If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
It is now obvious that Peter Stockhausen is alive. It also appears that he wishes not to be found. His wife has a blog detailing that the RCMP have been in contact with Peter and the missing person case is now considered closed.
I really don't want to dwell on someones personal life, no matter how tragic it seems to be for friends and family. But this does have ramifications on the CFC. Peter is a CFC Governor and this would obviously affect how he does his job as a Governor. Does the CFC have any policy on what we should do when a Governor voluntarily disappears? This would seem to be a prime case for the 'inactivity rule' that is being proposed by Governor Bob Armstrong and which I support (and second the motion). If a Governor can't / won't stay in touch perhaps a suspension? just a thought ... ideas anyone?
This doesn't obviously affect his ability to do his job. Marital separation is not automatically related to everything else. In the days of the internet he can still if he wishes to carry out whatever other activities he chooses to. I think unless he actually resigns that this is a non-issue. Unless you have some other information that you can share not here but with the CFC office that is the appropriate place to deal with this. Otherwise really there is no point in belabouring this further.
The never ending Stockhausen debacle is one of the strangest accounts I have ever read on Chess Talk, or anywhere else for that matter. It truly screams out for a reality TV series!
It's not that simple, Zeljko. If a communication comes from a known Peter Stockhausen email address, observers such as Neil Sullivan, Duncan Smith and Kevin Spraggett will want it reported to the RCMP. Two from their posts on this forum, Kevin from his blog.
In view of what might have happened just a few days ago (an investigation possibly resulting in a prosecution for identity theft), had the RCMP been called in, I think that the CFC must consider as compromised, all electronic contacts for Peter Stockhausen.
This doesn't obviously affect his ability to do his job. Marital separation is not automatically related to everything else. In the days of the internet he can still if he wishes to carry out whatever other activities he chooses to. I think unless he actually resigns that this is a non-issue. Unless you have some other information that you can share not here but with the CFC office that is the appropriate place to deal with this. Otherwise really there is no point in belabouring this further.
Normally I would agree with you, but in this case, it does affect his job as a Governor. From what I can tell he has not done his job as governor since his disappearance. That is what I am concerned about... his personal life is not what I was asking about... what I would like to know is how the CFC deals with situations where a governor/executive etc.. is unable to do his job due to circumstances that are abnormal.
It's not that simple, Zeljko. If a communication comes from a known Peter Stockhausen email address, observers such as Neil Sullivan, Duncan Smith and Kevin Spraggett will want it reported to the RCMP. Two from their posts on this forum, Kevin from his blog.
Jonathan, I feel you are being foolish here. All I said on the matter was that, at the time it was a missing person case, I thought you should have told the RCMP of you suspicion that you had "seen"the person online.
Now that it is no longer a missing person case, I obviously don't see it in the same light. Please do not bring my name into this again.
It's not that simple, Zeljko. If a communication comes from a known Peter Stockhausen email address, observers such as Neil Sullivan, Duncan Smith and Kevin Spraggett will want it reported to the RCMP. Two from their posts on this forum, Kevin from his blog.
In view of what might have happened just a few days ago (an investigation possibly resulting in a prosecution for identity theft), had the RCMP been called in, I think that the CFC must consider as compromised, all electronic contacts for Peter Stockhausen.
My understanding is the police have closed their investigation. Using someone's email account is not identity theft that would be of interest to the police unless it was used to perpetrate fraud, harrasment or a significant case of mischief. We have more important things for police resources to be spent on, not that I've ever thought you were a fan of the police powers so your suggestion is a little surprising. As far as internet crimes this ranks very low on the scale. Perhaps you forget the old Chesstalk where many people posted under someone else's name and there was an ongoing debate as to whether certain interesting shall we say postings from kevinspragget were really Kevin Spragget, racial hate messages were left directed at various people & quickly taken down and several instances of posters taunting each other by posting under the other persons name. I don't think the police would have been involved with any of that. Last I looked this was also still the state of the Ottawa board but I haven't looked in at least 2 years.
Also the complainant can't in my opinion be some random person on the street & not someone who got one of these 'fake' emails, what they would like to happen is not particularly relevant, Duncan Smith has nothing to do with the administration of the CFC, Kevin Spagget has nothing official either as far as I know and the other person you mention has already spoken on the matter indicating you possibly did not consult these people before you spoke. If someone was using said email account or accounts to interfere with CFC administration and a police complaint was warranted then the CFC executive would be the ones in my opinion to launch a police complaint. Although do you really think that this would be the way to go when its possible the said person may be someone close to Peter and may have been deeply affected by these unfortunate circumstances.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 3rd August, 2009, 12:09 AM.
