Tord Romstad wrote:
The post presented no evidence or interesting data whatsoever. I don't remember the exact words, but it basically just said that "Program X is a clone of Program Y, according to some people I have spoken to", and nothing more. The two programs in question were named, but not the people who were supposed to have claimed that X was a clone of Y. I don't see any value in such a post. Presenting or discussing evidence that a program is based on another is fine, but starting apparently unfounded rumors about a program is not, particularly when the author of the program is not active on this message board.
Tord
I agree, however the only purpose I can see in such a post was to start another debate.
?
No mention of assembler source code ?
Did Vincent say only the 3 other guys saw assembler source code and he himself not ?
People should be careful when using
Tord Romstad wrote:
The post presented no evidence or interesting data whatsoever. I don't remember the exact words, but it basically just said that "Program X is a clone of Program Y, according to some people I have spoken to", and nothing more. The two programs in question were named, but not the people who were supposed to have claimed that X was a clone of Y. I don't see any value in such a post. Presenting or discussing evidence that a program is based on another is fine, but starting apparently unfounded rumors about a program is not, particularly when the author of the program is not active on this message board.
Tord
I agree, however the only purpose I can see in such a post was to start another debate.
?
No mention of assembler source code ?
Did Vincent say only the 3 other guys saw assembler source code and he himself not ?
People should be careful when using
I should probably have added an "if I recall correctly" somewhere: I don't remember any reference to assembler source code, but perhaps there was such a reference.
Nevertheless, even if I do remember wrong, it does not change my opinion in this case. When you don't show the assembly language, or even mention the names of the three guys who are supposed to have seen it, it doesn't count as evidence to me. It is still only spreading baseless rumors, and not a fruitful way to start a discussion. The post contained neither any data nor a place to go looking for data.
I also see the distinction between programmers and non-programmers being discussed in this thread: In my opinion, whether someone is a programmer or a non-programmer has no relevance here. We are talking about a deleted post without any technical content. The opinions of non-programmers are worth just as much as the opinions of programmers.
mclane wrote: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.
So you mean programmers have a divine right to :-
1. Hijack threads and take them off-topic.
2. Conduct personal attacks/abuse.
3. Discuss cloning in every single thread whether related or un-related.
There was a time when cloning was over-discussed and spread to even un-related posts as people are arguing in a circle and starting new threads to fuel the flames. I started the "can we have the CCC forum back" in the forum help.
First suggestion is to eliminate the hyperbole. We do not "hijack threads and take them off topic." We do not "discuss cloning in every single thread". Clone discussions are rare and we have not had one since the Rybka thread a couple of months ago. That is a _long_ way from "every single thread."
Graham Banks wrote:
Okay. I missed that point. Sorry.
It's been there ever since I can remember though, so it's not recent.
Cheers, Graham.
the legal status tenent of the charter has been there as far back as i can remember
and i have been a member here since Jan 1998..3 months after the board started
i have no clue if it was part of the original charter nor when it was added but it has generally been invoked regarding the clone issue when accusations are made and not backed up with debatable evidence
again...and for the record..
clone issues are part and parcel of the topics perfectly acceptable on this board..but baseless accusation backed up with nothing more than speculation is not..
there is nothing new here under the sun
the prior mod team had this post up as a sticky during the entire length of their term
the post was written by the author of the charter in 1997
the current mod team (which includes a chess programmer)as well as prior mod teams adopt the same philosophy
Steve
But you don't know how to interpret point 5, which was not a part of the original charter in any case. Discussing clones is _not_ a legal issue. There is no criminal act committed in discussing clones. There is no state, federal or international law that makes such a criminal act. One might try a civil action (which has no jail time possible) if one can prove libel, but that would be impossible in today's world of clones everywhere...
I get the impression that you didn't read the deleted message which caused you to start this thread, and I believe you wouldn't have reacted so strongly if you had seen it.
That is my point. How could I have read it? It was deleted within hours of posting.
The post presented no evidence or interesting data whatsoever. I don't remember the exact words, but it basically just said that "Program X is a clone of Program Y, according to some people I have spoken to", and nothing more. The two programs in question were named, but not the people who were supposed to have claimed that X was a clone of Y. I don't see any value in such a post. Presenting or discussing evidence that a program is based on another is fine, but starting apparently unfounded rumors about a program is not, particularly when the author of the program is not active on this message board.
I support the moderation team 100% in this case.
Tord
We'll have to agree to disagree. The first step is usually an accusation, followed by an investigation. Whether a post has "value" or not is a subjective question. If a post is spam, remove it (we had episodes of that in the past where "bots" would post porn links and such as fast as I could remove them). If it is laced with cursing and name-calling with no technical content, remove it. But this post did not seem to rise to that level based on discussions and what I was sent via PM.
bob wrote:...That is my point. How could I have read it? It was deleted within hours of posting...
As Tord, I and the other moderators in charge have told you: there was a side remark in that post that there are rumors that program A is a clone of program B. No more or less. Cause you are also massively complain when posts are edited we deleted the whole post.
Without discussion with the other mods I hereby invite you to come to to the mod forum to inspect our discussion about the issue. I'm sure the other will agree and Sam will quickly enable you to do that.
So far I didn't notice any item in the charter that the decision of the mods need your approval or the acceptance of a group unknown to me you are referring to as "we" or "us". If so I strongly suggest to make a clear statement about that.
Volker Pittlik wrote:
Without discussion with the other mods I hereby invite you to come to to the mod forum to inspect our discussion about the issue. I'm sure the other will agree and Sam will quickly enable you to do that.
vp
I doubt that you would show Bob everything when public scrutiny is switched off.
mclane wrote:we have the bean counters dominating in the moment because so many programmers left the scene.
1. How many of the countless programmers who have left are still active in developing their engine? I'd say that many of them probably just lost interest and moved on to other things. This attrition rate happens in any hobby.
2. Thorsten - it seems to me that you're a beancounter by your own definition.
I doubt that you would show Bob everything when public scrutiny is switched off.
Matthias.
Deine Niedertracht ist wirklich kaum noch zu überbieten.
I thought my hint would make Bob more alert, that's all.
As for me, I am just disappointed how clone issues are now handled here.
When I am really fed up, I shall simply limit my public chess activity to playing anonymously on some good chess server.
It was deleted within hours of posting.
