This all came about due to the ACF's concern of being legally liable for things posted on an ACF owned bulletin board. Previously the ACF did have a bulletin board which was managed by Paul Broekhuyse with software installation and management handled by myself. While it worked well,
A few months ago there was an attempt to divert traffic from the www.chesschat.org website to a different bulletin board, using a new domain www.chesschat.org.au, and some posts on chesschat claiming that the site was changing domain names. The perpetrators were rumbled pretty quick, and it is fair to say they only succeeded in alienating a number of people over the whole issue.
Indeed, to prevent this from happening again, the domain name www.chesschat.org.au (and www.chesschat.net.au ) now redirect to www.chesschat.org. All in all a fairly sensible strategy from the crew at netlogistics.
Except here is the confusing bit. Although chesschat.org isn't connected with the ACF, and is an entirely private concern, if you go to http://whois.ausregistry.net.au/ and look up the details on www.chesschat.org.au it lists the Registrant as the "AUSTRALIAN CHESS FEDERATION INCORPORATED". So does anyone know why the ACF is registering domains to direct traffic to a site it has no legal connection to, and why isn't it directing traffic to its own official website?*
*Of course this could just be another cunning "false flag" operation, and if it is, more fool me for falling for it.
19 comments:
The following is incorrect:
"While it worked well, the ACF council (and Paul) eventually decided to pass it over to a private operator (Netlogitics [sic]), removing the ACF from any legal entanglements."
The ACF Council had no role in Paul's decision to pass the membership of the 2003 ACF BB over to a private operator. Had it had such a role I would have known about it as I was on Council at the time, but I was as surprised as anyone to log on on 1/1/2004 and find that Paul had unilaterally transferred the entire membership of the old ACF BB to another site. All I knew was that he was having some discussions with Karthick about ways to improve forum functionality.
The ACF did pass a motion declaring it had no liability for the contents of Chesschat, but that was months after the move.
Thank you for the clarification.
But what about an answer to the last question?
anonymous, I figure that anybody who posts on a blog without stating their name could probably do with a little more mental exercise, so I'll drop you a very big hint and see if you can work it out for yourself.
The hint is this: When Alex Toolsie registered chesschat.org.au in a failed attempt to hijack traffic away from Chesschat, his registration of it was ultimately cancelled following a complaint. It was cancelled because it was deficient in a specific way.
Hi Kevin,
I am not the anon you refer to, but I do believe that you have completely failed to be forthcoming about this issue.
The question is why is the ACF is diverting its two (2) domains:
www.chesschat.org.au
And
www.chesschat.net
to the privately owned website:
www.chesschat.org
How does this help the ACF, especially in light of the ACF's motion you referred to which distanced itself from Chess Chat?
This seems tantamount to conferring a financial or other benefit (of ACF funds) on the owner of the private site referred to above.
A second question is whether there were any motions passed allowing this use of ACF funds?
The ACF's actions so far seem dubious and may have placed the ACF in very precarious territory.
I thank Shaun press for raising this issue. Unlike Arosar, whose account on chesschat would possibly be banned were he to raise this issue on The Closet Grandmaster, Shaun does not seem to be concerned about that and has done the chess community a great service by raising this issue for open and transparent discussion.
Best Regards
Alex Toolsie
I would like to correct the above post. I just discovered that there are three (3) ACF owned domains (possibly even more that I am unaware of) being forwarded to the privately owned Chess Chat dot org site, and not two (2) as I claimed above. The domains are:
www.chesschat.org.au
www.chesschat.net ; and
www.chesschat.net.au
So just how much money did the ACF spend in registering all these domains and how much money was spent forwarding all these domains to the privately owned www.chesschat.org?
Best Regards
Alex Toolsie
Oh my, we have been busy, haven't we Kevin.
It appears that even
www.chesschat.com.au
has been registered and forwarded to the privately owned site
www.chesschat.org
My, my, my, I had no idea that registering www.chesschat.org.au had bothered you all so much.
