Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:17:40 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 05:41:35, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On January 15, 2002 at 16:18:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 15, 2002 at 15:46:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2002 at 15:15:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2002 at 03:57:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 14, 2002 at 19:17:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hello , >>>>>> >>>>>>i see bookbuilder in cct4. that is an interface made by >>>>>>Bas Hamstra sold to J.E.F. Kaan (who can't program at all) >>>>>>and with crafty added sold as 'bookbuilder'. >>>>>> >>>>>>Now i see Jan Kaan join CCT4 with bookbuilder under the name 'djenghis 0.05'. >>>>>> >>>>>>He is mentioned as 'author' from Djenghis. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is not correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Vincent, >>>>> >>>>>You impossibly can provide the evidence of your accusation, I suggest you move >>>>>your suspect to the Tournament Director of CCT4, that is where it belongs. >>>>> >>>>>The moderators of CCC are not going to allow you to discredit the name of Mr. >>>>>Kaan based on wild speculations. So it's either provide the evidence or stop >>>>>now. >>>>> >>>>>Kindest regards, >>>>> >>>>>Ed Schroder >>>>>CCC moderator >>>> >>>>With respect, I disagree with this. The factual accuracy of what someone is >>>>saying shouldn't be an issue. The moderators should not be a court of law that >>>>determined whether what someone says is true or false. >>>> >>>>"Put up or shut up" should be something the members say, not something the >>>>moderators say. The club that the moderators wield is too heavy in this case. >>>> >>>>As a group, we need to be able to speak freely about issues that are important >>>>to us. Sometimes, this might involve very contentious speech, which Vincent >>>>seems to specialize in. >>>> >>>>I think that the charter is designed to protect us from stalkers and people who >>>>can't stay within the bounds of civility. It's not designed to prevent us from >>>>getting into arguments, disagreeing, or even accusing each other of things. >>>> >>>>I suggest that if Vincent makes a campaign out of this, it should go. If >>>>someone is going to post the same thing every few days, they are obviously using >>>>the forum as a vehicle for personal attack -- that's what a campaign is. I >>>>don't see that happening here. >>>> >>>>If someone wants to say something nasty, I think they should go for it. I think >>>>that the charter protects us from people would would follow us around sniping at >>>>us, like the stuff that is happening in the other forum, but if someone is >>>>displeased with someone, that's a valid topic. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>I disagree >>>We got a moderator email that asked to delete all the thread >>> >>>I thought to do it but it was not a clear case that I was sure to do it so >>>I decided to discuss it with Ed and the decision was not to delete it. >>>but to give Vincent a warning. >>> >>>My opinion is that people should not accuse each other by "facts" that they >>>cannot prove and the question if the "facts" are right or wrong >>>is not important. >> >> >>I am with Bruce here. Discussions can be frank at times. But there is a >>difference between someone stating a concern and giving reasons for it, and >>for someone doing the same thing 20 times in a row. IE the previous group >>of moderators tolerated quite a bit of this stuff from (say) chessbits or >>whatever. But only to a point. Once a did to, did not discussion goes on >>a while, it is time to end it. >> >>But discussing particularly sensitive issues here should be considered as >>acceptable so long as it doesn't resort to name-calling/insults. Being >>concerned about a brand new program from an unknown author is certainly quite >>reasonable in light of past happenings related to my program. I think it has >>already died down nicely of its own accord without needing any moderator >>intervention at all. >> >>If we only allow provable "facts" here, it will become quite useless, quite >>quickly, for quite a lot of folks... > >Vincent simple has something personal against Jan Kaan (I know this for a fact) >and tries to discredit him. This is not the first time he tries to discredit him >in public, you know. I am surprised you have this opinion. When I was once >pissed at Vincent and wrote *one* poinsonous mail (without any direct insults) >it was instantly deleted by Uri Blass, because he labelled it a "personal >attack". And these smearing campaigns are allowed??? > >Come on, a little consistency... > > > >Bas Hamstra. I do not see this as a "smearing campaign". I see it as a tournament participant wanting to be sure that we once again don't have yet another crafty clone playing in a public event. It has happened in the past. It will happen again. Asking is not "smearing"...
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.