Author: Albert Silver
Date: 15:30:57 02/12/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2006 at 17:41:22, Peter Skinner wrote:
>On February 12, 2006 at 17:21:24, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>That last question is openly hostile and gives one the impression this is one of
>>many warnings sent to him. Is that the case?
>
>Did you read the charter before signing up? I did. I understood rule #4..
>
>Don't you?
You may want to re-read the line below.
>>I have no issue with your decision but rather the presentation of it, and think
>>you yourself are walking a very fine line of 2) and 3) listed above. Not from
>>that one question alone, but also from another post in which you implied he >was delivering vaporware, and deliberately duping buyers of his program.
>
>I did not imply anything of the sort in that other post.
>
>I stated that people basically purchased the right to beta test his program
>until his "final" version was out.
You stated a little more than that.
"I have a program that says "Hello CCC!! How are you doing?". It isn't much now,
but if you purchase it now for $1499.99, you will get all future beta releases
and the final version that I will be releasing on November 23, 2045."
You can claim the above is sarcasm, but sarcasm is an exaggeration of the truth
or perceived truth. The above implies the engine isn't all it is touted to be
(it was touted to be 90-150 points stronger than Shredder 9), that it is
unusually expensive, and that one can expect a long wait. One would indeed think
we are being duped.
The concept or pre-ordering something is obviously new, except that here, it is
worse. Instead of paying and then waiting to receive it (a la Xbox360), they
actually get non-final versions too.
>I know of another current beta test going on
>where you can not see the results on the CCC, nor should anyone. It can give a
>misleading conclusion.
Right, and what conclusion would that be? That Rybka is indeed 90-150 points
stronger than Shredder 9?
>People _are_ in essense beta testing his program, running it in tournaments,
>posting all his bug reports here, and he has the luxury of reading it all.
So he should be banned for this?
>He then has the audacity to post this topic which is nothing more than a poll of
>his current and potential customers of a subscription type purchase instead of a
>per version fee.
I agree, it was a mistake. Hardly deserving a thread entitled "Enough is
enough", since that imples he has done this ad nauseaum.
>
>He is using this forum as his tech support
No, I think you are grossly mistaken here. I think it is OTHERS who use this as
a tech support forum. People post bugs and problems with other programs all the
time, with the main difference being that the companies and authors seldom if
ever reply. FYI, there is a Yahoo Group, and an e-mail to address such
questions.
I find it interesting that for years I've seen people complain that authors
never answer any questions about bugs or problems with their programs, and now
that one does, you deem it worthy of being banned. I think your positon boggles
the mind.
>and pre-sales inquiry forum. If I had
>my way I would have him removed. I take this as nothing more than a slap in the
>face to Steve who has put time and money into this board only to have people
>like this come here and promote their own products when he offers an online shop
> to his own company of chess related materials.
Is it that simple? A year or so ago, not having the means to simply donate to
help support the board, I decided to do the next best thing, and make a purchase
at ChessUSA. There were no programs that interested me, so I selected a number
of books. Unfortunately, some of the books I wanted were not listed, and others
were out of stock. After e-mailing, I was told that there were no future plans
to ensure the books would be restocked, nor my other ones to be stocked.
>Then again.. I could be just overreacting
I'd prescribe yoga 3 times a week.
>and should resign my post as moderator
Hmmm.... Talk about overreacting. Ok, make that 4 times a week.
>so I can related this opinion like some think I shouldn't. Well screw them.. I
>am still a _member_ here as well as a moderator.
Yes, I drew your attention as a member when I said 'walking a fine line'.
>
>>I'll remind you that he delivered an engine that is better than any other right
>>up front, and not a promise that it would be better. That he hasn't been able >to meet his initial announced schedule for delivery of an even better engine >with certain features is nothing, since the alternative of doing as ChessBase >and delivering a program up front such as Fritz 8, and then issuing 26 engine
>>patches for it is certainly no improvement.
>
>I don't care how strong his program is, or what it offers. His conduct on this
>board is what I have a problem with. Nothing more. It is disgusting,
Define 'disgusting' to me since I'm clearly not up to date on my definitions.
Here's how I, the older member 'minion', see it. Regarding HIS actions. What
others choose to post here regarding Rybka canot possibly be pinned on him IMHO.
He made that initial announcement, and has replied in threads regarding issues
about his engine. He hasn't started any threads on any beta versions, any bug
fixes, new releases, or other. In fact, the ONLY objectionable thread initiated
by him, that I have seen, is this one.
>and what is
>more disgusting is that older members like yourself are defending him only for
>the purpose that he has a strong program.
No, I defend him because I haven't seen any of this disgusting behavior you
accuse him of. None whatsoever. Your description of disgusting behavior on his
part, in relation to this forum, has been that he perfidiously sold people a
program, while unfinished, was stronger than what existed. He never misled
anyone at ANY point as I see it.
In fact (I just remembered), if you want to complain about paying to beta-test,
you should remember the Arena beta-testing proposal last year, when people were
told that they could download the yearly releases for free (I love Arena BTW,
just to be clear), but to see the beta versions, they'd have to pay... (That one
still makes me laugh).
His other behavior in this forum has been to answer questions and comments on
his engine. And here I agree, it is nothing short of revolting. I mean, who on
earth wants an author answering questions or comments on their product? I gather
that is the disgusting behavior worth banning him you are referring to.
Oddly enough, I am still missing the part on what has defined his behavior as
disgusting, and worth banning him over. Since aside from this one thread, hardly
the end-all of end-alls, I fail to see it.
>That is why I call "those" people minions...
>
>Did I explain it well enough?
>
>Peter
Remember. FOUR times a week, and I will expect progress reports from your yogi.
Minionly yours,
Albert
P.S. Try saying 'minionly yours' five times, real fast.
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.