Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 20:41:57 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 23:33:34, Roger D Davis wrote: >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 Well I'm glad we have come to an agreement. Terry
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.