no punishment for "disagreement..." ?
Mark Galecki
establish a TCP connection over the Internet, and thereupon, if a
client issues a certain command (rank from Cryonicist account), that
is only meaningful to the application layer (not TCP or lower layers
of the network stack), the server issues the proper response, which is
then corrupted in transit to the client. From what I know about how
network works, it is theoretically possible that somebody in-between
intercepts and corrupts network packets, but, practically speaking, it
is impossible.
Does anybody with more knowledge than me in the workings of the
network stack, disagree?
Moreover, the address Tweedie gave me to correspond to resolve this
matter, is
jazzer...@hotmail.com
Yes, this is the same person that is posting frequently here from
and that person did not provide any help.
As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
value, and witheld any "judgement". But now I am forced to conclude
it really was just a joke. I don't mind to provide entertainment to
fellow human beings who must make fun of others to amuse themselves.
Have at it.
Thank you,
Mark Galecki
Tweedie
>As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
>value, and witheld any "judgement". But now I am forced to conclude
>it really was just a joke. I don't mind to provide entertainment to
>fellow human beings who must make fun of others to amuse themselves.
>Have at it.
>Thank you,
>Mark Galecki
Actually it was not a joke. This Galecki character
insulted the go-between twice by calling him a
'USENET kook' in email to me. All correspondence
was Cc'ed to the go-between.
This Galecki is just a big cry baby, which is why I
will not deal with him directly. His first posting
on this topic about rated games was not truthful
either, which is why I Cc'ed all current correspondence
to a go-between.
Also he has not been banned from IGS, nor have
any of his comomands been disabled, and because
he can't solve a new problem, he attributs it to
tweet and came whining to this newssgroup about his
new problem. His new problem is probably due to some
bungeled client handling on his part, but I won't
deal with him because I find him to be a 'difficult'.
and stubborn.
Now he comes whining for a third time to this newsgroup.
, ,
/( )\
\ \_/ / , /\ ,
/_ _\ /| || |\
| \> </ | |\_||_/|
(_ ^ _) \____/
/`\|IIIII|/`\ _\/_
\ \_____/ / ()
/\ )=( /\ ()
jgs / `-.\=/.-' \ ()
Mark Galecki
Here it is:
I had a disagreement (quite friendly disagreement, no flames) with
Tweedie, the IGS admin, after which my account was sanctioned - reset
to NR and I can't use "rank". I tried to reconcile here, but Tweedie
claimed that the IGS did not sanction me, and the problem is not on
IGS site. The problem is not on my sites either, since I play on 2
different computers, with different installations of the Panda client,
and other people I know that use it, can use the features I can't.
Chris Lawrence
> I had a disagreement (quite friendly disagreement, no flames) with
> Tweedie, the IGS admin, after which my account was sanctioned - reset
> to NR and I can't use "rank". I tried to reconcile here, but Tweedie
You seem to be pursuing this from the "I was targeted by IGS admins"
point of view which I'd respectfully suggest won't achieve anything or
endear anyone to help. Have you tried pursuing it from a technical
point of view, ie, "I'm using the rank command but my rank isn't being
set, any ideas what's wrong"?
--
Chris
W
news:50064a21.0307...@posting.google.com...
> As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
> value, and witheld any "judgement".
Seems to me that your words, and the medium of your words, are in conflict.
May I advice tolerance, and insist that you should still not expect the same
in return? After all, it's not your go server. Simply letting go instead of
diving deeper into contrariness and pedantery might be the best way to "mend
fences". Or simply go somewhere else, quietly.
james
I don't think this is a Checkmate. the solution is actually easy. Why not
publish one of your account here so others can login to see if the account
has the functions or not.
Once, I asked Tweedie for some kind of favo(u)r, (s)he actually checked rgg
to see who I am. In his/her reply mail, (s)he quoted one of the things I
said on rgg. The reply/refusal mail does not contain any further
explanation.
So, unless you never want to have anything to do with Tweedie/the like, be
careful what you say here.
james
PhysicsGenius
> mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) writes:
>
>
>
>>As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
>>value, and witheld any "judgement". But now I am forced to conclude
>>it really was just a joke. I don't mind to provide entertainment to
>>fellow human beings who must make fun of others to amuse themselves.
>>Have at it.
>
>
>>Thank you,
>
>
>>Mark Galecki
>
>
>
> Actually it was not a joke. This Galecki character
> insulted the go-between twice by calling him a
> 'USENET kook' in email to me. All correspondence
> was Cc'ed to the go-between.
So wait, you DID direct him to jazzercise@(whatever)? And you don't
think that that account is of a "USENET kook"? The more I read about
IGS in general and tweedie in particular, the more I like KGS.
