Author: Evgeny Shaposhnikov
Date: 11:37:01 11/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2004 at 08:24:34, Steve B wrote: >actually Mike this clown unwittingly stumbles upon a good point >why not have a small ammendment to the current charter,specifically banning all >postings encouraging internet chess computer cheating? >this would save you and the other moderators alot of wasted time and energy >having to answer/respond to endless threads every few months or so,whenever one >of these creeps rear's their ugly heads >perhaps the membership could vote on the ban with the next moderator elections? >i am sure the membership would overwhelminlgy approve of the ammendment >lets close the "loophole" these slime buckets are greasing their way through to >post here >an example of the ammendment: > >2) Are not abusive in nature(including advocating cheating on a chess server) >or something similar > >i leave the exact wording to those better at constitutional law writing then me >:) > >your thoughts? >Best >Steve I did it wittingly, just for the records. Aside from calling me names, which is abusive itself, you raise a good point. An ammendment to the charter would be a positive step forward towards resolving conflicts and potential future problems on this issue, but as I already pointed out, it wouldn't be perfect and it would only be one step. I will shortly explain: it's good because we'd have a clear definition of what is allowed here and what isn't. On the other hand, it could not be applied retroactively (yes it could technically but it wouldn't be ethical to say the least), like no law is applied retroactively. According to numerous legal doctrines (referring here to the doctrines of law science - juris prudentia, and not any particular law), a person cannot be sentenced for an action he/she commited at the time when that action was not deemed illegal, even if it is illegal by a current law, possibly due to an ammendment. According to this generally accepted doctrine, Kazinski shouldn't be banned either, as he simply did something wrong (again allegedly) at the time that hadn't been seen as wrong. Another point is that CCO argues that changing the rules of a game is cheating in its own right. Consider for example an OTB chess tournament with 20 participants. Now consider, just hypothetically, that the organizers of such a tourney had the power to change the rules of the game of chess (for example by introducing an additional piece), and consider that the organizers have done so in agreement with just 2 participants of that tourney who knew that the rules would change. Clearly, chess being the complex game, the other 18 players would be at a serious disadvantage. Therefore, CCO argues, and hopes others agree as well, that CHANGING THE RULES OF A GAME IN PROGRESS WITHOUT CONSENT OF ALL PLAYERS IS CHEATING AND UNETHICAL. CCO further argues that this doesn't apply only to chess, but to any game, and CCO asserts that according to the definition of a game as "a recreational activity involving one or more players", the CCC forum is also a form of a game, among other things. Given these two premises, CCO therefore deductively draws the conclusion that changing the rules of CCC forum (referred to as the charter) is cheating and unethical in its own right.
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.