Goodbye Talkchess

[bob]

I don't think "ICD, Your Move" has threatened to "Shut down the forum" if we don't delete links to Robbolito/Houdini/Ivanhoe.

They just requested us to delete the links but they didn't state the _consequences_ if the request was not fulfilled.

This is explained quite simply. When given any sort of instructions, some will always "interpret" them in the way that supports their agenda in the best way, rather than interpreting them in the "sanest" way.

If it comes to a choice between doing as requested or risking the forum being shut down, I choose to do as requested.
I did post an announcement explaining the situation as I understood it at the time, before taking the actions that I did.
However, I misinterpreted the extent of what was expected and I've since apologised for it.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Albert Silver]

I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

[Steve B]

As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

Let's not pretend that you or we all or you and C.Theron had the authorization for a public court. In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent. Never heard that you were a judge or anything near to that. For me Vas is a pure gentleman. And I recall that Vas and Fabien were together in Reykjavik. So, gentleman, plus the talks on Island is sufficient for me that everything was kosher between these two strong programmers. The strongest of the new century.

The rest is envie and character defamation. What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. We should call him back!

Well then you must have not considered him much of a gentleman when he had no problem commenting on the "Strelka" issue
he gave snippets of copied code and called Strelka out for being a clone..he then called it"his own" meaning it was a clone
this is what Bob has done in the past whenever a Crafty clone came along
Bob and Vas(Strelka) he did not rely on others to speak for them or defend them
it simply makes no sense that he would comment on Strelka and remain silent on Ippo..

all we the mods of the prior term would have needed was a similar statement by Vas..one post...done
and perhaps a year of this nonsense would have stopped right then and there
as Bob said..we waited and waited and we are still waiting

instead we got others speaking for Vas or digging their heels in..for Vas..or he said/she said

Steve

[bob]

Graham has been outvoted consistently this term. It hasn't changed his readiness to moderate unilaterally and aggressively against posts and members which whom he does not personally agree. When I tried to put on the brakes, I was told (by Graham) to stop playing games, that this was no longer a moderation issue, and that our previous agreements were no longer valid. Essentially, "tough luck, dipshit, I'm doing what I want." This has also been a theme this moderation term, and no amount of voting, discussion or debate has changed the fact that certain moderators (Graham being a paramount example) feel that (or act as if) their personal convictions are more important than the general will of the forum.

I think you're being overly harsh Jeremy and I would hope that I've not attacked your integrity publicly in the same manner. I've certainly not let any polls on your moderation ability hang around for more than 24 hours.

I have tried to treat members equally and have always communicated respectfully with them. Personal comments/insults have been removed consistently with no bias on my part. I'm sorry that you perceive it differently.

I have explained why I acted as I did after the message that Sam passed on to us. I believed that I was doing the right thing at the time, but have since apologised to everybody for misunderstanding exactly what was meant.

Anyway, best wishes with your new forum and with married life.

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham, the biggest problem _I_ have with you is that you _always_ act first, then analyze consequences later. This dates all the way back to when CCC first moved to the new software. Remember the "great edit fiasco"??? Nobody in their right mind would believe that they have the authority to edit someone else's words. Even if they have the capability. And do you remember how the members reacted to that? You wanted a poll to determine what the majority wanted. And you appeared to be surprised at the results. Then we get to the Ippo* issue, which first "broke" when Steve, Dann and I were moderators. We received more complaints from you, by a factor of 10, than we received from other members combined. Any mention of Ippo* brought yet another moderation request. Then you became moderator and decided that you could do what you want, whenver you wanted, because you were elected. Elections are not always a good thing, because not everyone is voting for what is best for the board, they are voting for whatever will further their agenda best.

This has, without a doubt, been the _worst_ moderator term in history, and that is a _long_ history. I helped start CCC. I have been here ever since. What you think a moderator should do was _never_ what we envisioned.

Jeremy's idea is a good one, except that I hope he doesn't fall into the "elect the moderators" cesspool again. I want to see open discussions, not discussions about open discussions and moderator actions. I suspect I have been here longer than any other member, since I was one of the first 10 signups (the original founder's group) and the other founders have slowly faded away. I _know_ what we originally intended, I don't have to guess. I don't have an agenda to further, other than to see computer chess continue to reach new levels.

Seems that the new "owners" have a different vision for CCC. Time will tell whether that vision will work or not. Meanwhile, I suspect more and more will move to OpenChess if they want technical discussions.

Hopefully the next moderator elections can also qualify exactly what ICD chess expects and whether or not they will agree to remain totally hands-off or not. If not, then the end is near.

[Milos]

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

What amazes me when reading your posts is the correlation between the amount of Vas defending/worshiping and the amount of Rybkas received as a gift...

[bob]

goodbye, take hyatt with you

The point would be to erase my technical replies as opposed to your drivel?

seems like a good trade to me.

[Albert Silver]

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

What amazes me when reading your posts is the correlation between the amount of Vas defending/worshiping and the amount of Rybkas received as a gift...

It doesn't stop there, not even by a small margin. Since I have worked with many chess developers, I have also received every single Convekta program, many Chessbase programs, more than one copy of Rebel, Chess Tiger, as well as some unreleased engines such as Ferret.

[Rolf]

If not, then the end is near.

This is somewhat different now. CCC still can count on you.

Let me ask a question and apologies if this was already answered.

What could be taken out of the whole clone debates in the past for the better of computerchess programming???

And this, how could you remain so tolerant, if you didnt support the invisible vilains, if you have never met them nor talked to them? Isnt this already enough to be judged as an impossible and totally wrong approach. And again why didnt you condemn them and their stuff? Isnt it allowed to conclude that you tolerated this because it caused problems for Vas?? Couldnt you confirm that just for me? Shouldnt we get out of this mess in favor of the future of computerchess?

[Sam Hull]

If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

[benstoker]

I hate cloning and have been personally convinced so far that Ippolit is a clone of Rybka, but as a writer of open source program and supporter of the right to free speech

No offense, but I think your arguments are odd. The announcement I read asked to be less lenient about posting announcements in the General Topics subforum, essentially promoting the clones, and to move them to the CEO.

If you think they are clones of Rybka, and thus that a professional colleague's work is being distributed via these forums, how do you reconcile allowing them? If you had stated you were not convinced they were clones, I might have understood, but instead you are professing that his work should be stolen and disseminated here in the name of free speech??

I just love the logic of book banners.