Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:18:12 06/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2000 at 12:55:15, ujecrh wrote: >I did read carefully and understood your post, my point is that "the best of >their ability" will hardly be enough to get rid of cheaters but far enough to >get rid of honest ones with obvious pseudos. I think that "the best of their ability" has been very good. BTW, I don't think you can equate honesty with pseudos, not matter how obvious they might be. >I understand you as well as those that are completely pro or against anonymous >accounts, probably none of us is completely right or wrong, this is a matter of >debate but the final choice may have a big influence on what ccc will look like >in coming months and years. Well, I'm not sure avoiding anonymous accounts has to change anything at all. Why should it? >And, to be completely fair I think it is much more important to keep people like >Mr. Hyatt or Moreland (and many more) here than people like me because they are >the heart of this club, we all read their posts, get answers from them etc. But >it would be nice to keep all those that want to participate and not destroy. >Take ChessFun for example, she is not a computer chess expert programmer but she >brings a lot of life here too. The lack anonymity is supposed to be a benefit for all, not just the experts. I agree that there are special cases to consider. It might be worth considering granting anonymity if the reason is sufficiently obvious, which the moderators would have to decide. A reason for not using a real name could be gender, since women are more susceptible to harassment from strangers I think. However, Lin Harper and Tina Long are not fictitious names AFAIK, so... Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.