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.