Jeff Nowakowski
>
> So wait, you DID direct him to jazzercise@(whatever)? And you don't
> think that that account is of a "USENET kook"?
I suspect multiple personality disorder :) One is terse and has no
patience. The other, well, you know the other.
-Jeff
-
Yet that was not the address by which to resolve it on USENET.
> Yes, this is the same person that is posting frequently here ...
> and that person did not provide any help.
Your own email said that you were not asking for help.
The bottom-line is that you -are- an asshole, evidently.
> As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
> value, and witheld any "judgement". But now I am forced
> to conclude it really was just a joke. I don't mind to provide
> entertainment to fellow human beings who must make fun
> of others to amuse themselves.
Perhaps you forgot that this was a newsgroup for gamerz.
"PhysicsGenius" <physics...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So wait, you DID direct him to jazzercise@(whatever)? And you don't
> think that that account is of a "USENET kook"? The more I read about
> IGS in general and tweedie in particular, the more I like KGS.
The feeling is mutual, with regards to your exodus to KGS, so
I fail to notice where any -residual- disagreement remains.
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jef...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> I suspect multiple personality disorder :) One is terse and
> has no patience. The other, well, you know the other.
Given the suitable arbiter, you said you would back up your claims:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jef...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: 7/11/2003
> If it's not difficult then come up with one, and I'll back
> up my claims.
The suitable arbiter was designated and you supplied no back up.
The worst you could possibly do is to LIE in a forum for public review.
You managed to -accomplish- the absolute worst, and much more.
- regards
- jb
Planar
mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) wrote:
> As I said, initially (few days ago) I took Tweedie's help at face
> value, and witheld any "judgement". But now I am forced to conclude
> it really was just a joke. I don't mind to provide entertainment to
> fellow human beings who must make fun of others to amuse themselves.
Mark,
Take this advice from The Great Planar: drop IGS and try KGS instead.
If you really feel that you must warn the newbies about the IGS
admins, just write a web page about it (see
< http://www.britgo.org/gopcres/agaart/14.html > for an example).
Any further discussion in this newsgroup will only attract flames
and counter-flames from the usual suspects, and will not change
the behaviour of IGS.
--
Planar
Mark Galecki
> on this topic about rated games was not truthful
Tweedie, you continue to insist the original claim about rated games
is false, yet you still provide no explanation of your position. On
the other hand, at least 5 people here on rgg, have understood my
argument and agree with it.
> Also he has not been banned from IGS, nor have
> any of his comomands been disabled, and because
This is untrue. Command "rank" for Cryonicist account has been
disabled, right after I posted a reply to you here on rgg. The same
commands for other accounts I then registered, was disabled as well,
not at once, but in a matter of hours or days.
> bungeled client handling on his part, but I won't
Amazing. I e-mailed you _exactly_ step by step what I do in the
client. How difficult you think it is: rank 24k <Enter>. You did
not claim to me I can't handle the client. Instead, you refered me go
jazze...@hotmail.com, who did not help.
Mark
Mark Galecki
> You seem to be pursuing this from the "I was targeted by IGS admins"
> point of view which I'd respectfully suggest won't achieve anything or
> endear anyone to help. Have you tried pursuing it from a technical
> point of view, ie, "I'm using the rank command but my rank isn't being
Of course. I sent Tweedie first an e-mail almost exactly like you
said. No reply. I then tried to "mend fences" here on Usenet, then I
got a message from Tweedie saying "there is nothing disabled on your
account". Then I provided him with description of what is disabled.
Then he said this is not IGS's problem (from what I know about TCP
connections, it _must_ be on IGS side), and referred me to
jazze...@hotmail.com. who did not help.
Mark Galecki
> publish one of your account here so others can login to see if the account
> has the functions or not.
Sure (I don't think there is any personal information in those
accounts, more than I choose to reveal). First I had the account
"Cryonicist" (now password set to "123456"). After my post here,
disagreeing with Tweedie, this account was reset to NR, and rank
command causes disconnection.
Then I registered account "Transhuman" (now password set to
"123456"), with a slightly different name, and e-mail that too was
familiar to IGS, from correspondence. That account was also NRd and
rank command causes disconnection - this happened after a few hours.
Then I registered another account, whose only common characteristics
with the previous ones was the same firewall IP address. In a few
days this time,, this too was NRd and rank command disabled.
This is still all true as of 7:30am Pacific Daylight Time 07/16/2003.
(May change later if IGS re-enables).
I am a "Crybaby"? My accounts are successively NRd for disagreement
with the admin, and I am a "Crybaby" and I should learn how to type
"rank 24k" in the telnet window??
Mark
W
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50064a21.03071...@posting.google.com...
> is false, yet you still provide no explanation of your position. On
> the other hand, at least 5 people here on rgg, have understood my
> argument and agree with it.
