Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 20:15:34 11/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2004 at 21:26:43, Evgeny Shaposhnikov wrote: >On November 16, 2004 at 19:27:11, Mike Byrne wrote: > >> >>>But even if it were the case, it is not in any way against this forum's policies >>>and Mr. Kazinski was clearly banned out of personal disagreement with the >>>moderators. >> >>Not true at all - he felt he had an a once in a life time opportunity to hurl >>imsults and he was wrong. >> >>Key operative words "it is no longer the case" . Kazinski a has history here >>and there was a time where he blatantly promoting cheating and recruiting >>cheaters from this forum. His posts (back then) were nothing more than >>transparent shrills recruiting for CCO. There were many longwinded threads on >>CCC discussing this. For his stance, I told Kazinski on CCC that he was totally >>lacking what hI called "moral fiber" for his position of advocating and >>promoting cheating on chess servers. I do not back away from that statement >>today. Anyone who promotes cheating on chess servers has something wrong with >>them to believe it is "Ok. Apparently it struck a nerve because he has >>mentioned it numerous times since he has been back. He now claims he has found >>God with advances chess and will no longer advocate cheating. Good for him. > >Similarly to Mr. Steve B. you seem to be resorting to ad hominem arguments here. >The mere fact that you think that Kazinski is utterly imorral (which has yet to >be proven or disproven) doesn't imply that he does not or can not have valid >points, especially due to his level of competence in (C)heating, nor does it >mean that he doesn't have any right to argue about his ideas even if those are >plainly wrong, which again is a strongly subjective matter. Did you ever bother >reading articles on CCO website when it was pro-cheating? In my view, these >articles were useful for honest players as well, as they exposed (C)heating in >detail, making it easier for players to spot it and for servers' admins to fight >it. They also tried to write their articles in a neutral manner in order not to >offend honest players - I remember reading their articles on cheaters' codex - >they even declared that a non-cheating player has the right to not cheat. I am >also unaware that merely posting a link to CCO site was against this forum >policies (everyone has the option to not click on the link), as FAQ clearly says >that you can only not post links to illegal material - is cheating on a chess >server a criminal offence? If so, I'd like to be more informed on the issue, as >I have some charges to press. > >> >>This was all a few months ago. He comes back just recently with same spiel , >>the same "come on" and he cleverly changed his the little fine print on his >>webpage - but kept the same initials COO and the same url - something along the > >This is a common misconception - CCO and its website are not owned by Kazinski >(he's only a PR). He does not even have the password to webpage in order to >change its look and contents - it's clearly explained at the webpage just this >very moment - all one needs to have in order to understand it is a bit of >reading comprehension. > >>lines "Dewey, Cheatem and Howe" ( that's a joke but it does has the word >>“cheater” on there --- and humans being humans - everyone thought "He's BACK!" >>Did I go to his website to read the fine how they cleverly change - did most of >>the other members go back - of course not - "we been there, done that" and >>naturally CCC members complained about it and when the post was deleted - > >This is another ad hominem fallacy - just because the site has "cheaters" in its >name doesn't imply that it promotes (C)heating. > >>Kazinski was sitting there essentially, laying in wait with "caught ya, we no >>longer advocate cheating , you did not read t my webpage-" one reason I did not >>read it is because the link was down when I went to go there. CCC deletet my >>post” he whined back to CTF and that was his perfect time to throw insults my >>way. >> >>If I was a cynic, I would simply say this whole thing was set up just so Kaz >>could say "caught ya". > >Your decision to ban Kazinski has already faced howls of protests at the Free >FICS Forum: http://s6.invisionfree.com/Free_FICS_Forum/index.php?showtopic=86 Backup - you are confusing the issues here. I do not have an issue with a link to CCO website as long as it does not promote cheating. I am willing to negotiate Kapinski's return to CCC if he does not promote cheating in chess. Ia m ok with advanced chess -- it's the promotion if cheating that the moderators (all 3 of us) are against. You just blasted us with a lot rhetoric that that is essentially a moot point. The three moderators will not allow posts that promotes cheating period. That point is non -negotiable. We do not need legal mumbo jumbo to tell us what is wrong and what is right. He was not simply talking about cheating in some sort of intellectual way, he was acting as shill for his CCO organization actively recruiting more members for his organization to learn how to cheat on chess servers. He was very blatant about his focus. I'm not a lawyer and I do not profess to know what is "legal" and what is against the law. I do not carry a books of legal statues with me ( and I do not know anyone who does). Quite simply , in the way Kaz presented his argument , acting as a shill actively recruiting CCC members to join his CCO organization - it was repulsive. The chess playing members of CCC were upset - the moderators did not need a lawyer to us that this illegal or this was legal - it was morally wrong - it was as morally wrong as it is to recruit people "well off" to stand in a soup line when they are not the ones who need to be fed or for the Chicago Bulls to make sure their players get the flu shot , meanwhile, I'm not even sure that my 78 year old mother is living a senior home will get hers. What the Chicago Bulls did was not against the law, but that does not make it right. When people cheat on chess server, there are victims. In the case of ICC, these people have paid to play other humans who are not cheating. When somebody cheats against them , they have been wronged. I do not need a lawyer or law on the books to tell me that is wrong. To me, the CCC charter is all inclusive and we will not tolerate those who try to make it exclusionary from any people. Implicit in that , is that we will take the stand that against any member that slanders a group of people for race, creed, color, religion , ethnicity and ancestry. We have banned people for making statements , asking (repeatedly) why there are no black( or name your ethnicity) chess programmers. Is is against the law for asking that question – no . Is it a valid chess programming topic - perhaps. But that question, IMO is also meant to intimidate, make uncomfortable and unwelcome any member of that ethnic group. Promoting cheating at chess has the same effect on our members that play chess on chess servers legitimately.
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.