Originally posted by FMFWhat part of the TOS did/do you not understand?
You are mistaken. 'FMF' was discontinued. The subscription lapsed. And I had told the web site that I wasn't using FMF any more. Then I started 'John W. Booth' as a free account [FMF has always been a subscriber account].
The suggestion that I used both accounts at the same time was incorrect and the site never pressed this accusation, which may have origina ...[text shortened]... never been banned, not even once in 6 years. I was simply asked to choose. And I did.
3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
HINT
(a) You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account. You will not create more than one account.
The fact that the accounts were not active at the same time is irrelevant. YOU BROKE THE TOS WHEN YOU CREATED THE SECOND ACCOUNT.
Originally posted by FMF
You are mistaken. 'FMF' was discontinued. The subscription lapsed. And I had told the web site that I wasn't using FMF any more. Then I started 'John W. Booth' as a free account [FMF has always been a subscriber account].
The suggestion that I used both accounts at the same time was incorrect and the site never pressed this accusation, which may have origina ...[text shortened]... never been banned, not even once in 6 years. I was simply asked to choose. And I did.
The suggestion that I used both accounts at the same time was incorrect...-FMF
Thats not true FMF. Even if it were, it does not matter as adramforall just pointed out.
For the record, I just looked at John W. Booths public games and forum post. As this personae you posted between Oct 9, 2010 - Jan 6 2011. As FMF you had no public post during this time period.
Games played. Different story.
John W. Booth has games being played and completed through Oct 2010 and Jan 2011
FMF has games being played and completed during that same time frame.
example, Game 7683659 your last move was Nov 9 2010 where you resigned.
So, you were clearly, undeniably using both accounts simultaneously.
Originally posted by adramforallThe previous screen name was retired, deactivated, the subscription cancelled, and the web site was informed about it. That was acknowledged by e-mail by the site owner.
What part of the TOS did/do you not understand?
Later, presumably after being alerted by another poster who was unaware of how I had carefully demonstrated my respect for the intention of the TOS, they asked me to choose - either the current (new) account or the deactivated one, so they could delete one of them once and for all. I chose the latter and reactivated it by re-subscribing.
No hassle. No suggestion at any point that I was using two accounts to play chess. No suggestion that I was posting to threads with both accounts. No suggestion that I was cheating in any way. When I was asked to choose the screen name there was no mention of the TOS. No threats of a ban. Not even any discussion of a ban. I've never been banned, in fact. No cheating was alleged.
I would say that my understanding of the TOS was pretty much in line with the site owner's understanding. Perhaps you have some problem understanding the spirit of the rules, the kind of abuse it was actually aimed to prevent, and the fact that I am a paying subscriber - have been for years and years - and have a spotless record having never received any bans for TOS infringements.
I have no problem with the web site and they have no problem with me. If you think that there was a TOS infringement of some kind that was not handled correctly by the web site, it's between you and the web site, and really nothing to do with me.
Now. What about the topic in hand? If someone receives a ban, should they be able to simply return and continue as before?
Originally posted by utherpendragonI resigned games because FMF was, at that time, no longer active,and the web site had been informed that I was deactivating the screen name. Resigning the games was surely a courtesy to those waiting for me to move. The web site was quite happy to delete John W. Booth, at my request, and then I re-subscribed.
FMF has games being played and completed during that same time frame.
example, Game 7683659 your last move was Nov 9 2010 where you resigned.
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell I had no problem with the web site. It was me who requested that John W. Booth be deleted. If you think the web site mishandled the situation, you should take it up with them. What you think of the web site's policy and their application of that policy really has nothing to do with me. If you think the web site should have imposed some sort of ban or that they overlooked some kind of cheating at chess or double posting, then you really should contact the site's owners and make your complaint.
So, you were clearly, undeniably using both accounts simultaneously.
What do you think about banned members returning and continuing to post? That is the topic of this thread, btw.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAt your request ? Are you saying you volunteered this info to the admins or more truthfully were given a ultimatum that they'd delete both accounts unless you subscribed ? And you were very unhappy about this and thought you were being treated unfairly . As you stated to me in a PM and several others on this site in PM's. You stated then that they were alerted by someone of your two accounts.
I resigned games because FMF was, at that time, no longer active,and the web site had been informed that I was deactivating the screen name. Resigning the games was surely a courtesy to those waiting for me to move. The web site was quite happy to delete John W. Booth, at my request, and then I re-subscribed.