A game between black and white with 3 black stones and 6.5 komi for black is
3.15 effective handicap
A game between black and white with 3 black stones and no komi is 2.5
effective handicap
A game between black and white with 3 black stones and 6.5 komi for white is
1.85 effective handicap
Correct me if I'm wrong on any on this, and where the help files disagree
with this. I dunno which of these games you played, but from the comments it
appears it was the first.
The help files does not state what the default of the game is if the ranking
handicap is between 3 and 4, and it does not state whether this is
"effective handicap" or simply the number of stones (and whether it's
adjusted by komi, which seems likely), but they do, very clearly, state that
you can find out, and toggle, whether the game is free or rated with the
"free" command. Why you choose to not use this feature, and instead take up
admin time and newsgroup time, is for the amater physiatrists here to
deside. I could not find anything directly wrong in the help files, and
certainly no program behaviour that seems nonrational (indicating a bug and
not an error in documentation or understanding).
And you've got no chance of pulling a "I just want to help". A true helper
knows when his help is not wanted.
james
james
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:50064a21.03071...@posting.google.com...
Mark Galecki
> in return? After all, it's not your go server. Simply letting go instead of
Absolutely it is not my Go server. Tweedie has the absolute power and
has the right to do what he wants there. But then, I have the right
to complain about it here. Please don't deny me that. Thank you.
> diving deeper into contrariness and pedantery might be the best way to "mend
> fences".
Again, I absolutely agree. Tweedie gets me back my account with all
features, and I stop "diving deeper" instantly. No problem.
Mark
Robert Blair
> Perhaps you forgot that this was a newsgroup for gamerz.
I don't know if he forgot or not but this is about a go server.
From the garbage you post it seems you completely ignore that fact for
your posts but insist that others should not.
--
Robert Blair
Mark Galecki
> accounts, more than I choose to reveal). First I had the account
> "Cryonicist" (now password set to "123456"). After my post here,
> "123456"), with a slightly different name, and e-mail that too was
Of course, once I posted these, some immature individual went at once
and changed the passwords, so that these accounts can now no longer be
accessed. Probably before you could check that the "rank" command
does not work. This was predictable.
However, I had one more account NRd and rank disabled :) This one, I
won't post the password here :) Instead, I will send it privately to
James, who asked to verify rank does not work, and I will ask him to
comment here.
I mean, noone of this should be necessary, after all, damn it, I know
how to type
>rank 24k <Enter>
don't you think?
Mark
james
> won't post the password here :) Instead, I will send it privately to
> James, who asked to verify rank does not work, and I will ask him to
> comment here.
>
> I mean, noone of this should be necessary, after all, damn it, I know
> how to type
>
> >rank 24k <Enter>
haha, luckily, you still have troube left on hand.
james
richard mullens
Have you considered a career in diplomacy ?
richard mullens
Have you considered a career in Diplomacy ? I think you may have a big
future there.
-
mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) wrote: ( 7:31 am )
> ... referred me to jazze...@hotmail.com. who did not help.
For the second time, you said specifically in email that you did
not want my help. Everything came to a screetching halt at that
point. Furthermore you have -oodles- of my unanswered queries
on the newsgroup thread. You managed to answer none of them.
There will be no help forthcoming, even if you change your mind
and ask for it, unless you provide satisfactory answers to -ALL- of
the questions I have posed to you, to date. Seriously ... !!!
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then I registered account "Transhuman" ...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I am a "Crybaby"? My accounts are successively NRd for
> disagreement with the admin, and I am a "Crybaby" and I should
> learn how to type "rank 24k" in the telnet window??
You'll need to register an account called "Crybaby" with the
password "trashslummin" in order to attain 24-kyu on IGS, above
an beyond your former (or current) 26-kyu rating. Each day you'll
need to set your rank, because daily update will reset to NR status.
You'll need to play at least 20 games per day to advance in ratings.
> jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Perhaps you forgot that this was a newsgroup for gamerz.
"Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:
> I don't know if he forgot or not but this is about a go server.
Not really. It's about players on a Go Server (see Subject: line).
"Robert Blair" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:
> From the garbage you post it seems you completely ignore that fact
> for your posts but insist that others should not.
KGS'ers don't want to hear about IGS-garbage on their Server.
So why do you want to spread it around on the gamerz newsgroup?
"PhysicsGenius" <physics...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The more I read about
> IGS in general and tweedie in particular, the more I like KGS.
And that more you are liked for staying in your corner at KGS.
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote: ( 7:35 am )
> .... refered me go jazze...@hotmail.com, who did not help.
For the third time already ... ( Must be an echo chamber in here ).
You're not paying attention. Until you do, there's no attentiveness.
