Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 08:29:42 11/17/04
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 This is a selective quote. But as already pointed out, computer cheating falls into category 2. Furthermore, from the charter: 'You are further agreeing to abide by the decision of the moderators should a post of yours be deleted and/or if you should lose your membership privileges after due consideration of the moderators, and also agree not to re-enter the forum under an alias or assumed name in this case. You also will be agreeing that the decision of the moderators is final.' No further comment, Richard.
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.