Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 21:17:39 11/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2004 at 00:00:36, Evgeny Shaposhnikov wrote: >On November 16, 2004 at 23:15:34, Mike Byrne wrote: > >> >>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. > >You are the one confusing issues here. I did not say that (C)heating is ethical >- it is clearly not in my view as well as in yours. I simply pointed out that >you are not following your own charter in this issue. I'll quote part of the >charter: > >"Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >messages: >1) Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >2) Are not abusive in nature >3) Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >4) Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >5) Are not of questionable legal status." > >(C)heating obviously does not fall into any of these categories, not even the #5 >as I pointed out (I may provide pertinent sources about this if need be). If you >want to forbid discussions promoting (C)heating on this forum AND do it in >accordance with the charter (why have the charter if you're not going to follow >it), you'd have to add one more clause that says that promoting unethical >activities is also not allowed. However, we then face 2 additional problems: >1) The definition of ethical - clearly what is ethical for you might not be >ethical for me and vice versa (in this context (C)heaters would argue that >(C)heating is ethical, I even read an article entitled "Ethical cheating") - I >may elaborate on this another time if need be; >2) CCO argues that changing the rules of a game is itself cheating. This is not >limited only to chess, but can eventually expand to mean that we consider that >changing the rules of a forum is also cheating in its own right. I am aware that >you may have a dissenting view on this issue, but many free-thinking people >would agree with CCO about this. > >Anyway, gotta take some sleep, so hope to see a response from you when I get up. > >Regards, >Evgeny Even if I gave you the "legal" arugument - It also my view that posts that promote cheating are "abusive" in nature and thus violate point # 2 above. Cheating is a form of abuse. Please - don't go down that "ethical cheating" path - we heard that one before and it sank like a lead ballon. If you disagree - feel free to run as Moderator. Regards, Michael
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.