bob wrote:The point you want to keep overlooking is that this place was created _by_ programmers. _for_ programmers. I welcome anyone that wants to participate, but don't come in here and then tell us what we can and can't, or should or shouldn't discuss. Those that don't like the discussions can go to hundreds of other places and avoid them completely.
Exactly.
this forum was made for programmers mainly from programmers.
it had to be made in the moment RGCC was not anymore a place where computerchess could have been discussed.
and this forum also comes more and more into the same situation.
mclane wrote:and you think it is the right method to see that people like bob or vincent or christophe have to discuss their cloning issues with non programmers or fans of rybka ? or getting insulted by the "fans" ?
bob is absolutely right. we made this forum to give the programmers back their SPACE to discuss things out, talk about computerchess. and it was a GIFT that they were so nice to talk with us too about things.
but in the moment the NON programmers suddenly decide about what is allowed in the forum or not, or believe they could DISCUSS programming issues about source code ...
there is something wrong here.
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations 5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Surely casting aspersions about the legality of a commercial product in a public forum is covered by point 5 of the charter (which was written by the founders).
What are the moderators to do?
Discussing clones is not a charter violation. And that was never put in the charter by the original group. Where that came from I have no idea. 1-4 were a part of the original statement for CCC. But even with #5, it is hardly a criminal act to discuss the origin or suspected origin of any program. If that were the case, one could _never_ discuss something until after it is proven. But it can't be proven until after it is discussed. Chicken and egg problem, revisited..
I am convinced about the rybka issue. I have no idea about naum, although there is certainly room for suspicion in any new and very strong program. But apparently many think it should not be discussed.
Steve B wrote:...
if you or others feel strongly that we (or i )are not serving the board well then i invite you to call for early elections for new moderators or just for one moderator(me)...
The same is true for me.
Since I'm in charge here I'm called an "arsehole", someone who uses "fascist methods" and now it seems I'm in general an inferior life form cause I haven't written a (public) chess program.
I have done a lot of moderations as a part of my job. There have been some very rare occasions when it was impossible to work with some single members of a group. For some part the reason could be an incompetence on my side. But its also possible there are certain people who simply couldn't accept any moderation at all. In any case its best (and necessary) to make clear if both sides are willing to continue cooperation. My spare time is limited and I don't like to waste it by doing things which have become pointless.
Volker
If you want to take that kind of condescending tone, that's your business. I am not going to feel "sorry" for you since you have not written a program. But CCC was created for/by _programmers_. Others are welcome, but not to tell _us_ how to run the place, and what _we_ can or can not discuss. Participation is voluntary, and with no programmers, this will be a much worse place for those that actually want to learn something about computer chess programming and development, rather than seeing the results of N+1 basement tournaments posted.
mclane wrote:and you think it is the right method to see that people like bob or vincent or christophe have to discuss their cloning issues with non programmers or fans of rybka ? or getting insulted by the "fans" ?
bob is absolutely right. we made this forum to give the programmers back their SPACE to discuss things out, talk about computerchess. and it was a GIFT that they were so nice to talk with us too about things.
but in the moment the NON programmers suddenly decide about what is allowed in the forum or not, or believe they could DISCUSS programming issues about source code ...
there is something wrong here.
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations 5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Surely casting aspersions about the legality of a commercial product in a public forum is covered by point 5 of the charter (which was written by the founders).
What are the moderators to do?
Discussing clones is not a charter violation. And that was never put in the charter by the original group. Where that came from I have no idea. 1-4 were a part of the original statement for CCC. But even with #5, it is hardly a criminal act to discuss the origin or suspected origin of any program. If that were the case, one could _never_ discuss something until after it is proven. But it can't be proven until after it is discussed. Chicken and egg problem, revisited..
I am convinced about the rybka issue. I have no idea about naum, although there is certainly room for suspicion in any new and very strong program. But apparently many think it should not be discussed.
Such issues obviously should be discussed somewhere by interested parties.
The point I'm making is that moderators are charged with enforcing the charter. What are they to do? Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
Graham Banks wrote:Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
Yes. Consider this: Microsoft's Vista is a clone of the Mac GUI. It happens every day in multiple arenas.
But the problem here isn't just accusations, it's a probe for confirmation that gets seen as an accusation: the binary in xxx program looks like it was compiled from the source of yyy program.
People see see an accusation there.
Then multiple people start talking about the non-existent accusation, and the original concept is lost in the spam, moderators intervene rightly so, but further cluttering the thread. The board is useless.
mclane wrote:and you think it is the right method to see that people like bob or vincent or christophe have to discuss their cloning issues with non programmers or fans of rybka ? or getting insulted by the "fans" ?
bob is absolutely right. we made this forum to give the programmers back their SPACE to discuss things out, talk about computerchess. and it was a GIFT that they were so nice to talk with us too about things.
but in the moment the NON programmers suddenly decide about what is allowed in the forum or not, or believe they could DISCUSS programming issues about source code ...
there is something wrong here.
