On the ownership of TakChess

[towforce]

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.

I am puzzled that the founders don't have copies of the hosting contract locked away deep underground in safety deposit boxes in a safe with 3 metre high-grade steel walls!

[Rebel]

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.

That's not correct. Before I gave you access to the Talkchess server it was agreed that moving to another server would not happen without the blessing of Quentin. When we managed to secure the database you hired server space, installed the database but then you wanted to go without permission, breaking the agreement. Not only you betrayed me but also Quentin, he blocked your access to the Talkchess server since he doesn't trust you any longer and you can't complete the transition of the forum.

The transition to another forum could have been completed by now, but you had to blew it.

[hgm]

Well, nothing was agreed by me, as there wasn't anything to agree on yet. YOU wrote to Quentin:

In principle we will try to solve the problem so everything we remain the same

Assuming you meant "will" where you wrote "we", I took this to refer to a permanent move, not to running experiments on a mockup of the site in order to prevent jeopardizing his commercial website on the same server, in order to port a proven safe solution back to the ChessUSA site. We agreed to rent a VPS to experiment on, and you even offered to share the expense. I posted that plan of action here in the Task-Force thread.

Then you approached me by e-mail, claiming this could not be done without Quentin's permission, and we got to discuss the ownership of TalkChess. Apparently this prompted you to warn Quentin I wanted to steal the forum away from him, and he'd better revoke my ftp access.

BTW, Quentin never told me he didn't trust me. We have been in frequent e-mail contact since, and I have just received an e-mail from him this morning, where he confirms he has indeed unblocked the European IP addresses.

This all is a bit off-topic here. The point is that you told me Quentin could sue us for damages if we would move the forum without his permission, which he obviously could never do if it wasn't hit property. If that is a misunderstanding on my part, this is your opportunity to correct it:

Do you think that Quentin has any say in where TalkChess is to be hosted, or are we free to move wherever we want?

Note that whatever the legal status, my personal preference would of course be the forum stays hosted by ChessUSA, provided it is properly maintained, and accessible to all.

[Fulvio]

Well, nothing was agreed by me, as there wasn't anything to agree on yet.

It is not clear to me: does the database and the experimental newsite also contain the user data (email, password ...)?
Because in that case it would be a pretty big violation, at least under EU law: user data must not be made accessible or sold (e.g. emails to advertisers) to third parts without explicit consent.
Not to mention that the number of people using the same password for different accounts is incredible. Uploading such database to a potentially insecure server is looking for trouble.

[Rebel]

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

And - 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.

I did not respond on your first (and untrue) provocation (me in Quentin's camp?) as if I am an obstacle to the transition of another forum, which I am not. But then you could not resist to muddy the waters even more. Hence my reply after all.

I will leave your reaction as is but with the remark it's false, the email shows a different story and I will not hesitate to quote from it, you better first read what you wrote about Quentin and your outrageous plans with him, the disrepect after 24 years of hosting us.

[hgm]

Well, nothing was agreed by me, as there wasn't anything to agree on yet.

It is not clear to me: does the database and the experimental newsite also contain the user data (email, password ...)?
Because in that case it would be a pretty big violation, at least under EU law: user data must not be made accessible or sold (e.g. emails to advertisers) to third parts without explicit consent.
Not to mention that the number of people using the same password for different accounts is incredible. Uploading such database to a potentially insecure server is looking for trouble.

The point is that I am not a 'third party'. I am a TalkChess admin.

[hgm]

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

And - 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.

I did not respond on your first (and untrue) provocation (me in Quentin's camp?) as if I am an obstacle to the transition of another forum, which I am not. But then you could not resist to muddy the waters even more. Hence my reply after all.

I will leave your reaction as is but with the remark it's false, the email shows a different story and I will not hesitate to quote from it, you better first read what you wrote about Quentin and your outrageous plans with him, the disrepect after 24 years of hosting us.

I don't really see any answer to the crucial question there. Yet it was not rocket science. Do you agree with Quentin that he owns the board, or do you agree with Chris that he just hosts it?

As to the other points you raise: I really am not in the mood to argue about those. So I will just post copies of the emails you sent me here, as well as their Google translation, so that people can judge the matter for themselves:

Message from Sep. 7, 2021 20:59

Hoi,

Thanks to Sjrda we now have a clone of TalkChess (as it was a few days ago), at http://212.114.109.12/forum3/ !

Gefeliciteerd met de conversie! Wat was the truuk van Sjrda?

You are encouraged to browse it, to see if you can discover any irregularities. You could also try to post there. Beware, though, that this is not the real TalkChess, and that whatever you post there will sooner or later disappear. Because I intend at some point to make a completely up-to-date backup of the real forum, after locking it, and restore the state of the test forum to that.

Dit vind ik een brug te ver. We moeten eerst de zegen van Quentin hebben. Je wilt toch geen proces aan je broek. Niet dat hij overigens veel keus heeft.

Wat zijn de FTP inlog gegevens?

Groet,

Ed

Hi,

Thanks to Sjrda we now have a clone of TalkChess (as it was a few days ago), at http://212.114.109.12/forum3/ !

