Random Musings ...

[Harvey Williamson]

You say the commercial sites are heavily moderated. As you know on the Hiarcs forum discussion of the current situation has never been banned or the naming of the engines concerned. The Rybka forum takes the untenable position of denying they even exist, unless you have made 500 posts then you can enter the inner sanctum

Seen now that REALLY is a hidden forum
that is a huge leap from our EOF and CTF which can be read by all members. any clue why they have a forum hidden to its regular members but open to only those with 500 posts?

i am a member there but i have very few posts so i did not even know this forum existed

Clandestine Regards
Steve

That is probably a question you should ask them I do not want to be a pseudo spokesman for them. It does avoid endless flame wars as the debate in that hidden forum is generally of high quality. However I don't like the concept of it.

Thats OK thanks
endless flame wars can be ended by the moderators ..but like i said
commercial sites can impose whatever restricitons they want i guess
personally i would rather post in a ..lower quality ..but open to all.. members forum


Would never join a forum that would stoop so low as to accept me as a member Regards
Steve

Yes me to although I do not have a big issue with having to log in to read it.

[benstoker]

How can you debate when truth is irrelevant to you and all that matters is your privately known morality.

Nowhere did Albert state that truth were irrelevant for him. Saying so appears like deliberately misquoting him, and is therefore a poor way of debating. Albert's point was that a decision *can* be made without having any proof, which means without knowing the truth. He also stated that knowing the truth *can* influence a decision that has already been made, in the sense of possibly reconsidering the decision. Deriving "irrelevance of truth" from that statement simply lacks logical correctness.

Sven

You say a moral decision can be made without having any proof. Yes, moral decisions are made everyday without the rigor of absolute proof. But, never is a 'moral decision' NOT based on at least an educated guess about the FACTS. Otherwise, you turn moral reasoning on its head. Without regard to the actual truth, I can assume anything I please and make 'moral decisions' based on FALSE FACTS. Example: a 20 dollar bill is resting next to a person's hand a store counter. The person looks away. I am free to assume any fact, so I assume this money is not this person's and while this person is looking away, I make the decision that it's moral to take that 20 dollars and swipe it.

Sorry people, you cannot give up on the quest for TRUTH about the ippo programs and jump to a so-called moral decision based on assumptions not grounded in established truth or at least a very well reasoned educated guess.

[Albert Silver]

There seems to be some confusion. I am neither suggesting, much less telling you, what you should do. I explained *my* perspective.

I do think the issue with the rating lists, as opposed to private users, is inevitably more complicated, simply because there is an implicit legitimacy lent to what is tested, that is not implied with a private user.

As to why anyone should act according to their morals in any situation, that is unconditionally not my decision to make.

Hello Albert,

Agreed.

Now add something to this mix:

You are morally convinced about the correctness of some decision you have come to.

You are also in a position to dictate/influence/affect how others respond to this same moral choice.

How does that square with your unconditional acceptance that each person is their moral centre of action?

Just curious....

Later.

It isn't clear to me whether you are referring to moderation or the rating lists, but I will guess moderation.

If moderation, then that is its nature, what can I say? My basic moderation modus operandi has always been, be clear about your positions during the election process so no misunderstandings take place, and when moderating do what you believe is correct accordingly. Naturally, there are three mods, so one can be overridden, and I certainly was on occasion. Which is kind of why I do not understand the position of the other two mods, in spite of their claims they were helpless, which reads like nonsense to me. Ask Sam if he was able to just do as he pleased over the other two mods.

Anyhow, this isn't to say one cannot adjust. In my last stint, we had some extremely tumultuous issues, and while I did not yield in my position regarding a fellow mod who went amok, another issue came up regarding posts with largely acceptable content, but a fraction that wasn't. For example, someone might post a long explanation, which is fine, and after three paragraphs, conclude with "but you cannot understand that as you have rocks for brains and the IQ of an amoeba". The mods were uncertain what the best action was, and in order to not force the poster to repost his entire text, which he might not have, the offensive phrase would be edited out. There were protests and discussions, and the mods stopped the editing, and just removed the posts if warranted.

[Roger Brown]

It isn't clear to me whether you are referring to moderation or the rating lists, but I will guess moderation.

If moderation, then that is its nature, what can I say? My basic moderation modus operandi has always been, be clear about your positions during the election process so no misunderstandings take place, and when moderating do what you believe is correct accordingly. Naturally, there are three mods, so one can be overridden, and I certainly was on occasion. Which is kind of why I do not understand the position of the other two mods, in spite of their claims they were helpless, which reads like nonsense to me. Ask Sam if he was able to just do as he pleased over the other two mods.

Anyhow, this isn't to say one cannot adjust. In my last stint, we had some extremely tumultuous issues, and while I did not yield in my position regarding a fellow mod who went amok, another issue came up regarding posts with largely acceptable content, but a fraction that wasn't. For example, someone might post a long explanation, which is fine, and after three paragraphs, conclude with "but you cannot understand that as you have rocks for brains and the IQ of an amoeba". The mods were uncertain what the best action was, and in order to not force the poster to repost his entire text, which he might not have, the offensive phrase would be edited out. There were protests and discussions, and the mods stopped the editing, and just removed the posts if warranted.

Hello Albert,

If (I know, do not begin a sentence with if) this is the kind of answer you can give when you are unclear then I am impressed.

You were correct in your assumption although the rating list issue now interests me seeing that you put it out there.

Thanks for responding.

Later.

[Albert Silver]

It isn't clear to me whether you are referring to moderation or the rating lists, but I will guess moderation.