Normally I would agree with you, but in this case, it does affect his job as a Governor. From what I can tell he has not done his job as governor since his disappearance. That is what I am concerned about... his personal life is not what I was asking about... what I would like to know is how the CFC deals with situations where a governor/executive etc.. is unable to do his job due to circumstances that are abnormal.
If you look over the GLs I'm sure you will find some governors that have not cast a vote since they became governors or made a comment in the GL. Its always been an ongoing issue. Putting something in place for simple cases of inactivity would be more relevant than the few cases of extraordinary circumstances. For extraordinary circumstances I would think that the provincial chess association could notify the CFC under the provincial association bylaws or in their judgement. Of course whatever you put in place would have to be acceptable under the CFC constitution & bylaws and charity status regulations. If a governor by virtue of being a past president than the current CFC executive could deal with it as they determine appropriate. Alot of this requires good judgement and clear circumstances.
Now that I think of it if somone really wanted to look into this I would suggest they start to see if there are any activity requirements under charity regulations as to how organizations with charitable status must be run.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 3rd August, 2009, 07:09 AM.
... It wouldn't take much for a scammer to find out that Peter was CFC president & come up with this scam. I don't think there's any other realistic explanation.
Would you equate the quality of that speculation with the quality of the legal advice which you seem to be giving below? Is the advice valid only in Ontario, or anywhere in Canada?
Your legal advice may well be correct. I don't know. I am not a lawyer. But there is a case in the USA where a chess guy allegedly signed onto another chess guy's email account and read some emails. The first guy has been charged and released on bail. If convicted, he faces jail time.
Even though I'm not a lawyer, I'd be inclined to say that all these cases are different and that subtle differences can make a huge difference in the outcome, especially in an atmosphere where we are just beginning to come to grips with the consequences of identity theft. Beware of lava flows. Proceed with caution.
Silence on anything you've written does not signify assent.
Incidentally, has Kevin ever posted on this (CMA) board? I thought it was all on the Dark Board. I know that he was quoted at length here, but that is a different thing.
My understanding is the police have closed their investigation. Using someone's email account is not identity theft that would be of interest to the police unless it was used to perpetrate fraud, harrasment or a significant case of mischief. We have more important things for police resources to be spent on, not that I've ever thought you were a fan of the police powers so your suggestion is a little surprising. As far as internet crimes this ranks very low on the scale. Perhaps you forget the old Chesstalk where many people posted under someone else's name and there was an ongoing debate as to whether certain interesting shall we say postings from kevinspragget were really Kevin Spragget, racial hate messages were left directed at various people & quickly taken down and several instances of posters taunting each other by posting under the other persons name. I don't think the police would have been involved with any of that. Last I looked this was also still the state of the Ottawa board but I haven't looked in at least 2 years.
Also the complainant can't in my opinion be some random person on the street & not someone who got one of these 'fake' emails, what they would like to happen is not particularly relevant, Duncan Smith has nothing to do with the administration of the CFC, Kevin Spagget has nothing official either as far as I know and the other person you mention has already spoken on the matter indicating you possibly did not consult these people before you spoke. If someone was using said email account or accounts to interfere with CFC administration and a police complaint was warranted then the CFC executive would be the ones in my opinion to launch a police complaint. Although do you really think that this would be the way to go when its possible the said person may be someone close to Peter and may have been deeply affected by these unfortunate circumstances.
In the present thread, he says that was then, this is now, we know
more, now "obviously" he wouldn't advise the same way.
It's a simple thing I ask. Given what he knew, when he made
that suggestion (the first time or the second time, doesn't
matter) can he provide a specific scenario where informing
the police might have moved the case forward? Up to now,
he's been vague. I long thought about it and didn't
arrive at any positive outcomes to his suggestion. I want to
know.
Incidentally, has Kevin ever posted on this (CMA) board? I thought it was all on the Dark Board. I know that he was quoted at length here, but that is a different thing.
Never (at least not since the board was "re-created" a couple of years ago) - unless he has been using an alias or someone else's account. Click on the "Members List" tab near the top of the screen.
In the present thread, he says that was then, this is now, we know
more, now "obviously" he wouldn't advise the same way.
It's a simple thing I ask. Given what he knew, when he made
that suggestion (the first time or the second time, doesn't
matter) can he provide a specific scenario where informing
the police might have moved the case forward? Up to now,
he's been vague. I long thought about it and didn't
arrive at any positive outcomes to his suggestion. I want to
know.
Let me try again ...
