Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:05:28 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
The answer will be divided into two parts. Here is part 1.
Topic: The censorship and violating of their own charta by the CSS team.
As you know I am not a member of the CSS forum. Perhaps you remember that we two
always had interesting exchanges. That was two years ago in CSS forum and here
in CCC, and it is still here in CCC.
Since you are a member of the CSS team you are certainly interested in the
actual case of censorship in CSS. It is primarily against Hagra and his test
critic of the "WM"-Test, in English the "Wch-test". One of the latest censoring
activities of the CSS team was the message
http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100774.htm, where your team
declared that they don't want to accept that a certain topic is brought up
repeatedly, in special the critic against that "WM-Test". Since Hagra is almost
the only critic of that test, this means in detail that you don't want to read
any critic at all against that test. That is understandable because the test
author MG is always threatening that he would stop to work on the test. Earlier
he had declared that this is his lifetime creation with trememdous importance
for himself. All this is so overloaden and exaggerated that the test can't have
any superior relevance.
To maintain a support for M. Gurevich, you allow anonymous people to write
ignorant messages against the only test critic Hagra. For instance in the actual
debate about the two solutions of WM-Test position 1, a person called "A genius
strikes back" wrote a good troll asking how Hagra could speak of a second
solution if it were a worse continuation.
I thought I could explain what Hagra really meant and wrote a direct explanation
to this anonymous. Unfortunately my answer was censored by CSS.
This is typical. Like ChessBase, also CSS doesn't want to allow any form of
critic that could be understood by the readers as a justified critic. Therefore
the debate is influenced as if the critic of Hagra had no reason at all. More,
that there were no reasonable critics at all. Therefore people like me are
censored. In a second part of my answer to you I will prove that you are the one
with the agenda to show that if the "WM test" had certain weaknesses, that then
_all_ tests had the same weaknesses. This is a bad trick. In the German forum of
CSS you exert your power of censoring even stronger with direct verbal insults
against Hagra. Here are the examples
http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100002.htm
"Hör auf mit dem Blödsinn." [Michael S.] Or in
http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100001.htm
"So ein "Diskussionsverhalten" finde ich ehrlich gesagt zum Kotzen." [Michael
S.]
Strong insults to defend MG against any form of justified critic with
stigmatizing the critic Hagra as impolite and dickhead. But Hagra in real is
exactly NOT impolite and dickheaded. I think the readers here un derstand who is
dickheaded and impolite in the debate. It's you. Your whole CSS team is impolite
through and through in
http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/100774.htm
("Was stört, ist wenn man wieder und wieder und wieder, mit welchen Absichten
auch immer, das Thema neu aufrollt. Wir haben nun alle zur Kenntnis genommen,
was Hagra vom WM-Test hält. Können wir es dabei belassen?") Such a message is
impolite, arrogant and ridiculous. It shows that the CSS team has no answer to
Hagra's critic of the "WM-Test". And you won't save your "WM-Test" with
censorship or insults against Hagra or me.
To the details of your weak defense of the "WM-Test" see my second message right
here.
Why is the CSS team violating its own charta. Quite easy. The charta says that
the peace of the forum should be respected with all messages. Now if someone
makes a scientific critic of a test which the CSS journal has adopted as their
main test, then it is a good policy to argue with the arguments of the critic
and NOT to insult the person who is posting the critic. The latter will forcedly
stir up the emotions of the members. But the CSS team is trying to pretend that
people like Hagra are the reason for a potential increase in emotions. Because
he's the one who makes the critic. I cant understand why people defame a
reasonable critic but then use insults against the critic in defense. That is a
most primitive misbehaviour.
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.