Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 12:36:58 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 05:25:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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!" > > Testing isn't only collecting 1000-game match results. Interesting examples or tester's intuitions can also play a role. It's really not all as scientific as you might think. Vas > > >> >>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.