Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:22:17 10/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2000 at 07:07:23, Peter Davison wrote: >The original rules were meant to prevent stalking. It was accepted in the >Founders Group that there would always be some flames and disagreements between >individuals and groups, but that persistent, nuisance attacks that effectively >disallowed an 'on-topic' thread to make progress needed to be stopped. > >Of course the Founders Group discussed the likely effect of moderation or >censorship of posts and/or posters. As a result of these discussions various >markers were set down, one of which was the 'Jakarta' example. > >For those of you who may not remember this episode, I recount it: > >In 1997 (memory?), but when all debate took place on rgcc, the ICCA announced >that the next WMCCC would be in Jakarta, Indonesia. The organisers (a university >in Jakarta, or the Indonesian Government PR agency, depending on your view, were >pretty much paying all expenses, including flights and subsidised hotel). There >was a lengthy debate between programmers who wanted to go, and programmers who >argued that the regime was so repressive (East Timor, Jakarta riots etc), and >the event should be boycotted. In the middle of this debate, the Indonesian >government started to make difficulties for the Israeli team (Junior) >programmers to attend on the ground that they were Israeli jews (Indonesia being >Islamic). In the event the Israelis, who had applied to attend, did not do so. There were several people who decided that it was immoral to go to that tournament. There was a lot of discussion of this in r.g.c.c. One thing that didn't impress me about these people who were trying to tell me that I had to make their political points for them, is that they didn't research anything, instead they assumed facts in support of their contentions. As you have done here, people immediately assumed that since Indonesia is not a first-world country, power must flow from the government via very simple mechanisms, so it was assumed that the university must be a government-owned university. When it was pointed out that the university is privately owned by a single individual, this did not cause any sort of re-evaluation. Instead, it was immediately assumed that since Indonesia is not a first-world country, and since the government is corrupt, that anyone who acquires enough money to own a university must have obtained this money through immoral means. Nobody bothered to figure out this particular man's name, however. I think that Don Fong was operating out of idealism, although he was out of place to try to tell others to operate according to his ideals, and his arguments were poorly researched. I think that some of the other people who were involved saw the situation as an excuse to pick on their enemies, including the ICCA. >As you can imagine there was a good deal of heat generated. The debate continued >right up to and beyond the tournament itself. > >Now, in the Founders Group, it was agreed that a 'Jakarta' type debate would >not, should not and could not be censored out. This agreement was also made by >Bob Hyatt, even though, on rgcc, he (and Bruce Moreland) really wanted the >debate to end, mostly on the grounds that those who were going were going, and >there was no point in arguing about it anymore. I think everybody accepted the >concept that even though continued debate was hurtful to some persons; >democratic ideals and the importance of the subject (it was, after all, fully >on-topic) meant that the thing had to be argued out until it was done, rather >than suppressed. >My view was that the debate, though heated, was of high calibre, and showed that >computer chess people could argue at a high level when appropriate. It's hard to read this without laughing, since you try so hard to paint yourself as a defender of truth, justice, and so on, when in fact you seem to be nothing more than a fifth horseman of the apolcalypse. Why do you always show up, like cholera after an earthquake, whenever there is any controversy? Something weird happened, time to start watching for Chris to try to start another popular revolt, and end up blaming everyone for being stupid when he gets approximately zero support. >What has happened here by now is that such a debate, despite the promises and >agreements of 1997, could never happen. It would, like Shredder-Marcus K. be >thread-deleted. As Jeroen says "It's well known we can't discuss anything worse >here than "is Fritz 6b the strongest ever and if yes why not"." > >For me, the only purpose at all to read this group is to observe the group >behaviour of fans, fanatics and those just passing in a strange and sheltered >environment. It really is very funny. Sensible it is not. Building to any kind >of conclusion or creation it is not. It has become, really, a sort of chess >programmer kindergarden (object code included, if compiling is too difficult) >with a kindergarden nanny or two. The high-level debate on AI, chess >programming, philosophy of chess programming, implication of AI on real world, >cross mapping between chess-type AI and human thinking etc. etc. etc. is >practically all gone. It is just "is Fritz 6b the strongest ever and if yes why >not". If you don't like it, why don't you leave for good, rather than lurking around the edges, always ready to make difficult times harder? Maybe you could write a good post or two yourself (no credit given if you call your peers stupid). >There was always a tension between two groups, 'chess programmer technical >types' and 'chess program philosophy types'. This tension produced some of the >best computer chess debates. Of real interest. What happened here was that the >'technical types' won and now dominate the forum, what can and cannot be posted, >who can and who cannot post. I guess it is Bob's forum. I think that what happened here is that you shot your credibility about two years ago, and everything you've done since then has only made it worse. bruce
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.