Best Regards,
Alex Toolsie
No ACF funds whatsoever (nor any significant ACF efforts for this matter) were involved in this entire process.
Alex's speculation that AR's account would be in jeopardy should he wish to discuss this tenth-rate issue on his blog is, to put it as kindly as I can be bothered, gibberish.
Nor is Shaun's account at the slightest risk over it, and indeed, I note with appreciation that Shaun corrected the minor factual errors in his original post with excellent grace. In this respect he is most unlike Alex Toolsie, whose record on correcting factual errors in his criticism of others frequently gives new depth (pun intended) to the meaning of the word "abysmal".
Your answers are insufficient Kevin. Here are two (2) questions in particular that need answering:
Who paid for these new domains and who piad to have these domains forwarded to Chess Chat?
What motions did the ACF pass accepting ownership of these new domains?
Please try to be fully candid and truthful in your responses.
Best Regards
AO
There was nothing insufficient about my answers, Alex. If you didn't ask the right questions the first time round, that's your problem.
I am curious about your view that certain questions "need" answering. Are you asserting this in the form of an unconditional need, thus violating the is/ought dichotomy and committing a well-known blunder in moral philosophy? Or are you premising your desire upon an unstated conditional that you wish to fulfill, such as your desire to troll either Chesschat or the ACF? If so, on what basis do you request a candid response from another?
I certainly do not share your view that it is necessary (for any valid purpose) that you be advised of the answers to these questions ... especially not given the implied slur on my honesty and forthrightness with which you concluded your post.
From the sounds of it I am beginning to think the ACF is trying to hide something and that is why Kevin won't answer Alex's questions.
anonymous: the person who is trying to hide something here is you and the thing you are hiding is your name.
So which troll are you? I reckon you could well be Alex Toolsie (again), and if you're not, you should realise that being supsected of being Toolsie (until you prove otherwise) is the natural and reasonable price of anonymity in such debates. Get a name if you want to be taken seriously, or at least get a reliable pseudonym so that your snipes can be judged for consistency with each other.
Probably for those with really short attention spans it's time for the obligatory disclaimer here that my comments represent my own views only, not necessarily those of the ACF.
typo: suspected
Its sad Kevin that you are resorting to a feeble Garvin Gray tactic of not answering genuine questions until you know the identity of the questioner. Garvin did this when it was readily assumed that Adam was Bill, and now you are doing so.
My advice, ignore the anon and answer my questions please. If you are unwilling to, then please state why.
Best Regards,
AO
Its sad Kevin that you are resorting to a feeble Garvin Gray tactic of not answering genuine questions until you know the identity of the questioner. Garvin did this when it was readily assumed that Adam was Bill, and now you are doing so.
My advice, ignore the anon and answer my questions please. If you are unwilling to, then please state why.
Best Regards,
AO
Alex, I have already explained why I have not answered your questions. I have not answered them because (a) they were addressed in an implicitly impolite, suspicious and typically "uncivil" manner (via the use of aspersions against my honesty) and (b) you have not demonstrated any reason why I should feel compelled to answer them.
Kevin,
One might reasonably suspect that there is something about this affair that is not entirely above board, and which may be responsible for your reluctance to answer straight forward questions.
Well too bad.
Guess what mate? If the ACF had no knowledge that it would be receiving these domains, and no motions were passed endorsing their acquisition, then you (or whoever registered the domains) has run faul of AUDA policy regarding the dot net dot au domain.
Accordingly, I want to know:
(a) Who paid to have these domains registered? and
(b) Whether the ACF is aware, and has passed appropriate motions, approving the acquisitions of these domain names?
Best Regards,
Alex
ps- If you really want to be forthcoming, you can also answer the question of what benefit the ACF is obtaining through diverting these domains to Karthick Najendran's privately owned website.
Post a Comment