Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 21:30:58 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 13:48:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >You are missing a major problem. Many professional engine authors have posted >here, and answered questions, and the like. But you have _not_ seen them >discussing marketing ideas, nor beta testing results, nor any of the other >"behind-the-scenes" activities that go on the the life-cycle of a professional >chess program. Not trying to intentionally ignore your issues (or the issues of Mr. Skinner or other posters). I realize there are issues. But I disagree with reactionary rhetoric that threatens to throw out the baby with the bath water. My viewpoint is thus a bit different, in some respects. As a chess program enthusiast, I welcome any & all meaningful access to programmers who listen to fans such as me and improve their products due to the interaction. The sharing of ideas, whether between professional or amateur programmers, or from mere users & fans, is a wonderful thing--for the ultimate beneficiaries, the users themselves. The fact that commercial programmers are trying to make a living should not be used against their interactions & contributions to the chess program user community, IMO. Ideas shared on an open bulletin board are not *solely* for the benefit of a single, developing program author. They are usable by any & all programmers and their representatives who happen to take part in the discussion or merely read the postings. It is the openness of the bulletin board that makes for such improvements in chess programs. There is no cutthroat unilateral misuse of the bulletin board by any particular developing author. If that sharing happens on a bulletin board devoted to chess programmers & fans, while the program author is working to improve his program, so be it. Marketing & advertising are different than sharing ideas on what a user or analyst would like an ideal program to do. Understand the objections to apparent marketing & advertising on this bulletin board. Would such apparent efforts be acceptable on CTF (is the charter & rules the same there, or does anything go?). My curiosity only. > >That's the difference here. The discussions ventured off into the "would you >rather pay for a single copy or a subscription to multiple updates?" and so >forth, which _clearly_ do not belong here. >That's that part of this that has gone over the top. >All the games played by >Rybka are fine. I can skip 'em if I am not interested, but they are about >computer chess. Agreed. I skip a lot of that also ... and I am a Rybka user & fan. Among other chess software I like to use. But some of the other stuff is beyond the limits posed by our >charter, and as a result, need to be curtailed. Okay, if the reactions are limited (and I haven't seen them limited in all postings, unfortunately) to specific postings & specific apparent violations, fine. But release of pent up emotion that excoriates game postings, technical help & discussion, chess programming ideas and comparisons, and threatens to toss an author out for good due to a few particular postings is beyond the pale, IMO. It constitutes tossing out the baby & should cause us to rethink our goals just a bit. And by the way, let's get rid of any idiot posters who disagree with this conclusion--just a bit over the top as well, don't you think. As other have pointed out, a private email, explaining a warning, etc, or even a posting on the open bulletin board, using polite but persuasive language (example, many of Graham's postings), would be wonderful & in most cases adequate, IMO. Ranting & raving & lashing out is not the way to accomplish a moderator action nor especially to defend it afterward. I've heard Graham say, before, that he had to take some sort of quick action, on his own I believe he admits, and he did just that, in the interest of appropriate moderation. Great! No objection to single moderator acting at times. But there is no need to engage the dissenting readership in a flame war ... casting aspersions on intelligence & motives, etc, just because there is some disagreement. In any large group, there will seldom be complete agreement on a moderator action. A moderator should not stoop to *prove* his actions to those who don't seem to get it (agree) or call them names when they do not agree. > >For Crafty, I have my own mailing list so we don't see endless threads here >about our testing results, program changes, etc. True, and that is much appreciated--don't need every single Crafty discussion idea cramming this bulletin board. Yet there have been hundreds of discussions on how Crafty handles certain things, perhaps thousands, over the years. The discussions have been much appreciated by those with programming goals of their own. Hard to draw a line, however, on what's too much, although Crafty has not been commercial in nature. There is a separate yahoo site for Rybka users. I belong to it. In conjunction therewith, I have the email address of the author and have used it successfully. I have always been very well answered & my inputs were appreciated. Generally (not saying 100%), Rybka fans & users & potential fans have initiated threads & have initially commented on Rybka on this bulletin board. Unfair to dump on the author for such threads, particularly when the author participates as a helpful respondent. And in many cases the Rybka author contributed technical answers or feedback for one and all who read this bulleting board. No problem with that. I post here myself, sometimes with real content and not just sarcasm or other poor attempt at humor. I do that because I want to share with all, not just with a particular author--even if the thread is centered on one program. Anything wrong with that--no, not at all. And since it is freely >available, you would never see any discussions about marketing strategies, which >simply do not belong here at all. Fair enough. But lets limit the discussion to particulars, with civil tongues and respectful corrective voices. If definitions must be quoted, quote them. If behaviors must be cited, cite them. > >John answered technical questions, he didn't try to sell the program here, which >is a major difference. I agree. I was not intending to paint John Merlino to be a bad guy in any way. He is one of the greats--always was helpful, and still is today--even though he no longer is with the CM team. I only used John as an example (at one time) of a member of a commercial product team bending over backwards to help the interested enthusiasts. Any similar user help & information release by Rybka author should be thanked & encouraged, IMO. Personally, I welcome advance knowledge of product releases, and knowing exactly what was fixed or improved, versus prior versions. We still pretty much face an info blackout on most CB GUI releases. Not much detail for the user. Leaves me afraid to be one of the first to download & demo a new version ... until other more daring users (with more time & energy available, in case things go wrong) have tried it out and reported on the improvements (or bugs). I still purchase CB products, but I am cautious to not upgrade without some expert user feedback on this forum. Any treatment of an author that might toss him out, threaten to toss him out, or discourage him from posting should be carefully considered. There are ways to react. There are ways to moderate. There are ways to enforce. There are ways to discuss such moderation. Other ways, however, are sometimes as 'over the top' as the orginal behavior a moderator seeks to curb. That's all I'm saying. I'm not panning Mr. Skinner. He does a great job in many many respects, and has contributed valuably many times in the past in many ways. Kudos for all that. I know he will do similarly in the future, no question about it. We can accommodate discussion on many things, moderation included. Without the personal harangue and invective to defend oneself by attacking others. Let's not toss out the baby with the bath water. Everyone likes babies. We all like to see the small fish (amateurs, etc) grow up to be big sharks (great competitors & analysts). Okay, okay. Let's not toss out the moderators either. We need them too!
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.