Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 20:33:34 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 23:28:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >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... It most definitely is an opinion. That's why I said, "My judgment is..." and "It may turn out that the author should have been banned...", etc. Everything I have said is absolutely opinion and nothing more. Roger
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.