Author: Peter Darin
Date: 21:51:04 11/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2004 at 00:17:39, Mike Byrne wrote: >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. Good one > >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.