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations 5. Are not of questionable legal status.
Surely casting aspersions about the legality of a commercial product in a public forum is covered by point 5 of the charter (which was written by the founders).
What are the moderators to do?
Discussing clones is not a charter violation. And that was never put in the charter by the original group. Where that came from I have no idea. 1-4 were a part of the original statement for CCC. But even with #5, it is hardly a criminal act to discuss the origin or suspected origin of any program. If that were the case, one could _never_ discuss something until after it is proven. But it can't be proven until after it is discussed. Chicken and egg problem, revisited..
I am convinced about the rybka issue. I have no idea about naum, although there is certainly room for suspicion in any new and very strong program. But apparently many think it should not be discussed.
Such issues obviously should be discussed somewhere by interested parties.
The point I'm making is that moderators are charged with enforcing the charter. What are they to do? Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
You are probably not meaning "legal dangers" since this can not possibly be a criminal act. Civil issues might well arise, but to prove libel, one has to prove intent to harm, which is _very_ difficult in light of all the clone issues we have seen over the past few years.
Graham Banks wrote:Such issues obviously should be discussed somewhere by interested parties.
The point I'm making is that moderators are charged with enforcing the charter. What are they to do? Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
You are probably not meaning "legal dangers" since this can not possibly be a criminal act. Civil issues might well arise, but to prove libel, one has to prove intent to harm, which is _very_ difficult in light of all the clone issues we have seen over the past few years.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for uncovering clones.
I guess the main question here is how should the moderators act and what should they allow in clone discussions when you take the charter itself into account?
Having been in a moderation team stuck in the middle of such a situation, we interpreted the charter in the same way as the current moderation team. Discussions are fine, but accusations without proof are not.
The moderators are in a bind because it is their job to enforce the charter, which was written and approved by the founders (including yourself). However, whenever anybody suggests modifying that charter to bring more clarity to such situations, guess who the first ones are to jump up and down?
Graham Banks wrote:Such issues obviously should be discussed somewhere by interested parties.
The point I'm making is that moderators are charged with enforcing the charter. What are they to do? Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
You are probably not meaning "legal dangers" since this can not possibly be a criminal act. Civil issues might well arise, but to prove libel, one has to prove intent to harm, which is _very_ difficult in light of all the clone issues we have seen over the past few years.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for uncovering clones.
I guess the main question here is how should the moderators act and what should they allow in clone discussions when you take the charter itself into account?
Having been in a moderation team stuck in the middle of such a situation, we interpreted the charter in the same way as the current moderation team. Discussions are fine, but accusations without proof are not.
The moderators are in a bind because it is their job to enforce the charter, which was written and approved by the founders (including yourself). However, whenever anybody suggests modifying that charter to bring more clarity to such situations, guess who the first ones are to jump up and down?
I will say it again. Point 5 in your list was _not_ in the original CCC charter. Where it came from, I have no idea. Who added it, I have no idea.
Graham Banks wrote:Such issues obviously should be discussed somewhere by interested parties.
The point I'm making is that moderators are charged with enforcing the charter. What are they to do? Surely questioning the authenticity of a commercial product without providing the necessary evidence is fraught with legal dangers for those making the claims (especially in a public forum)?
Am I wrong?
You are probably not meaning "legal dangers" since this can not possibly be a criminal act. Civil issues might well arise, but to prove libel, one has to prove intent to harm, which is _very_ difficult in light of all the clone issues we have seen over the past few years.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for uncovering clones.
I guess the main question here is how should the moderators act and what should they allow in clone discussions when you take the charter itself into account?
Having been in a moderation team stuck in the middle of such a situation, we interpreted the charter in the same way as the current moderation team. Discussions are fine, but accusations without proof are not.
The moderators are in a bind because it is their job to enforce the charter, which was written and approved by the founders (including yourself). However, whenever anybody suggests modifying that charter to bring more clarity to such situations, guess who the first ones are to jump up and down?
I will say it again. Point 5 in your list was _not_ in the original CCC charter. Where it came from, I have no idea. Who added it, I have no idea.
Okay. I missed that point. Sorry.
It's been there ever since I can remember though, so it's not recent.
bob wrote:I do not mind seeing personal attacks moderated, but I do not like the current mantra "clone accusations are against the charter." They are not. At least not any charter I was ever a part of putting together for this place...
That seems to be a myth. I myself witnessed the time the whole of CCC was hijacked with cloning discussions and I made a post in the suggestion forum (Can we have CCC back). The problem was that cloning discussions were not limited to the existing threads but spilled across other unrelated topics.
That is also what happened here. The discussion was about a 37,000 kn/s claim and then degenerated into personal attacks and unrelated cloning accusations. If the original topic is being hijacked by personal attacks and un-related discussions how would you proceed if you were a mod?
If people go into certain topics or avoid them based on the title, if the title is on say Kamsky vs Topalov but degenerates into cloning accusations and personal attacks, how is this of use to everyone?
