On discussing clones

[Matthias Gemuh]

In the hypothetical case Vince would spread the rumor you bought your professor status on the internet without providing data you would gladly be served by mod action.

Ed

Ed,
why not fabricate an example that is at least plausible ?

BTW,

Code: Select all

... harmful noise with the intend to hurt people

seems baseless. Was that a stated intent ?

Matthias.

[Rolf]

No, you just decide what can be discussed.

I think the mod-team did the right thing Bob, deleting a bad rumor without evidence. The mod-team doesn't oppose strong clone discussions as long as it comes with data. It's all about ethics which was one of the main reasons for the foundation of this place, to get rid of harmful noise with the intend to hurt people.

In the hypothetical case Vince would spread the rumor you bought your professor status on the internet without providing data you would gladly be served by mod action. When it comes with evidence that would change the matter, wouldn't it?

And that's the crux of the issue at hand.

Ed

I want to support what Ed says. When the CCC was created I was happy because of the protection moderation would give because I personally was shortly before the creation heavily attacked in rgcc for having faked my academic titles. That affront came from a famous programmer BTW. Of course it was all invented hearsay without any evidence what the programmer had excuded.

So, I am really a bit surprised that here in CCC a topic could be created that insinuated something illegal in case of Rybka, and this repeatedly, when no clear cut evidence could have ever been presented. I thought that this was a method that could be used in rgcc but not in CCC.

BTW at the time when I stood under pressure of the incredible assault, I was in a similar situation like Vasik today. How should I prove that I have everything in order with my status? What must I prove if such famous programmers attack me? Must I prove my innocence or can I trust that nothing could be proven against me if I knew what I had in reali done and never faked? Again, it's beyond everything rational that such a situation could happen here in CCC in difference to rgcc. But as it seems it did. And I support Ed in his message and the mods in their decisions. I must admit that I dont know everything in detail about the actual case here.

If Bob now said that he would rather go back to rgcc because of moderation thought police and that he would rather prefer the disturbing noise on rgcc I can only say that I at least am happier in CCC where moderation prevents that such horrible nightmares couuld happen to me like it did on rgcc.

I repeat. At the time the attacking programmer was at first thinking with the same determination that he was correct with his supposition about my background and my criminal deeds. And he was badly wrong. Also Bob as probably the best expert we have for questions of the illegal that are supposed in this case here in CCC. But, Bob, ask yourself, just for a second, what wouldd be if you were wrong like the otther programmer years ago?? The case cant be compared at all, but the determination and certainty in the opinion of the attackers or critics is comparable. Couldnt you agree here that mods did a good job if they moderated when 100% proof isnt there? What would you comment for my case. Were I in a pressure to tolerate the heavy attacks against my background until I had published my academical and examined titlle papers so that then the famous programmer would have agreed and stopped his campaigfn? That was rgcc, but should CCC not be better moderated also if it looks that you with your expertise are deleted with some messages too? Please reconsider in this case. Please. To the best of CCC. Thanks.

[Tord Romstad]

...The moderators should ... stay the heck out of technical debates that they have no business interfering in
...
We did not elect "thought police"...

As there is fortunately no one in this forum who -contradicting himself- has to decide who is allowed to participate in what kind of discussion.

vp

No, you just decide what can be discussed.

I don't agree: This is not about what can or cannot be discussed. Discussing clones or possible clones is fine, but just stating that "X is a clone of Y, according to some friends of mine" and then running away is not discussing, nor even a fruitful way to start a discussion, as you can see from the fact that no discussion of whether X is a clone ensued. Instead, we have this unpleasant and pointless meta-discussion.

If you suspect or have heard rumors that X is a clone of Y, either post some sort of evidence (similar output, similar analysis, similar behavior in certain types of pathological positions, similarities in disassembly, etc), or post a modest question ("I've heard rumors that X is a clone of Y. Is there any evidence for this?"). Both of these approaches actually would have a chance of starting a valuable discussion. I don't see why a minimum of tact is too much to ask.

Tord

[bob]

No, you just decide what can be discussed.

I think the mod-team did the right thing Bob, deleting a bad rumor without evidence. The mod-team doesn't oppose strong clone discussions as long as it comes with data. It's all about ethics which was one of the main reasons for the foundation of this place, to get rid of harmful noise with the intend to hurt people.

You might not have noticed, but we had _detailed_ discussions in the past, and they do, in general, suffer from moderation, thread locking, even post editing at one point.

In the hypothetical case Vince would spread the rumor you bought your professor status on the internet without providing data you would gladly be served by mod action. When it comes with evidence that would change the matter, wouldn't it?

And that's the crux of the issue at hand.

Ed

I would not be looking for "moderation" to solve that. There are other ways. Nothing in a University is done without a paper trail supporting the action, that would be easy to produce along with the names that could be contacted to verify what went into the decision.

I believe it is a perfectly valid starting point to say "I believe XXX is a clone of YYY, and would like to create a group to look into this." But that appears to not be possible here. You need the jury verdict first, before starting the trial, which makes this much more difficult to deal with.

[bob]

No, you just decide what can be discussed.