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> jb is using the wrong word. I did "want" help from him. What I did
> not, is "seek" help from him. I clarified that to him. You told me
> to write to him, so I did not "seek" him.
In any event, I won't be helping you unless you "want" help.
Of course we still have on record that you wished to seek help from
somebody whom you considered (in your mind) to be a USENET "kook".
Extremely problemmatic (and difficult) for some "kook" to help you.
From: "-" <jazzerciser2@*****.com>
To: "mgalecki" <mgalecki@*****.net>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: mending fences
(1) You had earlier asked if I could help you,
with regards to the matter of resolving an issue.
(2) Now you say that you do not seek help.
It appears that #2 has already solved #1. Q.E.D.
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your side started it, stop using it, and I will stop using it.
But you said already that -YOU- disagree that you were rude ...
"Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A true helper knows when his help is not wanted.
Unlike you, I do.
>> "Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, a number of people understood my argument and agree
>>> with me in this thread: Chris Schack, JKP, and Carl Skrabacz.
>>>> "Mark Galecki" <mark_galeck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the truth is determined by logic, not by voting.
>>>>> Give me logic and I will shut up.
-( sic! )-
Why should somebody shut up because they're given logic?
If voting is so unimportant than why are you running to the votes?
"There will always be some who do not understand regardless of
how documentation and help files are written." ( Chinese Proverb )
> Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> writes
>> Just curious. What is jb's position or role at IGS, or connection with it?
I am a liason for "the GSCP affair" with Buggers' Grease Anonymous.
See, for example:
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/dm.html
Therein, follow the links (page bottom) to:
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essays.html
and then, to:
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb2.html
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb3.html
http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb4.html
This is also one reason why I must use the "jb" signature moniker,
to maintain coherence and consistency with those URL weblinks ...
"T Mark Hall" <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Very good question! If jb (note the lack of quotation marks) has no
> connection with IGS whatsoever, and in past correspondence to this
> newsgroup that is his claim, why is private correspondence being
> copied to him?
Copies of correspondence might get sent my way in order to defray
any expectations of privacy w/r/t correspondence sent elsewhere.
Furthermore, no single individual renders evaluations on matters
of territorial acquisition. As with life in the game of Go, a _seki_
also needs at least two points. I also receive copies of correspondence
from KGS, NNGS, PGS, LGS, DashN, and the BGA's secret informants.
I am a trusted advocate for all parties to the process, because I evince
the Highest ethical standards possible, rendering verdicts just and true.
Additionally, my pet poodle is named Dudley DoWright, a Canadian hero.
I can testify to the fact that Ms.Bexfield did not respond to my queries.
Moreover, Allison Bexfield is no longer President of the BGA. Q.E.D.
This was no accident: Nick Wedd is no longer website super-manager.
Simon Goss had indicated a desire not to spread salt into old wounds.
At least, until T.Mark Hall wished it to be inspected for his smell test.
Where does "Galecki" fit into this? The O.E.D. (drop line from "Q")
lists "galeche" as an obsolete form from "Galliass" ( maybe apropos ):
==================================
galeaze, galeche -( Oxford English Dictionary )-
obs. ff. CALASH, GALLIASS.
galliass, galleass
Obs. exc. Hist
A heavy, low-built vessel, larger than a galley, impelled
both by sail and oars, chiefly employed in war.
1544 St. Papers Hen. VIII (1834) III. 504 Foure hundred galleys,
foystes, and galyasses. 1549 Compl. Scot. vi. 42 This gaye galliasse,
beand in gude ordour. 1596 SHAKES. Tam. Shr. II. i. 380. a1642 SIR W.
MONSON Naval Tracts III. (1704) 360/1 A Galleass is built..low and
snug..and carries the Force of a Ship..the thing that gives her
Advantage in Fight, is her Oars. 1677 F. SANDFORD Genealog. Hist. Eng.
79 The sinking the great Galeas of the Saracens. 1721 Phil. Trans.
XXXI. 246 The Crew should be under some Covert, as they are in a
Galeass. 1769 FALCONER Dict. Marine (1789) Gg, The quarter of a
first-rate galley, otherwise called a galleasse. 1777 WATSON Philip
II, (1839) 447 The principal galeass, commanded by Moncada..was driven
ashore near Calais. 1858 FROUDE Hist. Eng. III. 248 A French galliass
and galleon..attempted to cut out two merchantmen. 1888 Cassell's Mag.
Aug. XIV. 559 Galleon and caracke and galleasse Crashed down the
stream of flight.
transf. and fig. 1592 G. HARVEY Pierce's Super. 140 Whom..I
officiously recommende to the Ship of Fooles and the galeasse of
Knaues. 1602 MARSTON Ant. & Mel. v. Wks. 1856 I. 63 Here's such a
companie of flibotes, hulling about this galleasse of greatnesse,
that there's no boarding him.
b. attrib. in galliass-breeches, a jocular augmentative of
gally-breeches.
