Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:28:05 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 23:01:01, Roger D Davis wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 22:44:07, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 22:29:24, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2003 at 21:59:05, margolies,marc wrote: >>> >>>>evidence does not 'authorize the committee.' >>>>The authority of that kind of Committee rests in the Players agreements to be >>>>bound to the rules of the tournament and membership in this organization(ICGA) >>>>which seeks to protect its prestige. >>>>This is not a criminal action. The committee is not some kind of grand jury >>>>assembled for the purpose of hanging programmers. Whatever evidence exists, >>>>someone with the authority to act felt it was just to ask these questions now. >>>>If someone enters a world championship in absentia, and does not respond to >>>>tournament directors queries, apparently he can be banned in absentia. This >>>>appears just to me. The alternative I envisage would be to require the presence >>>>of all Programmers at the event so this will not happen again. Do you advocate >>>>that or would you rather the commitee had this power? >>>> >>> >>>Of course it's a criminal action...the guy has been sentenced to no further >>>participation until 2006. >>> >>>My guess is that the programmer didn't respond because he felt that it was >>>rediculous that his source code be requested on the basis of circumstantial >>>evidence alone. If you believe circumstantial evidence is sufficient to force an >>>author to produce his source, then you will disagree with me. >>> >>>However, the author had already denied there was any connection between List and >>>Crafty. At that point it was his word against the word of the accuser. >>>Recognizing that the rules don't say whether circumstantial evidence alone is >>>sufficient to ask a programmer to produce his source, don't say when experts >>>should be consulted, and don't state any similarity metric which determines >>>originality, the committee chose an authoritarian frame of reference, asserting >>>its authority to ask for the source. The committee had a variety of options and >>>courses of action. In contrast, once the committee chose an authoritarian route, >>>the author could choose only to conform, or not. >>> >>>The problem with an authoritarian frame of reference is that it fails to respect >>>the rights of all the parties involved. Hence the need for due process. In my >>>judgment, that process would have involved asking the accuser for stronger >>>evidence, then asking experts outside the committee whether this evidence rose >>>to a level necessary to justify asking for the source code. And if these experts >>>agreed, and if the source was requested and denied, then the author could have >>>and SHOULD HAVE been banned. One of those experts could have been Bob Hyatt. >>> >>>My position is that this course of action is not only consistent with the >>>charter, but also that it embodies the spirit of the charter by expressing the >>>principle of Good Faith, the foundation of all rewarding human relations. It >>>might have allowed the author to finish the tournament, it would have made the >>>committee look exceedingly careful and judicious in dealing with the whole >>>affair, it would have produced a verdict about List that was closer to the >>>truth, and it would have respected everyone on all sides. >>> >>>Instead, we have this controversy, to which there is no easy resolution. And we >>>may never know the truth about List. >>> >>>Roger >> >>You're cutting and pasting your arguments now....I think you are creating >>something out of nothing, I think you don't know what you're talking about but >>would like to impress us...well I'm not impressed! >> >>You're attacking the ICGA with little information, and asserting that what they >>have done is nothing short of criminal! >> >>Sir, that's your opinion and it teeters on libel. > >I'm cutting and pasting because my opinion hasn't changed, even those the >posters have. I'm not attacking the ICGA, only the decision making process that >was followed. And it may turn out that the author should have been banned. But >that doesn't mean that the decision-making process didn't fail, and that the >rules won't need clarification next time around. > >Roger You're attacking a process you know little about, and you can't state factually the decision process failed! You _think_ it failed or may have failed. This is opinion, not fact. Nuff Said...
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.