Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsAnalysisComputerChess Politics
ChessKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Chess Forum / Computer / March 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Kevin Bachler complains about Bias And/Or Incompetence In Volunteers

Thread view: 
samsloan - 27 Feb 2010 20:42 GMT
There is a big debate going on right now over on the USCF Issues
Forum. The debate is about the following posting by Kevin Bachler:

"Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL

"I do note that Sam was capable of appropriately referencing his
appeal within his post on his appeal. Good job Sam.

"Hopefully people will properly maintain threading with respect to
this topic."

Last edited by kbachler on Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in
total.

For this posting, which is completely innocuous, Kevin Bachler has
been given a Level 4 Sanction, which means that he has been BANNED
from posting FOREVER.

Of course, there must be something more to this. Bachler used to post
over here on rgcp and he has the annoying habit of always wanting to
have the last word. When somebody said something he disagreed with, he
would post a response that was often the same thing he had posted
previously. When he got into a war with somebody else like that, their
posts would go back and forth hundreds of times, boring everybody
else.

However, what Bachler seems to have done here is, knowing that the
moderators were especially selected for their dislike of me, he waved
a red flag in front of a bull by saying something good about me. By
the way, Bachler is not favorite poster nor am I his favorite. We
rarely cross paths. I am not aware of Bachler ever saying anything
good about me in the past.

Thus, it seems that Bachler said something good about me just to make
the moderators angry, with the result that he has been permanently
banned from posting.

Sam Sloan
None - 28 Feb 2010 00:46 GMT
> There is a big debate going on right now over on the USCF Issues
> Forum. The debate is about the following posting by Kevin Bachler:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Sam Sloan

Isn't Kevin Bachler the guy who rigged ratings so he would become a
life master and his students would be rated as experts?
MrVidmar - 28 Feb 2010 02:27 GMT
>> There is a big debate going on right now over on the USCF Issues
>> Forum. The debate is about the following posting by Kevin Bachler:
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> Isn't Kevin Bachler the guy who rigged ratings so he would become a
> life master and his students would be rated as experts?
So it is said...................
The Master - 28 Feb 2010 02:41 GMT
> There is a big debate going on right now over on the USCF Issues
> Forum. The debate is about the following posting by Kevin Bachler:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> posts would go back and forth hundreds of times, boring everybody
> else.

 So then, is he the person behind rgc posters who are referred to
here
as 'Phil Innes' and/or 'Taylor Kingston'?

> However, what Bachler seems to have done here is, knowing that the
> moderators were especially selected for their dislike of me, he waved
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the moderators angry, with the result that he has been permanently
> banned from posting.

 As with so many other comments by Sam Sloan, this makes no sense.

 The whole idea of having several 'levels' of sanctions is to empower
self-
righteous censors to smack their victims not once, but repeatedly.
Now
how are they going to do that when a minor offense gets a poster
banned
for life?   This is like killing someone for stealing a grape.  As
Captain Bligh
discovered, it sort of takes the satisfaction out of any subsequent
floggings.

 Perhaps a more rational person can explain this 'level 4' sanction
in a way
that makes rational sense. I am assumming of course that there is at
least
one such person who is common to both forums... a wild shot in the
dark.
Chris Falter - 28 Feb 2010 03:56 GMT
Actually, the sanction was not lifetime banishment, but 30 days.
Also, the bone of contention between Kevin and moderator T Sawmiller
seemed to revolve around whether he was posting to the correct thread.

Why that would merit any sanction at all is a mystery to me.
The Master - 28 Feb 2010 21:55 GMT
> Actually, the sanction was not lifetime banishment, but 30 days.

 I wonder if Mr. Sloan will acknowledge this titanic error?
Unlikely, I
suspect.

> Also, the bone of contention between Kevin and moderator T Sawmiller
> seemed to revolve around whether he was posting to the correct thread.
>
> Why that would merit any sanction at all is a mystery to me.

 Merit implies the notion that moderators do not make mistakes, are
not
human.   Perhaps there was some pan of ire already on the backburner,
and perhaps the moderator was, um, immoderate in his reaction.

 This sort of nonsense is why I prefer to read rgc rather than some
USCF
forum.  The folks here are ever so much more rational, intelligent
and
unburdened by personal angst.   (;<)
None - 01 Mar 2010 00:34 GMT
> > Actually, the sanction was not lifetime banishment, but 30 days.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> and
> unburdened by personal angst.   (;<)

I'm sure T Sawmiller would be very forgiving. Bachler must have begun
to get on everyone's nerves.
Chris Falter - 01 Mar 2010 13:12 GMT
> > Actually, the sanction was not lifetime banishment, but 30 days.
>
>   I wonder if Mr. Sloan will acknowledge this titanic error?
> Unlikely, I
> suspect.

I had gotten a message from K Bachler that his sanction was 30 days.
Other participants in the USCF forums, however, have stated that it is
an indefinite ban.  So perhaps Mr. Sloan was correct about that.

The unequivocal error on Sloan's part was his assumption that
complimenting him was the bone of contention.  That is a very Sloan-
centric view of the situation, and it happens to be 100% wrong.
Everything I've read from both the moderators and Bachler indicate
that it was indeed a question of whether he was posting to the correct
thread.

And, yes, I still find it astonishing the act of posting to the wrong
thread can yield a possibly lifetime ban from the forums.
samsloan - 01 Mar 2010 14:43 GMT
A Level 4 Sanction was originally a permanent ban.

However, recently it has been changed to a 30-day suspension.

Only special people like Marcus Roberts ever got a Level 4 in the
past.

Sam Sloan

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.