1596 NASHE Have with you Wks. (Grosart) III. 51 Farre more boystrous
and cumbersome than a pair of Swissers omnipotent galeaze breeches.
==================================
Lest I render some "argument from definitional fallacy" let it be
said that Mark Galecki has never responded to my initial question which
asked him to state where he found a disagreement with -Tweedie- (and
not some disagreement with IGS help files or documentation or policy).
Until Mark Galecki answers that essential question, he is still fiction.
- regards
- jb
mullens
>
> mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) wrote: ( 7:31 am )
> > ... referred me to jazze...@hotmail.com. who did not help.
> >
> > I am a "Crybaby"? My accounts are successively NRd for
> > disagreement with the admin, and I am a "Crybaby" and I should
> > learn how to type "rank 24k" in the telnet window??
>
> You'll need to register an account called "Crybaby" with the
> password "trashslummin" in order to attain 24-kyu on IGS, above
> an beyond your former (or current) 26-kyu rating. Each day you'll
> need to set your rank, because daily update will reset to NR status.
> You'll need to play at least 20 games per day to advance in ratings.
>
>
> > Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> writes
> >> Just curious. What is jb's position or role at IGS, or connection with it?
>
> I am a liason for "the GSCP affair" with Buggers' Grease Anonymous.
> See, for example:
>
> http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/dm.html
>
> Therein, follow the links (page bottom) to:
>
> http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essays.html
>
> and then, to:
>
> http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb2.html
> http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb3.html
> http://igs.joyjoy.net/English/essay/jb4.html
>
> This is also one reason why I must use the "jb" signature moniker,
> to maintain coherence and consistency with those URL weblinks ...
>
>
I don't think that there is much interest in going over all this again.
(Although it seems to me that the record is incomplete without a treatise
on the Big Duck and Egg Hunt affair).
If however, you wish to turn to a topic which may not yet have had an
adequate airing, there may be those who would be willing to debate what
appears to be an established method of punishment for misbehaviour on IGS -
namely merciless torment of the individual concerned - akin in some respects
to tempting the target with a carrot on a length of string, only to yank it
away just as he would take a nibble. Or Tweet's master stroke in suggesting
you as a go between for the resolution of this affair. These methods are
high comedy indeed to those who are in on the joke, akin in some respects
to scenes from Blackadder.
Richard
mullens
Xenafan
You probably don't mean it to sound this way, but this could be
interpreted as blackmail, i.e., unless tweet does what you want, you
will carry on making noises here. It looks a bit antagonistic.
May I suggest you keep your dispute to private messages? If you can't
settle the matter privately, then I'm pretty sure you won't achieve
your goals by making it public.
I hope that you get everything settled in a mutually satisfactory way.
Best of luck,
x
Mark Galecki
> interpreted as blackmail, i.e., unless tweet does what you want, you
> will carry on making noises here. It looks a bit antagonistic.
>
> May I suggest you keep your dispute to private messages? If you can't
> settle the matter privately, then I'm pretty sure you won't achieve
> your goals by making it public.
Right, I didn't mean it that way. I did try to resolve this in
private with Tweedie. But this was impossible. Tweedie ignores me.
All the while, he keeps disabling rank on my successive accounts, and
then denies he is doing it in this newsgroup, and blames it on my
"fumbling the client". To disprove this, I am not even _using_ a
client - I am using a raw telnet connection and with the raw telnet
connection again my accounts cannot set rank. So this has to be the
sanction on the server - there is no other possibility. Yet Tweedie
keeps denying that.
I don't have any "goals". I am not a goal-oriented person. I am
simply doing what I think is right: I am unfairly punished, I do my
best to expose that and to end it. I do my best to it, but detach
myself from the actual outcome.
Mark
Mark Galecki
All right, I just wrote Tweedie as nice a message as I possibly can
think of, telling him I am registering a new account, it is working
fine and very politely asking him to please not do anything to it, and
reaffirming that I will not challenge him anymore on the
interpretation of IGS commands.
Mark
Tweedie
>Right, I didn't mean it that way. I did try to resolve this in
>private with Tweedie. But this was impossible. Tweedie ignores me.
>All the while, he keeps disabling rank on my successive accounts, and
>then denies he is doing it in this newsgroup, and blames it on my
>"fumbling the client". To disprove this, I am not even _using_ a
>client - I am using a raw telnet connection and with the raw telnet
>connection again my accounts cannot set rank. So this has to be the
This is an outright lie. This article by you is dated July 19, and your
two accounts are Cryonicist and Transhuman. You have not used these
accounts since July 16.
Moreover, the passwords to both accounts were disabled July 16 due
to registration violation. Therefore you could not have used either
account with 'raw telnet' as you claim.