I think the mod-team did the right thing Bob, deleting a bad rumor without evidence. The mod-team doesn't oppose strong clone discussions as long as it comes with data. It's all about ethics which was one of the main reasons for the foundation of this place, to get rid of harmful noise with the intend to hurt people.

In the hypothetical case Vince would spread the rumor you bought your professor status on the internet without providing data you would gladly be served by mod action. When it comes with evidence that would change the matter, wouldn't it?

And that's the crux of the issue at hand.

Ed

I want to support what Ed says. When the CCC was created I was happy because of the protection moderation would give because I personally was shortly before the creation heavily attacked in rgcc for having faked my academic titles. That affront came from a famous programmer BTW. Of course it was all invented hearsay without any evidence what the programmer had excuded.

So, I am really a bit surprised that here in CCC a topic could be created that insinuated something illegal in case of Rybka, and this repeatedly, when no clear cut evidence could have ever been presented. I thought that this was a method that could be used in rgcc but not in CCC.

BTW at the time when I stood under pressure of the incredible assault, I was in a similar situation like Vasik today. How should I prove that I have everything in order with my status? What must I prove if such famous programmers attack me? Must I prove my innocence or can I trust that nothing could be proven against me if I knew what I had in reali done and never faked? Again, it's beyond everything rational that such a situation could happen here in CCC in difference to rgcc. But as it seems it did. And I support Ed in his message and the mods in their decisions. I must admit that I dont know everything in detail about the actual case here.

If Bob now said that he would rather go back to rgcc because of moderation thought police and that he would rather prefer the disturbing noise on rgcc I can only say that I at least am happier in CCC where moderation prevents that such horrible nightmares couuld happen to me like it did on rgcc.

I repeat. At the time the attacking programmer was at first thinking with the same determination that he was correct with his supposition about my background and my criminal deeds. And he was badly wrong. Also Bob as probably the best expert we have for questions of the illegal that are supposed in this case here in CCC. But, Bob, ask yourself, just for a second, what wouldd be if you were wrong like the otther programmer years ago?? The case cant be compared at all, but the determination and certainty in the opinion of the attackers or critics is comparable. Couldnt you agree here that mods did a good job if they moderated when 100% proof isnt there? What would you comment for my case. Were I in a pressure to tolerate the heavy attacks against my background until I had published my academical and examined titlle papers so that then the famous programmer would have agreed and stopped his campaigfn? That was rgcc, but should CCC not be better moderated also if it looks that you with your expertise are deleted with some messages too? Please reconsider in this case. Please. To the best of CCC. Thanks.

That's pretty funny. Because the _sole_ reason CCC was created was to escape your incessant drivel, 10 page posts that said nothing, character attacks, etc. If CCC were "better moderated" you would not even be here now...

[Volker Pittlik]

... If CCC were "better moderated" you would not even be here now...

And if the trolls were not continuously feed for more than ten years by leading members of the chess community -for example you- that problem wouldn't exist at all.


In case of interest: At the moment the mods are discussion methods how to handle clone accusations from now on.

[bob]

... If CCC were "better moderated" you would not even be here now...

And if the trolls were not continuously feed for more than ten years by leading members of the chess community -for example you- that problem wouldn't exist at all.


In case of interest: At the moment the mods are discussion methods how to handle clone accusations from now on.

And I view that as a problem. There is nothing to "handle". They happen when they happen, or they don't. They should play out to whatever conclusion... I don't see what part of the charter, including point #5 can be cited as a justification for even discussing whether these threads are OK or not. "illegal" is pretty clear in what it means. Pirated software is "illegal". Calling someone a "cheater" or a "copier" or a "cloner" is not. Of course, if the moderators don't understand the concepts "legal / illegal" then there could be confusion. I understand the terms perfectly...

[Matthias Gemuh]

At the moment the mods are discussion methods how to handle clone accusations from now on.

That is a great step ahead .

Matthias.

[kranium]

... If CCC were "better moderated" you would not even be here now...

And if the trolls were not continuously feed for more than ten years by leading members of the chess community -for example you- that problem wouldn't exist at all.


In case of interest: At the moment the mods are discussion methods how to handle clone accusations from now on.

Volker-

i assume you mean 'fed'...

it doesn't seem appropriate for you, or the 'mods' (or anybody IMHO) to characterize any user here as a 'troll' (i assume you mean Rolf?) or anything else for that matter...
IMHO, it shows a general contempt for differing opinions...everybody (troll or not) should have an opportunity to be heard (if within the guidelines). shouldn't you mods remain impartial (or at least moderate)?

conversely, i have witnessed Bob consistently, time and time again, exhibiting the patience of a saint ...respectfully and generously answering each and every (troll) post, giving them at least the minimum of human respect...with a dignified answer.

and you're faulting him for that? i.e. the repressive atmosphere here and/or the 'troll' problem is somehow his fault?

i realize his post was critical of the mods...

? i find this a rather despicable accusation against one of the few here who consitently remain level-headed and courteous to all...

[mclane]

That's pretty funny. Because the _sole_ reason CCC was created was to escape your incessant drivel, 10 page posts that said nothing, character attacks, etc. If CCC were "better moderated" you would not even be here now...

I am very happy that i can quote you and don't have to write this myself