reprobates, to say that
someone's game is bad when they post it here then mock them.

Neil Brennan, Taylor Kingston and Greg Kennedy 'bot' all did this to a
posted game, meanwhile neglecting to notice a 2-mover which actually &
entirely changed the course fo the game. Obviously they lack any substance
in their perceptions of chess to /mock/ other people's chess. Its okay not
to see or understand what is happening in any game, but that is not their
intention!

Sam Sloan might get off it too - since he likes to declare that people don't
play chess, while declining to notice that they actually challenge him to
join in like a regular human being and play like anyone else here. We are
not *special* people. If he can't do that, take a hike!

Greg Kennedy has, at least to his credit, now joined in the same waters as
the rest of us in terms of actually playing chess in the same place. I hope
this will moderate his opinions in /chessic terms/ since otherwise, what
sort of *special* status do such people have to voice any opinion?

--

I make no direct link between the Sloan-imitators and the re-appearance of
the recent spate of hateful deniers of other people's lives. I simply say
that this is as nihilistic as the former manifestation.

--

When very strong players have shown up here, the same sets of abusers have
driven them off, with constant nonsense, name-callings, and so on, as if
they themselves actually had either experience of playing GM chess, or could
even understand the games. Their knowledge by virtue of their experience is
rejected as 'elitism' or something - which is simply to admit that what is
best is not worth note.

If we want some chess here, then lets discuss /chess/ here, and not actively
whine that other people are talking chess.

And if its chess management [aka politics], let us proceed along the same
lines - no poster has any business rubbishing another instead of the other
person's ideas. And nobody at all is right every day of the week. Usually,
the big benefit of a group process is that collectively people can take an
interesting idea and improve it.

[which is to say - there is something wrong with it that can actively be
addressed - and it is /not/ to say that by having some idea the person
representing it should be trashed - that is an admission of what the trasher
can contribute.]

--

The usual villains will take over every thread and issue their usually vague
abuse in them [which is entirely ad hominem], but cannot actually address
any topic to better inform it, or inform themselves by exploring it.

Phil Innes