# stats Cryonicist
Player: Cryonicist
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: NR 0
Rated Games: 0
Rank: NR 0
Wins: 0
Losses: 0
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Wed Jul 16 14:59:40 2003
Last Access(local): (Not on) Wed Jul 16 23:59:40 2003
Address: mgal...@sbs.com
Reg date: Sat Aug 17 04:12:07 2002
Info: <none>
Defaults (help defs): time 1, size 19, byo-yomi time 8, byo-yomi stones 25
# stats Transhuman
Player: Transhuman
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: NR 0
Rated Games: 0
Rank: NR 0
Wins: 0
Losses: 0
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Wed Jul 16 15:05:21 2003
Last Access(local): (Not on) Thu Jul 17 00:05:21 2003
Address: mgal...@pacbell.net
Reg date: Mon Jul 7 11:57:26 2003
Info: <None>
Defaults (help defs): time 0, size 0, byo-yomi time 0, byo-yomi stones 0
Tweedie
mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) writes:
>To disprove this, I am not even _using_ a
>client - I am using a raw telnet connection and with the raw telnet
>connection again my accounts cannot set rank. So this has to be the
Additionally, settings do not matter if a client or raw telnet
is used.
Example: If you toggle shout off, it will remain off regardless
if a client is used or not.
Therefore, there are other possibilities.
tweet, PhD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Feldmann
Well, I wonder about that... It could always get worse
Mark Galecki
> All right, I just wrote Tweedie as nice a message as I possibly can
> think of, telling him I am registering a new account, it is working
> fine and very politely asking him to please not do anything to it, and
> reaffirming that I will not challenge him anymore on the
And now ... that account was deleted altogether, banned completely.
Mark
mullens
You need to be at least professional 1 dan to have any value to IGS, and
even then you will not be immune to sanctions for unacceptable behaviour.
I suggest that you play elsewhere.
Mark Galecki
> mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) writes:
> >private with Tweedie. But this was impossible. Tweedie ignores me.
> >All the while, he keeps disabling rank on my successive accounts, and
> >then denies he is doing it in this newsgroup, and blames it on my
> >"fumbling the client". To disprove this, I am not even _using_ a
> >client - I am using a raw telnet connection and with the raw telnet
> >connection again my accounts cannot set rank. So this has to be the
>
>
> This is an outright lie. This article by you is dated July 19, and your
> two accounts are Cryonicist and Transhuman. You have not used these
> accounts since July 16.
>
> Moreover, the passwords to both accounts were disabled July 16 due
> to registration violation. Therefore you could not have used either
> account with 'raw telnet' as you claim.
No, I am not lying, Tweedie: First the two accounts "Cryonicist"
and "Transhuman" were NRd and rank command was disabled for them, even
before I revealed their passwords. Then, another account "MarkG" was
banned, within about a day of registering. Then, another account
"Extropian" was NRd and rank command disabled, within several days of
registering. Then, another account "MarkGaleck" was banned, within
several days of registering. Then (today) another account registered
under "MarkGaleck" was again banned, this time within a few hours of
registering.
Just after I register an account, when it is not banned yet, I can use
the rank command and play games, either with a client or raw telnet.
After they are banned, I can't play games (they behave like guest
accounts - if one logs in to IGS with a nonexistent account, the login
is treated as guest, can observe but not play). (I only register
multiple accounts because I want to give you the opportunity to just
ignore them and not ban them. ) All the while you deny you or IGS is
banning them. So who's lying now?
Mark
Mark Galecki
> Additionally, settings do not matter if a client or raw telnet
> is used.
>
> Example: If you toggle shout off, it will remain off regardless
> if a client is used or not.
> Therefore, there are other possibilities.
Huh "Therefore"? That the account is disabled/has commands disabled
whether I use raw telnet or a client, and that commands behave the
same with both, implies that the client is not at fault. Windows
Telnet is a simple program and not configurable by user. I use the
account I registered. In between my telnet application and your
server are Internet routers which do not understand the contents of
our TCP connection. _Therefore_ it is the server that is banning me.
Mark
Planar
mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) wrote:
> So this has to be the
> sanction on the server - there is no other possibility.
Mark, you have made your point very well. Some people here don't
want to understand it, and no amount of explanation will make them
understand. To the rest of us, it seems that you are now only
wasting bandwidth by repeating obious statements over and over.
Don't forget that your story is just one more example of the
behaviour of IGS admins. It is now well documented in the
newsgroup archives and I don't see any need to add more posts
to this particular instance.
> I am unfairly punished,
Depending on what you mean by "unfairly", I would argue this is
not true. Whatever treatment you get from IGS admins, you have
agreed to such treatment by accepting the conditions of use of
IGS, as stated in the registration letter.
