On the ownership of TakChess

[mclane]

That would sound reasonable if Ed wasn't firmly in Quentin's camp...

In „Quentin’s camp“

[chrisw]

That would sound reasonable if Ed wasn't firmly in Quentin's camp...

I’ve no idea what camps there are and are not.

The important thing is that there are identifiable Custodians of the forum/brand name and so on, and that ICD/Quentin have driven a coach and horses through the terms they were allowed to do the hosting right from the start actually, and now it’s even worse.

Custodians can confer legitimacy onto a continuation forum.

Clearly Quentin/ICD can ask for money if you guys want to use the domain talkchess.com but he can’t claim ownership of the forum. He simply does not have that. Nor does he own the posts, he certainly doesn’t own my posts. Forum software is easily reproduced.

All that’s needed is the domain name. Or make a new one realtalkchess.com
Some named individuals to act as Custodians for if ever this happens again, and you techy guys can build a replacement forum, which you pretty much did already. You make the chief techy guy subject to elected moderated control with a backstop control by Custodians. That’s a tri-partite solution, generally accepted as the best way to stop individual “dictators” as TC likes to say.

I’m not interested in controlling anything, btw, just in case the thought crossed your mind.

[hgm]

Indeed, the replacement forum is already there, and it in a short time it can be made superior to this one, as we have full access to the software there. But I don't think that it will attract any visitors, no matter how many fancy features it has, and how crappy the forum is here, if it would be in a domain other than talkchess.com.

[chrisw]

Indeed, the replacement forum is already there, and it in a short time it can be made superior to this one, as we have full access to the software there. But I don't think that it will attract any visitors, no matter how many fancy features it has, and how crappy the forum is here, if it would be in a domain other than talkchess.com.

Semi-impasse then? You don’t trust Ed? Ed doesn’t trust you? Quentin would like to hang on to “his” forum and have his flagrant commercial exhortation on every page of it?

[Ras]

That would sound reasonable if Ed wasn't firmly in Quentin's camp...

You're alluding to Ed's attempt of bribing Quentin as owner to prevent democratic elections regarding the CTF shutdown. However, since that attempt failed, I don't expect Ed to be in Quentin's camp. Quentin wasn't a useful tool for Ed back then and even less so now.

[Ras]

and have his flagrant commercial exhortation on every page of it?

Given that the hosting and domain has always been for free, that little advertising isn't outrageous. It's small, static, no flickering, and even on-topic for a chess forum - and that's what I say as someone whose first browser extension is always uBlock Origin. That's not the issue. The issue is the numerous technical server problems that Quentin is unwilling to have fixed, and that in turn is why his "ownership" came under scrutiny.

[hgm]

That would sound reasonable if Ed wasn't firmly in Quentin's camp...

You're alluding to Ed's attempt of bribing Quentin as owner to prevent democratic elections regarding the CTF shutdown. However, since that attempt failed, I don't expect Ed to be in Quentin's camp. Quentin wasn't a useful tool for Ed back then and even less so now.

No, I was referring to an e-mail Ed sent me when we were discussing how to fix the forum. Ed said my plan to test on another server, directing all traffic there, could not be attempted without Quentin's permission, because he owns TalkChess, and would sue us.

[dkappe]

Talk of contracts and the law and confronting chessusa may feel good, but it’s not practical. We’re (who is “we?”) not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars taking them to court to force them to give up the forum.

We’re better off figuring out what we want out of this, what chessusa wants out of this and coming to an amicable agreement.

[hgm]

Indeed, the replacement forum is already there, and it in a short time it can be made superior to this one, as we have full access to the software there. But I don't think that it will attract any visitors, no matter how many fancy features it has, and how crappy the forum is here, if it would be in a domain other than talkchess.com.

Semi-impasse then? You don’t trust Ed? Ed doesn’t trust you? Quentin would like to hang on to “his” forum and have his flagrant commercial exhortation on every page of it?

No, I am just puzzled by your claim that Ed and you are the only persons still around who know what happened, but that the two of you say the opposit thing.

[towforce]

Talk of contracts and the law and confronting chessusa may feel good, but it’s not practical. We’re (who is “we?”) not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars taking them to court to force them to give up the forum.

OTOH, if Ed and Chris set up a new forum, including the old posts from 1997, the onus would then be on Chess USA to sue them. That's not a suggestion, but it shows that Ed and Chris do have a strong position to negotiate from.