Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:25:43 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 03:29:19, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >I think the moderation team should clarify rule #4. > >My post did not: > >1) Talk positively about Rybka This is a wordplay because it was _all_ about Rybka, and, since nothing was negative, _all_ was positive, in a logical sense. The only "sigh" about an existing negative, that was the mentioning of piracy attempts, but then you made your message to those who already own Rybka and to whom you explained how you thought things could be done better to decrease the chances of software piracy. Vas, this is all so clever from your side, that it leaves me almost speechless why you cant realise why your whole presenting of Rybka from the beginning, as SteveB already showed, was in fact advertising, the more and more so when you had recruited the first customers. After a while you created the special forum for your clients and it is again beyond all principles of good style why you use CCC instead of this extra forum for the announcements for your clients. This exactly is basically advertisement in great style because you also want to impress new members to get interested in your product. Why dont you accept this term for what you are doing here? (I want to assure you that I am also VERY interested in the continuation of your project, but that doesnt change the basic process which is advertisement. It's also about computerchess, no doubt! But it's advertisement.) >2) Make any commercial mention (website, price) This is the next wordplay. In fact your whole message was about prices and subscription of your product. Implicitely and directed to the already existing customers! You cant deny this. It was all about the marketing and selling processes of Rybka, and you still claim that this was NOT about a commercial mentioning? This is not about programming routines backwards and forwards, this here is about real life logic. You just cant pretend that the whole debate was "in general" with no concern for your business. The satirical answers you got, also from Pete himself, show, that all have understood what you were talking about. Vas, besides, that this all was advertisement and therefore forbidden or unwanted on CCC, I want to confirm you that I am impressed of the creativity you show on all possible problem fields of computerchess programming and selling. Also in the psychology of marketing. So that this continual lecture could possibly justify the partial violation of the charter. Looking backwards. But for the future I would recommand that you concentrate the announcements and handling of the sales and support questions inyour special forum for Rybka, and you discuss with all members here the basic computerchess aspects. I wouldn't object if you then would add the link to the other forum at the end of each message. In other words, without any doubt, and I think I speak for all of us, I wont tear your right into twilight to sell your fine product! > >Further, my topic has general computer chess interest. Let me show you how you failed to keep up the good science perspective for what was going on in CCC due to your new emissions of Rybka Beta versions. I read some of your messages where you answered and commented users and testers in special, who had some problems with testing the different Rybka versions, I think already some 15 test entries, so to speak. I know that you keep your mind together and never get confused about the alleged "results" of the "tournaments". But my general critic is that you didnt explicitely mention that such activities made no sense. And the reason why you didnt say this is for me clear enough: it's you reflection that no matter if the results could be utilised, the testing itself, the publishing of the "results" itself, that is partially the core of the PR for Rybka. After the known routine "keep it in the news, no matter if in a positive or negative sense, being in the news, this is the main thing!" > >How is this commercial, when (for example) the collector's corner stuff is not? >(Just to clarify - I have absolutely no problem with the collector's corner. >It's just that there will always be some brushing up with commercial issues.) > >Vas Vas, exactly this guy, SteveB, was the first, who admitted you the right to do the same, but with a little recompensation from your side in favor of the host here who guarantees you the functioning of the traffic. Wouldnt that be fair enough? You never answered this idea. Why? Rolf
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.