> I do my best to expose that and to end it.
You should understand by now that no amount of posting to this
newsgroup will change the attitude of the IGS admins. Please
don't be stubborn, drop the matter. Just post a 2-line message,
for completeness, when you finally get entirely banned from IGS.
> Yet Tweedie keeps denying that.
I wouldn't be so eager to get confirmation from Tweedie, if I
were you. The registration letter says "Unauthorized access to
IGS may subject the offender to such criminal and civil liabilities
as may be provided by applicable law."
As long as the IGS admins refuse to admit that you are banned,
and pretend that it must be a technical problem, you are still
legally allowed to connect to IGS, using whatever workaround you
can find. As soon as they say "you are banned", it becomes
illegal for you to connect to IGS.
--
Planar
-
> mark_galeck...@yahoo.com (Mark Galecki) wrote:
>>
>> So this has to be the
>> sanction on the server - there is no other possibility.
Planar <damien....@inria.fr> wrote:
> Mark, you have made your point very well. Some people here don't
> want to understand it, and no amount of explanation will make them
> understand. To the rest of us, it seems that you are now only
> wasting bandwidth by repeating obious statements over and over.
Alzheimer's patients may repeat the same stories over and over.
> Don't forget that your story is just one more example of the
> behaviour of IGS admins. It is now well documented in the
> newsgroup archives and I don't see any need to add more
> posts to this particular instance.
Strange that Mark Galecki was not apprised of these conditions
prior to his unfortunate foray into the realm of banning. Where were
his friends -before- this all began? And where are his friends now?
>> I am unfairly punished,
> Depending on what you mean by "unfairly", I would argue this is
> not true. Whatever treatment you get from IGS admins, you have
> agreed to such treatment by accepting the conditions of use of
> IGS, as stated in the registration letter.
Yes, indeed, and these terms are -quite- explicit.
>> I do my best to expose that and to end it.
> You should understand by now that no amount of posting to this
> newsgroup will change the attitude of the IGS admins. Please
> don't be stubborn, drop the matter. Just post a 2-line message,
> for completeness, when you finally get entirely banned from IGS.
Why would a 1-line message not suffice ?
>> Yet Tweedie keeps denying that.
> I wouldn't be so eager to get confirmation from Tweedie, if I
> were you. The registration letter says "Unauthorized access to
> IGS may subject the offender to such criminal and civil liabilities
> as may be provided by applicable law."
>
> As long as the IGS admins refuse to admit that you are banned,
> and pretend that it must be a technical problem, you are still
> legally allowed to connect to IGS, using whatever workaround
> you can find. As soon as they say "you are banned", it becomes
> illegal for you to connect to IGS.
No. Only one individual, a Mr. Erik vanRiper, has received
the official lawyer letter describing how it might be "illegal" for him
to connect to IGS. Additionally, Mr. Erik vanRiper has repeatedly
refused to make public that official lawyer letter from Korea's INET.
Other administrative bannings have taken place, issues resolved,
and then were lifted. Some of these were accomplished even
without reference to Mike Godwin's Law.
Now in the case of Mark Galecki, he was -not- formerly banned,
but in the past day or two he has -become- banned. Mr. Galecki
violated the terms of his registration letter by making public his
password to the account he had created on IGS. Patient readers
of rec.games.go will recall the sort of 'havoc' that can result with
ratings systems with group accounts, when anybody can connect
and play games there. While Mr.Galecki complained about his
inability to progress above 26-kyu (or 24-kyu) he was insensitive
to the problem of discrepancy when players of various strengths
might all congregate to use his account with published password.
Inappropriate use of a player account was also contributory to
the disintegration of the Amateur portion of the online IGS LGCup.
Several vociferous players, now at KGS, were among those who
were online cheating perpetrators, and/or defenders/accessories.
- regards
- jb
Chris Lawrence
> Now in the case of Mark Galecki, he was -not- formerly banned,
> but in the past day or two he has -become- banned. Mr. Galecki
> violated the terms of his registration letter by making public his
> password to the account he had created on IGS. Patient readers
However he only did that because he felt he was being targeted. The
cause and effects have always been out of phase with each other from day
one here. Mark feels targeted, takes public action, said action is
inappropriate and results in justified counter-action which makes Mark
feel he is being targeted...
My humble opinion is that Mark was wrong to 'go public' with his issue
to start with but that, whatever the reasons behind his inability to
regain access to IGS, the matter has also not been handled very well by
IGS in public. It feels like Mark has been 'allowed' to get into a
position where he can be legitimately banned.
I believe all this could have ended earlier with less paranoia and a
true desire to see it end from the start. Just open and honest private
communication, admittance to mistakes and more understanding on both
sides. Again in my humble sysadmin opinion.