I remember this incident very clearly. Thread 136965
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, as I say, you should take it up with the web site's owners. I don't have any issue with them or the way they handled me. When I resubscribed as FMF and thus reactivated the screen name, I asked them to delete John W. Booth. As I have said, there was no mention of a ban, no threat of a ban, so I can't see how anyone can argue that a punishable infringement of the TOS occurred. If you think the site's owners have mishandled their own TOS then you should confront them.
At your request ? Are you saying you volunteered this info to the admins or more truthfully were given a ultimatum that they'd delete both accounts unless you subscribed ? As you stated to me in a PM and several others on this site in PM's. You stated then that they were alerted by someone of your two accounts.
Which is what I am doing here by raising this topic: Zapp Brannigan is clearly a reincarnation of the banned Sam The Sham. I wasn't banned at any point and I never have been. So there has been no instance of me using a different screen name to getting around being banned. Do you think posters who have been banned should be allowed to continue posting with impunity?
Originally posted by FMFSo you are lying then ? You have gave two different versions of how the incident occurred.
Well, as I say, you should take it up with the web site's owners. I don't have any issue with them or the way they handled me. When I resubscribed as FMF and thus reactivated the screen name, I asked them to delete John W. Booth. As I have said, there was no mention of a ban, no threat of a ban, so I can't see how anyone can argue that a punishable infringement ...[text shortened]... you think posters who have been banned should be allowed to continue posting with impunity?
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonLying? Not at all. As I said, your objection in this case really has nothing to do with me and you really should take it up with the web site's owners. I have never been banned, as you know, and this thread is about 'returning' banned posters sometimes being tolerated. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to sidetrack the thread. The Sam/Zapp case really has nothing to do with the short life that 'John W. Booth' lived here at RHP. So... do you think posters who have been banned should be allowed to continue posting with impunity?
So you are lying then ? You have gave two different versions of how the incident occurred.
Originally posted by FMFI could care less what the admins do or did concerning you. My point is you are being hypocritical. You are pissing and moaning, accusing another of creating two accounts when you did the same thing.
Lying? Not at all. As I said, your objection in this case really has nothing to do with me and you really should take it up with the web site's owners. I have never been banned, as you know, and this thread is about 'returning' banned posters sometimes tolerated. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to sidetrack the thread. The Sam/Zapp case really has nothing ...[text shortened]... ou think posters who have been banned should be allowed to continue posting with impunity?
And this pompous attitude you have with statements like " Does the site really think that Sam The Sham/Zapp Brannigan adds value to this community and to this web site?" is disgusting. Who are you to judge anybodies "value"?
Originally posted by utherpendragonAre you seriously suggesting that I created an account when banned from this site in order to avoid the ban? You're over-reaching I think.
I could care less what the admins do or did concerning you. My point is you are being hypocritical. You are pissing and moaning, accusing another of creating two accounts when you did the same thing.
And this pompous attitude you have with statements like " Does the site really think that Sam The Sham/Zapp Brannigan adds value to this community and to this web site?" is disgusting. Who are you to judge anybodies "value"?
I am a paying punter, utherpendragon. And a member of this community who is entitled to speak out. I have never alerted any of Sam The Sham's posts because he can say what he wants as far as I am concerned. He make a fool of himself and his creed time after time after time.
However, it is the web site's owners who need to preserve or develop the "value" of the site. It's a private business after all and they delimit free speech as they see fit. So having banned Sam, if that is what they did, then it is very disappointing if they don't follow through.
The comment the other night that the mass murderer in Norway has provided some "hope" for the white race, or words to that effect, is pretty disgusting. If you find me disgusting you should alert the posts in question. Really, that is what you should do.
Originally posted by FMFWell Im a paying punter too FMF. With no "lapses" in my account. And I have no intentions of alerting the mods.
Are you seriously suggesting that I created an account when banned from this site in order to avoid the ban? You're over-reaching I think.
[b]And this pompous attitude you have with statements like " Does the site really think that Sam The Sham/Zapp Brannigan adds value to this community and to this web site?" is disgusting. Who are you to judge anybodies "v ...[text shortened]... gusting you should alert the posts in question. Really, that is what you should do.
There is one guy who keeps popping up with anti- jewish rhetoric and last about a day or two each time. Cant remember the screen names now, there has been so many.
But as far as sam and zap goes, I personally never thought they were the same poster. It sounds like you are on a bit of witch hunt laced with some paranoia.