At the time of the original discussion, the fate of the individual was unknown to most of us. It was speculated that he might have been the victim of an accident or other misadventure.
From what we knew, it could logically be assumed that police energies were being devoted to these lines of investigation. If it could be seen that he was logging on to the internet, then obviously he had not met with an incapacitating injury. This would have led the police to focus their energies elsewhere. That is how it could have "moved the case forward".
As we know now, the police had effectively called off their search on May 27th, so they would have done nothing with the information.
This is all neither here nor there as it has nothing to do with your idle speculation on how I would react to e-mail activity today. You are taking my initial genuine concern and twisting it. That is what I find insulting. Cloaking it in confusion over my thinking does you no honour. If you genuinely wanted to know, you only had to ask.
When you were wondering whether I really expected you to contact the police, I told you I was and explained that, if a member of my family was missing, I would hope someone would give the police any info they had. I replied directly to you and was very clear with how I felt.
When you replied you would not, I disagreed but saw no reason to belabour the point. I didn't reply to you or mention it again. I haven't been vague - I simply let it drop. It soon became irrelevant anyway.
FYI, if I knew of any e-mail activity today, I would have no reaction. I couldn't care less. The matter has passed from the realm of possibly criminal to being a private matter between husband and wife. As such, I do not feel it to be any of my business. You are free to your own opinion, but don't drag me into it; especially by twisting things.
This will be my last word on the matter in this forum.
If it could be seen that he was logging on to the internet, then obviously he had not met with an incapacitating injury. This would have led the police to focus their energies elsewhere. That is how it could have "moved the case forward".
That's your best scenario? He's OK, he's been hiding for two months, and suddenly he logs into MonRoi's chat room under his own name? When he could just as easily create a new free account? Sorry, that's not credible.
then you'd remember my opinions, which haven't changed. No, I'm not in favour of wasting police time. Somebody else wrote:
In the same thread, you wrote:
Would you equate the quality of that speculation with the quality of the legal advice which you seem to be giving below? Is the advice valid only in Ontario, or anywhere in Canada?
Your legal advice may well be correct. I don't know. I am not a lawyer. But there is a case in the USA where a chess guy allegedly signed onto another chess guy's email account and read some emails. The first guy has been charged and released on bail. If convicted, he faces jail time.
Even though I'm not a lawyer, I'd be inclined to say that all these cases are different and that subtle differences can make a huge difference in the outcome, especially in an atmosphere where we are just beginning to come to grips with the consequences of identity theft. Beware of lava flows. Proceed with caution.
Silence on anything you've written does not signify assent.
Incidentally, has Kevin ever posted on this (CMA) board? I thought it was all on the Dark Board. I know that he was quoted at length here, but that is a different thing.
Get a grip Jonathan. I never claimed to be giving legal advise. I offered my opinion the same as everyone else and the same as you although you didn't consult all your 'clients' it seems. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be, however I don't need to be a lawyer to give my opinion. In this country we have freedom of speech and we can all discuss the law of the land, in fact in a democrary we are encouraged to do so. You are welcome to go running to your nearest police station to make whatever report you like, I would say you would be wasting your time but judging by your long posts you seem to enjoy doing that. The only legal advise seemed to come from you which was (fancy boarding school Latin aside) that nothing stands legally in the way of some selling Peter's possessions. Duncan Smith and Kevin Spragget are also welcome to file whatever police reports they like. Have fun. I would suggest though that before you act as someone's mouthpiece that you ask them for permission first. Have a good sunshiney BC day.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 3rd August, 2009, 09:37 PM.
That's your best scenario? He's OK, he's been hiding for two months, and suddenly he logs into MonRoi's chat room under his own name? When he could just as easily create a new free account? Sorry, that's not credible.
Not only are you not a lawyer but you are a lousy detective. Likely Peter did not expect this situation to go so public like this in the chess community, when a person is under stress and tribulations creating new accounts is not top of mind, he appears to be simply a man who left his spouse without informing her, he's not a criminal mastermind Moriarity on the run nor are you Sherlock Holmes. This only went public in the community because his possessions were on sale on ebay for quite a large asking sum which according to you is just fine, so if you are really concerned for his safety and his identity theft? issues why were you so blase about his stuff being sold?
and has Kevin Spragget ever posted on this board? Not that I know of since registration was required but I know that you know that there were many, many posts on the original chesstalk.com board before registration was required. Was this really Kevin Spragget? Don't know. It is puzzling thought that if it wasn't that Mr 'Identity Theft Watch' Berry did not make a police report back then.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Monday, 3rd August, 2009, 09:34 PM.
Tweet
Comment