Does this inter-server 'war' rear its head much in rgg then? As someone
else phrased it, it's been an interesting experience, I also learned a
lot. I'll make no more comment on the matter.
--
Chris
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Now in the case of Mark Galecki, he was -not- formerly banned,
>> but in the past day or two he has -become- banned. Mr. Galecki
>> violated the terms of his registration letter by making public his
Chris Lawrence <ne...@holosys.co.uk> wrote:
> However he only did that because he felt he was being targeted. The
> cause and effects have always been out of phase with each other from
> day one here. Mark feels targeted, takes public action, said action is
> inappropriate and results in justified counter-action which makes Mark
> feel he is being targeted...
Mark Galecki targeted himself by announcing a "disagreement with
IGS admin" thread (having that Subject: line). He was asked repeatedly
what the -exact- nature of that "disagreement" was (maybe a disagreement
with Tweedie -- Tweet -- or some other IGS admin). Instead, Mark Galecki
referred to help files, documentations, or policy, which are no longer
under the direction of IGS admins, once IGS had been sold to Korea's
INET many years ago, and then acquired by NKB's PandaNet a few
years after that. Now in private email correspondence Mark Galecki says
that he has/had no "disagreement" with Tweedie (Tweet), and so the
search continues for the -particular- IGS admin with whom Mark Galecki
actually has/had some personal "disagreement" (as announced in his
Subject: line to this newsgroup). As explained to Mark Galecki ...
From: "-" <jazzerciser2@*******.com>
To: "mgalecki" <mgalecki@*******.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:30:48 -0700
Subject: Re: new account...
[ ... ]
"You may consider the matter closed but Tweedie does not.
Your Subject line said `disagreement with IGS admin.' It did
not say `disagreement with some interpretation of an IGS
command' (or help file, documentation, or policy). Clearly
you chose to make the matter personal, and so now you must
suffer what you think are consequences. By the way, you -could-
have a personal disagreement with an IGS admin and not be
banned. However your pattern of behavior was establishing that
you are a liar: not trustworthy, and not reliable. You continued
to dig yourself into a deeper hole, and so now you have set a
high goal to work towards. It is not clear to IGS administrators
just what sort of strange behavior you might exhibit next."
> My humble opinion is that Mark was wrong to 'go public' with his
> issue to start with but that, whatever the reasons behind his inability
> to regain access to IGS, the matter has also not been handled very
> well by IGS in public. It feels like Mark has been 'allowed' to get
> into a position where he can be legitimately banned.
Nobody asked Mark Galecki to violate the terms in his registration
letter, sent to him at the time of account activation. More than 50,000
other registrants managed to comply with password privacy though,
inexplicably, Mark Galecki could not.
> I believe all this could have ended earlier with less paranoia and a
> true desire to see it end from the start. Just open and honest private
> communication, admittance to mistakes and more understanding on
> both sides. Again in my humble sysadmin opinion.
The conditions are balanced only in the event that Mark Galecki
operates/administrates a Go Server, and deals with banning issues.
Until he does, this situation is not complementary, but is asymmetric.
> Does this inter-server 'war' rear its head much in rgg then? As someone
> else phrased it, it's been an interesting experience, I also learned a
> lot. I'll make no more comment on the matter.
To my mind, the Mark Galecki affair is not mixed up with a server
war. If this should be the case, however, then "open and honest
private communication, admittance to mistakes and more understanding
on both sides" has not yet taken place.
- regards
- jb
PhysicsGenius
It's not an inter-server war. KGS has only been around, what, 2 years?
Go back in the newsgroup archives for many, many instances of IGS
fascism prior to that.
Mark Galecki
> with this. I dunno which of these games you played, but from the comments it
> appears it was the first.
No, I played _none_ of the game setups you quoted.
> "free" command. Why you choose to not use this feature, and instead take up
> admin time and newsgroup time, is for the amater physiatrists here to
Good question. So if you want, we can discuss this in private.
mgal...@pacbell.net
Thank you,
Mark
Mark Galecki
Planar, thank you for another great post. I have a lot to learn from
you (no sarcasm). Keep it coming. :)
Mark
-
PhysicsGenius <physics...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Go back in the newsgroup archives for many, many
> instances of IGS fascism prior to that.
Very interesting. And how do you -define- fascism?
- regards
- jb
-
mullens <mul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> You need to be at least professional 1 dan to have any value to IGS, and
> even then you will not be immune to sanctions for unacceptable behaviour.
Would you pay stiff fees for Go Lessons from anybody less than 1p? What
are "going rates" anyway, for lessons, tabulated by -each- "dan" level?
> I suggest that you play elsewhere.
Bzzzzzt! Only 361 intersections available on a 19x19 Go Board.
- regards
- jb