Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:51:44 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 05:56:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On January 15, 2002 at 19:01:18, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On January 15, 2002 at 15:15:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2002 at 03:57:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On January 14, 2002 at 19:17:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello , >>>>> >>>>>i see bookbuilder in cct4. that is an interface made by >>>>>Bas Hamstra sold to J.E.F. Kaan (who can't program at all) >>>>>and with crafty added sold as 'bookbuilder'. >>>>> >>>>>Now i see Jan Kaan join CCT4 with bookbuilder under the name 'djenghis 0.05'. >>>>> >>>>>He is mentioned as 'author' from Djenghis. >>>>> >>>>>This is not correct. >>>> >>>> >>>>Vincent, >>>> >>>>You impossibly can provide the evidence of your accusation, I suggest you move >>>>your suspect to the Tournament Director of CCT4, that is where it belongs. >>>> >>>>The moderators of CCC are not going to allow you to discredit the name of Mr. >>>>Kaan based on wild speculations. So it's either provide the evidence or stop >>>>now. >>>> >>>>Kindest regards, >>>> >>>>Ed Schroder >>>>CCC moderator >>> >>>With respect, I disagree with this. The factual accuracy of what someone is >>>saying shouldn't be an issue. The moderators should not be a court of law that >>>determined whether what someone says is true or false. >>> >>>"Put up or shut up" should be something the members say, not something the >>>moderators say. The club that the moderators wield is too heavy in this case. >>> >>>As a group, we need to be able to speak freely about issues that are important >>>to us. Sometimes, this might involve very contentious speech, which Vincent >>>seems to specialize in. >>> >>>I think that the charter is designed to protect us from stalkers and people who >>>can't stay within the bounds of civility. It's not designed to prevent us from >>>getting into arguments, disagreeing, or even accusing each other of things. >>> >>>I suggest that if Vincent makes a campaign out of this, it should go. If >>>someone is going to post the same thing every few days, they are obviously using >>>the forum as a vehicle for personal attack -- that's what a campaign is. I >>>don't see that happening here. >>> >>>If someone wants to say something nasty, I think they should go for it. I think >>>that the charter protects us from people would would follow us around sniping at >>>us, like the stuff that is happening in the other forum, but if someone is >>>displeased with someone, that's a valid topic. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>The Vincent accusation is against the CCC charter although you can argue about >>that, and therefore makes this case special. >> >>It all would have been different if Vincent would have produced "facts", but >>there is nothing, just a wild speculation. >> >>The charter is created to protect people, when someone is called names, is >>insulted, we delete those postings, part of the moderator job. Being stamped as >>a cheater in a public forum goes a lot deeper than just being insulted, it is >>much more over the line, thus we (Uri and me) felt the need to do something. >> >>We decided not to delete the thread because it is a very on-topic issue, clones >>are easy to make and we have seen several bad examples of that in the past >>causing major trouble when discovered. So no deletion of the thread, better >>discuss it, the reason why we did not want to handle this case behind the >>curtains, something we normally do. >> >>If you read again I have asked Vincent to provide the data that supports the >>accusation or to stop talking about the issue. >> >>If Vincent can back-up his accusation he is most welcome to defend his case, if >>he can't he abused the charter of CCC, being stamped as a cheater (probably for >>life) in a public forum is much more worse than for instance being called names. >> >>Last, it is not the first time Vincent makes these kind of accusations without >>backing up things, sorry not in this place, at least not in our term. >> >>So Vincent it is up to you to provide the evidence, for instance what you wrote >>me in email. >> >>Kindest regards, >> >>Ed Schroder >>CCC moderator > >This is kind of ridiculous. You have to prove to the moderators that what you >say here is true? > >That's crazy. That's way to much to expect the moderators to do, and it's way >too much for the moderators to take upon themselves. > >There have been lots of cases where people have said things here, and who knows >if they are true or not. We shouldn't be in a situation where the moderator >asks the two parties for supporting documentation in order to find out if a post >is abusive or not. > >If someone accuses someone of cheating, the accused person can explain what is >going on, the members can ask the accuser questions in order to figure out if >he's nuts, etc. It's not a "personal attack" to be accused of this kind of >thing, unless someone is following you around doing this every week. > >Moderation should stay out of this unless it gets out of control. If it gets >out of control, it's enough to tell the involved parties to take it off line. > >The CCC moderators are not the Computer Chess Court of Justice. > >bruce Okay, let's discuss it further. Allow me a little nonsense counter example, imagine your way back, just written Ferret, your first tournament, you are a non-name and new in CCC and you are welcomed: Bruce Moreland is a cheater, his program Ferret is just another clone. That's all the accusation says, no further information, no data to back it up. You say it is no personal attack, I say it is. Things change if data is produced with the intention to proof the accusation, the lack off is just slander. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.