Congratulations on the conversion! What was Sjrda's trick?

You are encouraged to browse it, to see if you can discover any irregularities. You could also try to post there. Beware, though, that this is not the real TalkChess, and that whatever you post there will disappear sooner or later. Because I intend at some point to make a completely up-to-date backup of the real forum, after locking it, and restore the state of the test forum to that.

I think this is a bridge too far. We must have Quentin's blessing first. You don't want a lawsuit. Not that he has much choice anyway.

What are the FTP login details?

Greeting,

Ed

Message from Sep. 8, 2021 09:42

Hoi Harm-Geert,

Ik schrik wel een beetje van je houding naar Quentin en hoop dat ik je kan overtuigen om het zo niet te doen en wel om de volgende redenen -

1. Ten eerste hebben we te maken met een commercieel bedrijf dat 24 jaar geinvesteerd heeft in het forum als reclame en dat daar bestellingen uit voortvloeien.

2. forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67083 Quentin's vraag om donaties. We weten niet hoeveel hij binnen krijgt. En eigenlijk is de hoeveelheid ook niet belangrijk. Quentin kan simpelweg inkomstenderving claimen over [1] en [2].

3. Quentin is m.i. ook slachtoffer, net zo als wij. +/- 2 jaar geleden kreeg Sam een forum update door zijn strot geduwd zonder dat daarom gevraagd werd. De echte namen van mensen waren plots verdwenen, de poll optie werkte niet meer, enz. En daarmee begonnen m.i. ook de 403-Forbidden problemen, eerste slachtoffers de Polen. En zoals Quentin aangaf heeft de provider geklaagd over het aantal IP-deblock verzoeken. M.a.w, hij zit ook shocking klem.

4. Bovendien heb ik voordat ik jou de FTP toegang gaf aan Quentin beloofd dat in het geval het forum niet meer te fixen was en we zouden uitwijken naar een andere server dat niet zonder zijn zegen zou gebeuren. Als ex-commercial heb ik natuurlijk oog voor zaken zoals genoemd in [1] en [2].

Laten we het gewoon netjes afhandelen. Quentin is een geschiikte peer en het komt wel goed. Hij zal maar al te blij zijn dat hij van het gedoe af is en dat het opweegt tegen het verlies van [1] en [2]. Bovendien kunnen we de pijn verzachten door d.m.v. een plaatje plus link naar zijn shop hem te bedanken voor 24 jaar sponsorship.

Een heel verhaal....

Overigens, heb je mijn tip nog geprobeerd?

En kan je als admin wat met de mod_security settings? Lijkt me de lijst met verboden woorden. Zie het phpBB forum -
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811

Groet,

Ed

Hi Harm-Geert,

I'm a bit shocked by your attitude towards Quentin and hope I can convince you not to do it that way for the following reasons -

1. First, we are dealing with a commercial company that has invested 24 years in the forum as advertising and that orders are generated from it.

2. forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67083 Quentin's solicitation for donations. We don't know how much he gets. And actually the amount is not important. Quentin can simply claim loss of income on [1] and [2].

3. I think Quentin is also a victim, just like us. +/- 2 years ago Sam got a forum update shoved down his throat without being asked. The real names of people suddenly disappeared, the poll option no longer worked, etc. And with that the 403-Forbidden problems started, in my opinion, the first victims were the Poles. And as Quentin pointed out, the provider has complained about the number of IP deblock requests. In other words, he is also shockingly stuck.

4. In addition, before I gave you the FTP access, I promised Quentin that in case the forum was unfixable and we would move to another server that wouldn't happen without his blessing. As an ex-commercial I naturally have an eye for things as mentioned in [1] and [2].

Let's just get it right. Quentin is a nice guy and it will be fine. He'll be all too happy to get rid of the hassle and outweigh the loss of [1] and [2]. In addition, we can alleviate the pain by using a picture plus link to his shop thanking him for 24 years of sponsorship.

Quite a story....

By the way, have you tried my tip yet?

And can you as admin what with the mod_security settings? Sounds like a banned word list to me. See the phpBB forum -
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2547341
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2475811

Greeting,

Ed

In a reply I pointed out that [1] and [2] were of course bullshit, because while we were running tests on the mockup the latter would just as much direct business to Chess U.S.A. and generate donations, as it would be completely indistinguishable, so that no one would even notice. Least of all Quentin.
[Moderation] The quoted e-mails should be enough for everyone to judge whether the statement that Ed thinks Chess USA has a claim on the forum is a statement of fact, or a 'provocation'. Because the off-topic discussion on the remainder of the e-mail exchange that developed after this started to take the form of a thread hijack, despite several requests to stay on topic, I now split that off to another thread for those who like drame: forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78193 .

[mclane]

People from Europe will rarely by chess stuff in usa.
So it was easy to block europe out.

But this was against our interests.
For us beeing an international community it was a serious thing for over a year .

A community only works if all people have access.

[Sopel]

Even this thread is a bunch of needless drama. Just let noob host this and be done with all the bullshit. I volunteer as a random person.

[hgm]

The hosting is not the problem. The domain name is. Hosting in a different domain is already accomplished.