Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:25:36 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 08:29:55, stuart taylor wrote: >On February 12, 2006 at 22:05:16, Roger Brown wrote: > >>On February 12, 2006 at 21:45:51, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 13:32:33, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt in polling users about possible >>>>commercial payment possibilities for your program, and as such I am removing the >>>>thread. >>>> >>>>As per the charter: >>>> >>>>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>>>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>>>messages: >>>> >>>> 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>>> 2. Are not abusive in nature >>>> 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>>> 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>>> 5. Are not of questionable legal status. >>>> >>>>What about rule #4 do you not understand? >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>You have certainly violated 2 and 3 straight off imo. >>> >>>A person with Vasiks standing stands to be very insulted by your insensitive >>>behavior. I can't emphasize this strongly enough. >>>OBVIOUSLY this should have been done in a different way, and it would have been >>>no problem to have done so. >>>(Actually, the mods here also threw Kasparov himself packing, though probably >>>not realizing it was him. And even if they HAD, I suppose who cares!). >>>S.Taylor >> >> >> >> >> >>Hello Stuart, >> >>Please point out where Peter was abusive or where he made personal attacks. I >>respect the fact that it is your opinion but I am sincerely hoping that your >>opinion is supported by some facts. >> >>I am also bemused by the reference to Vas' standing. Precisely what does that >>mean? I am no programmer so am I someone who would not be insulted if Peter >>offered insulting or libellious statements to me? >> >>I would strongly suggest that if there is a point of principle to be made that >>you do not make it taking into account Vas' specific standing in your eyes. >>That would be the introduction of the thin edge of the wedge. >> >>Where there is a violation of the charter we have the moderators to enforce the >>rules. >> >>Your reference to Kasparov being sent packing is interesting. I would like to >>hear more about it as I would certainly care if that had been done *and* you had >>proof to support your claim. >> >>Actually, I cannot understand the joining of the two events in your post but I >>am a simple man. > >I thought it was another example of carelesness in evaluating a person. > >> >>:-) >> >>I take your points about the process but I do not believe that anyone, least of >>all myself (or anyone - programmer of the mightiest engine this decade or not >>:-) )is above the rules. >> >>When you say that it is OBVIOUS that it could have been done differently I >>wonder why you think so? >> >>In case there are persons who are wondering, I think Vas is an incredible >>programmer and he has written a first class engine and released it as a freely >>available beta. I would have sold it from day one. >> >>There is a need to consider the facts and not allow emotions or respect for >>anyone to cloud judgement. >> >>Of course, that is my opinion. >> >>Later. > >No one is above the law, "but the shame caused to a person goes according to the >person who shames him, and according to the one being shamed", this is surely a >general truth, but known to me especially as it is a well known principle in the >Jewish judicial system, in estimating how much, and if, a person has been >maligned. >Vasik, realizes he has made history, and he believes that everyone (in ccc) >loves him, and that he is doing a service to the forum by posting often. Atleast >It stands to reason that he might feel he is one of the most welcome members. >And to suddenly treat him out of the blue like he is the vermin of society seems >a little too harsh. It's a bit harsh to twist historical facts this way, yes. This was NOT out of the blue. It was already discussed last year. Then people declared their interest and so the debate disappeared. But this message now about calling for a feedback on his subscription plans was too much or enough. Why should that be debated in CCC? When Vas has his own forum specifically for all Rybka customers...! Why is it so difficult to understand for some people here? Bias in the perception? Dont know. >It hurts him much more than it would an average poster. >He also didn't fully realize he was doing wrong, obviously. Let's call it chuzpe. >Still I can understand the problem of allowing it like this, because other >programmers might be feeling they are being usurped and losing their own sales >too. That's OK as long as it is not the fault of the forum morals. >So obviously, it should have been done with more diplomacy and not openly. >S.Taylor With so many customers here among the members Vas has earned the right to get an open response right away. His advertising was also very frank and direct. So where is the problem? What would the customers have said if that would have been deleted without public explanation and debate? Read for instance SteveB, he made a valid point towards those who openly declared that they didnt care about this forum or the whereabouts of the host a damned sh__. But at the same time these interesting role models declare that they are morally deeply hurt by seeing how certain postings have been deleted - of the feedback for Vasik. If that's not hypocrisy?
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.