Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 19:01:34 04/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2005 at 09:06:15, James T. Walker wrote: > >I don't care if 100 moderators are unanimous. It doesn't make them right. The >moderators may be unanimous but threating someone before they have commited any >offense is completely uncalled for. The only thing I see in the post is someone >volunteering to test engines and saying that he has many engines to test >against. Please tell me what is wrong with that. Maybe I'm too naive to see >what's wrong here. >Jim First , the moderators may not alway be right. We know that, we are human and we do make mistakes like everyone else. Hopefully, not too many, but we do reserve the right to make mistakes ;>). John's post: "While there is nothing specific in the above post that warrants moderation, something needs to be made very clear. It is illegal to distribute professional engines. Other people may offer their settings for you to test with your own engines, but you are not allowed to give these engines to other people so they can perform their own testing. Any evidence of illegal distribution of engines will result in very strong action by the moderators. John Merlino (CCC Moderator) " I do not see his post as threat to anyone at all. I see it as "heads up" to anyone who may be new to CCC that we do have rules against using CCC as means to distribute/trade commercial engines illegally. With that said, I agree with your assessment that there was nothing wrong with the original poster's post on a literal basis. But I can see, how someone, perhaps more skeptical than you and I ,can read into that post as an offer to trade engines. For example, if I just posted this meassge, "I have over 100 freeware engines, shredder 7, shredder 7.04, shredder 8, shredder 9, junior 8 ,junior 9 , deep fritz 7 and deep fritz 8 , chessmaster 9000, chessmaster 8000, junior 8 and junior 9, and lots other chess engines ! E-mail me " with nothing else - what would you think? Once could make the same argument that on a literal basis - these is nothing wrong with that post -- but without the pretense of testing , I think all of us would agree that this post (in my example) is looking to trade engines. So perhaps some of our more sophisticated CCC members read the "offer to test" as a smoke screen and conclued this person is really looking to trade engines. So perhaps, did we (modeators) make mistake and "unjustly" posted a moderation warning that needed not to be posted ? Perhaps - but I believe it was performed with sufficient tact and decorum by John Merlino - that no one should perceive what John posted as threatening -- unless perhaps, undernreath all this -> one really wanted to trade engines. Just my $.02 and I do reserve the right to be wrong ;>) best, 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.