Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The people have spoken.

Author: Vasik Rajlich

Date: 12:21:23 02/13/06

Go up one level in this thread


On February 13, 2006 at 11:47:44, Peter Skinner wrote:

>The last 24 hours has been very discouraging to say the least.
>
>I expressed my opinion on the way engine authors have been treating the CCC with
>regards to commercial sales posts and comments, and while Rybka was the
>reference used, it was not the only target.
>
>I tried to explain this, but no one could see past their convictions that I had
>done something absolutely horrible, or as one former moderator insinuated, I had
>breached some sort of ethical line by sharing my opinion as a moderator. Ok… I
>am not allowed to share my views and opinions now as a moderator. Where the hell
>does it state that?
>
>I then removed a thread where it was clear the author was polling current and
>possible future customers on the idea of a subscription fee service for his
>program over a per release purchase. THIS WAS A CLEAR COMMERCIAL EXHORTATION! He
>even comes back to asked for the replies to the thread before I deleted them so
>he can see the feedback from such proposal and when I challenge him on it, he of
>course refuses to reply. Yet I am still in the wrong…
>
>I asked a simple question:
>
>“What about rule #4 do you not understand?”
>
>This rule has been in place since the CCC began and in recent times there have
>many challenges to it, and all have been refuted. I am sure we all remember
>Gothic Chess, or how Fruit was stifled from promoting in the forum.
>
>Yet when it comes to Vasik and Rybka, suddenly everyone turns a blind eye. Even
>more, they treat me like I have done something wrong for simply asking what he
>did not understand about a rule in our charter that has been there from the very
>beginning, and one I read when I JOINED nine years ago.
>
>Now just to clarify that Vas understands rules and so forth, it has been made
>very clear that he uses a Yahoo Group to distribute his program. Now I know he
>can read and follow rules, but let me ask this:
>
>“What do you not understand about rule #6?”
>
>Yahoo! Groups Guidelines
>
>Yahoo! Groups give Yahoo! users a place to meet, interact, and share ideas with
>each other. Just like a real community, you may have different opinions than
>other Yahoo! Groups users. The Yahoo! Groups experience is best when people
>remember a few rules. Yahoo! sets out the terms and conditions of your use of
>our services in the Yahoo! Terms of Service, our Guidelines, and in other rules
>that we may place on our site. For your use of Yahoo! Groups, some of the key
>things to remember are:
>1.	You may not harass, abuse, threaten, or advocate violence against other
>members or individuals or groups.
>2.	You may not post content that is harmful to minors.
>3.	You may not post content that is obscene, otherwise objectionable, or in
>violation of federal or state law.
>4.	Stay on topic. Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it
>when you stay on topic. If you constantly stray from the topic you may be
>moderated or removed from a group altogether by its owner.
>5.	You may not add members to a group without their permission.
>6.	You may not use Yahoo! Groups for commercial or advertising purposes.
>7.	You may not post content which infringes the intellectual property, privacy
>or other rights of third parties.
>8.	You may only post adult-oriented content in age-restricted areas. You must be
>18 years old or over to access these areas.
>9.	Some content may be more appropriate in some contexts than others. Yahoo!
>reserves the right to remove content that it determines, in its sole discretion,
>to be inappropriate and in violation of our rules. For example, discussions or
>depictions of bestiality, incest, excretory acts, or child pornography may be
>inappropriate if placed in a sexual or otherwise exploitative context.
>10.	You may not use Groups solely for the purpose of storing and archiving
>files.
>
>
>Ok, I am still the bad guy. I will have to accept that. After all, the people
>have spoken. And Vas clearly follows the rules anywhere he goes when it comes to
>his program and marketing/commercial ideas.
>
>Let’s move on…
>
>There were comments made through out this whole fiasco that really made me think
>about the direction that I wanted take, or see come from this situation.
>
>In the following post Uri Blass stated:
>
>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?486203
>
>“I thought that the intention of the rule not to have advertisment is to prevent
>having the same commercial advertisement repeat again and again because it is
>boring.
>
>I cannot see a demage from the fact that posters get new information in this
>forum.
>
>Unmfortunately you want to stop us from getting information by not allowing
>posters to post new information. I think that it is a good reason not to choose
>you as a moderator next time.
>
>With moderators like you people are going to prefer to read a different forum.
>There is no special need for this forum and it is possible to use other forums
>for information.
>
>I do not think that steve lose money because of Vasik's posts.
>It is possible that Steve will have to close this message board but I do not
>care about steve and it is possible to post in another forum if posting in this
>message board costs too much to steve(for example the winboard forum).
>
>Uri”
>
>The above is a perfect example of why our forum is failing. We have high profile
>users trashing this forum when they know there is another just around the
>corner.
>
>Uri even clearly states he could care less about the money and time that Steve
>has output for this forum because “There is no special need for this forum and
>it is possible to use other forums for information.” Yet I am a bad guy for
>simply stopping a commercial author from using this forum as a sale pitch, tech
>forum, and polling station.”
>
>Well doesn’t that just say it all?
>
>Then I get an influx of emails over night where users clearly bash me on the
>forums for what I have done, but then email me to state they agree with it and
>if I were to run as moderator again, I would get their vote.
>
>Or I get the emails that state they will try to influence people to withdraw or
>persuade others not to participate in CCT8 based on my actions on the CCC.
>
>Of course we have the overly exuberant that just call me names and so forth.
>
>So, this leaves me with only one decision as I see it.
>
>I am resigning my position as moderator on the CCC. I have informed Graham,
>Robert, Tim, and Steve as to my decision.
>
>Also I am resigning as TD or CCT8.
>
>I do not want my actions here to reflect poorly on that tournament, and as such
>will provide all the website materials and password to the CCT8 TD account on
>ICC to the person that will take up the task.
>
>Please contact me if you would like the role as CCT TD.
>
>My mind is made up on these decisions, and I will not be answering this thread.
>I will however thank those who showed support for me and the moderation team
>during this whole situation. It was encouraging to see.
>
>Peter

Peter,

I appreciate your work in the computer chess community.

There is nothing wrong with a disagreement every now and then - that is why we
have discussion and if necessary moderation. Don't take this stuff too
personally. :)

Vas



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.