Well it doesn't surprise me, but I'd still be curious to see it.

You know I'm not looking to convince you, or anyone, of who is grinding whom's ax. We have a history of failing to get along and it is what it is. I don't mean to sabatoge "Chess fan's neverending autobiography" in order to dredge up who started what and the ancient reasons as to why responses between us are appropriate or not. I really don't.

OK fair enough. This thread is now about fondue.

1. I find it very amusing that the number of posts is seen as some sort of a "score" or merit. Serioiusly... can you see yourself approaching a girl and saying "Hey! I am the #1 poster on a chess board."
a. If you can (see yourself doing that) - please be reminded that internet "gilrs" don;t count.
b. If you can't use it with girls - what good is it arguing over it?

2. I think this is another example of self-righteous moderator abuse. Who are you guys to decide what is relevant and what is not? Sometimes a statement like "I agree" is much needed and powerful.

3. Another primadona exits...

Peshka, you have raised some good points. Just a couple of quick observations though:

1. Yes, post count doesn't matter at all. Sometimes I wonder if the number of posts is an indication of the amount of spare time one has at his/her disposal. Even worse, unproductively spent on a messageboard. With 1700+ posts, I am one of the top20 guilty guys.

2. If moderators shouldn't edit or delete, why do we need moderators at all? Moderation is required in every scenario involving people of multiple countries, backgrounds and what not? Every presidential debate has a moderator or two if you are following 2008 presidential run-ups. With no moderation, we can write whatever we want and be totally unaccountable for. But, such boards serve no purpose.

Saying "I agree" is quite welcome sometimes. But, if it is said by one guy alone for about 5 times a day, that becomes a spam. Nothing against anyone, but saying "I agree" as the next person in the line on numerous occasions adds too little value. I am sure there are several other reasons to criticize a particular poster.

I guess you haven't been paying attention, as several moderators have done just that. You're right that common sense should suffice. In fact, Chess Fan was given abundant opportunities for it to suffice, but then he decided to go off the deep end and post more contentless messages than usual, which is what spurred this recent action. I add that you post another straw man. As I have pointed out twice already, agreeing with another poster is not a problem. Agreeing or disagreeing without saying anything else many times everyday is a problem. Grasp that before you continue to write on this issue, or you'll simply continue wasting my time and yours.

Yes, you missed it. But you should know that that doesn't mean it didn't happen. As for whether it's a bad rule--maybe it is. But something had to be done, because the status quo was worse. If you think the rule is too vague, offer a reformulation. But keep in mind that the rule is designed to counter a long-term pattern of willful abuse of ChessNinja posting privileges.

You're wrong again, as previous moderators certainly trimmed Chess Fan's posts. Also, I didn't start deleting (editing really) all posts of that form until two days ago, when it became clear that Chess Fan was not only unwilling to take any steps to modify his posting habits, but also that he was going into overdrive so he could post more vapid spam than ever before.

You can cut the straw men. There is nothing wrong with discussing the baseball playoffs. But when there was already a baseball thread, Chess Fan created another one and led it off with no commentary, but only mere sports reportage. That is, he created a thread just so he could list the pairings for the baseball playoffs; he didn't even say anything about the playoffs. Yet I didn't say anything until he posted again, not to add anything, but to ask everyone else if they had anything to add.

From the very start I have made my policy clear to Chess Fan in private messages. Other times I posted it publicly, in the 8000 posts thread. Unfortunately Chess Fan asked SachBinger to delete that thread, but many were able to read it. I submit that anyone who has been paying attention, and who doesn't have some sort of axe to grind with me would see that my actions have been consistent with the policy I have espoused. I have an axe to grind with spam, not with Chess Fan.

Do you even read what you post? Before I had even mentioned your name during your latest CN tour, you implied that I can't believe what I post because I may have studied philosophy. Then you claimed that I am good at expressing shallow views of religion. You are the one who started addressing the person rather than the post. As usual, you started flinging insults (albeit mild ones), and when you got a reaction, you started putting on a holier-than-thou tough guy attitude.

Well, as I have pointed out nearly ad nauseam, it is the pattern that is the problem. Just grasp that; it is not difficult. Rondino may have a few of what you call "wasteful" posts, but he doesn't post ten to fifteen of them daily. When he does, you'll have grounds for complaint.

Peshka, you miss the point. Sometimes "I agree" is powerful, as you put it, or appropriate, or just completely unproblematic. The problem is ten or fifteen "I agree"s everyday.

Hmm, that's ironic. YOU calling someone a primadona? Have you ever seen a statement about yourself that you weren't offended by, Peshka?

I think at this point the only way to keep up the level of absurdity would be if Chess Fan called me a born again Christian.

I didn't say none of CFs posts were ever trimmed or deleted. I said as far as I could recall no moderator started deleting all of his posts of agreement until you came along. If I'm wrong tell me who did.

Did CF just start posting agreement posts? If he has always been posting them then, of all the previous Moderators, its only you who finds his actions so objectionable.

All the previous moderators managed to handle CF without resorting to deleting his posts and creating a thread for the sole purpose of making fun of him.

Just pointing out some facts.

As far as your invitation to start dredging up who started what - again I'll pass. You can spend your time however you want. If you want to spend it putting your spin on the history of posts to the chessninja boards you go right ahead. But I have to say, that hardly puts you in a position to tell others they should "get a life"

I count 37 previous posts in this thread, contributed by 17 separate users. If each of those 17 users responded to each post to say either "I agree" or "I disagree", that would add 629 posts to the thread without adding any new content. (More if some people disagreed with other people's agreement). I agree with Peshka that that would be powerful. But would it be a good thing? If not, at what point would it become a bad thing? At 500? 400? 350? Justify your answer.

I'm not complaining, by the way. I stopped complaining about this a long time ago, so if anyone thinks 629 empty posts is good, just say so. I just think it's bizarre that nobody is willing to admit they believe that. That every defense of the behavior seems to be based upon regarding each individual instance as a one-time, not-likely-to-be-repeated, not-worth-bothering-about kind of thing.

(I'm not going to be anal enough to count how many times the word "pattern" has appeared in this thread, only to be ignored. I know there are other anal-retentive people here besides me, so I should be considerate and save some for the others).

fon-doooooooooooooo