If moderation, then that is its nature, what can I say? My basic moderation modus operandi has always been, be clear about your positions during the election process so no misunderstandings take place, and when moderating do what you believe is correct accordingly. Naturally, there are three mods, so one can be overridden, and I certainly was on occasion. Which is kind of why I do not understand the position of the other two mods, in spite of their claims they were helpless, which reads like nonsense to me. Ask Sam if he was able to just do as he pleased over the other two mods.

Anyhow, this isn't to say one cannot adjust. In my last stint, we had some extremely tumultuous issues, and while I did not yield in my position regarding a fellow mod who went amok, another issue came up regarding posts with largely acceptable content, but a fraction that wasn't. For example, someone might post a long explanation, which is fine, and after three paragraphs, conclude with "but you cannot understand that as you have rocks for brains and the IQ of an amoeba". The mods were uncertain what the best action was, and in order to not force the poster to repost his entire text, which he might not have, the offensive phrase would be edited out. There were protests and discussions, and the mods stopped the editing, and just removed the posts if warranted.

Hello Albert,

If (I know, do not begin a sentence with if) this is the kind of answer you can give when you are unclear then I am impressed.

You were correct in your assumption although the rating list issue now interests me seeing that you put it out there.

Thanks for responding.

Later.

I think that although a rating list such as CCRL, CEGT, or the SSDF, is not the same as a private user, since they are subject to the scrutiny a private user is not, nor is it the same as the official rating list by FIDE, representing an implicit position of the officiating body. These are still completely private endeavors.

[Roger Brown]

Nowhere did Albert state that truth were irrelevant for him. Saying so appears like deliberately misquoting him, and is therefore a poor way of debating. Albert's point was that a decision *can* be made without having any proof, which means without knowing the truth. He also stated that knowing the truth *can* influence a decision that has already been made, in the sense of possibly reconsidering the decision. Deriving "irrelevance of truth" from that statement simply lacks logical correctness.

Sven

Hello Sven,

I happen to accept that Albert's and yourself are two individuals who are acting from what you both consider to be morally correct centres.

I will give you that.

However before you slap the member too hard look to your own logic.

Decisions can be made without any proof or support whatsoever or without perfect information.

There is a name for that.

Decisions can also be made - even in the presence of mounting evidence which may indicate the contrary - to stick with the original decision made.

There is a name for that too.

Decisions can be made about the person(s) who supply and support said information which is contrary to our world view.

There is a name for that as well.

I have learned never to be so sure of my moral correctness as to believe that it is the only one that exists. I choose mine but there are others, and his logic, while not easily palatable, is not far-fetched if you have been following both sides of this debate.

There is far more faith being displayed during these discussions than I would think compatible with the idea of scientific enquiry.

Later.

[Steve B]

Nowhere did Albert state that truth were irrelevant for him. Saying so appears like deliberately misquoting him, and is therefore a poor way of debating. Albert's point was that a decision *can* be made without having any proof, which means without knowing the truth. He also stated that knowing the truth *can* influence a decision that has already been made, in the sense of possibly reconsidering the decision. Deriving "irrelevance of truth" from that statement simply lacks logical correctness.

Sven

Hello Sven,

I happen to accept that Albert's and yourself are two individuals who are acting from what you both consider to be morally correct centres.

I will give you that.

However before you slap the member too hard look to your own logic.

Decisions can be made without any proof or support whatsoever or without perfect information.

There is a name for that.

Decisions can also be made - even in the presence of mounting evidence which may indicate the contrary - to stick with the original decision made.

There is a name for that too.

Decisions can be made about the person(s) who supply and support said information which is contrary to our world view.

There is a name for that as well.

I have learned never to be so sure of my moral correctness as to believe that it is the only one that exists. I choose mine but there are others, and his logic, while not easily palatable, is not far-fetched if you have been following both sides of this debate.

There is far more faith being displayed during these discussions than I would think compatible with the idea of scientific enquiry.

Later.

well said
to put all of this into real world terms.."boots on the ground" reality
moderators really should not be moderating based upon blind faith if there is evidence to the contrary
an individual can choose to do that
so can those in charge of the rating lists which may or may not be concerned with independence in fact and\or appearance
a moderator however owes it to the membership to overcome that and be neutral and independent at all times
the ideal moderator is one who is seen as independent and whose chief responsibility is to insure that the discussion is unfettered and free flowing no matter which side of an issue they personally side on

Regards From The UN
Steve

[Roger Brown]

well said
to put all of this into real world terms.."boots on the ground" reality
moderators really should not be moderating based upon blind faith if there is evidence to the contrary
an individual can choose to do that
so can those in charge of the rating lists which may or may not be concerned with independence in fact and\or appearance
a moderator however owes it to the membership to overcome that and be neutral and independent at all times
the ideal moderator is one who is seen as independent and whose chief responsibility is to insure that the discussion is unfettered and free flowing no matter which side of an issue they personally side on

Regards From The UN
Steve

Hello Steve,

I agree with everything you have posted above - and for that reason, of course, it is a great post.



See, I am not immune from the disease of bias!

So now I have to find something to disagree with you about - just to feel better.

Later.

Ps. Remaining objective is hard. Remaining objective when you are strongly convinced one way or the other is harder. So if you have a chess engine rating list and you can influence (lovely word) what is tested then you can effect your will over a larger constituency than just yourself. Ditto if you moderate a message board.

What if you were both? Ahhhhhh, the power you could wield......

[Sven]

Nowhere did Albert state that truth were irrelevant for him. Saying so appears like deliberately misquoting him, and is therefore a poor way of debating. Albert's point was that a decision *can* be made without having any proof, which means without knowing the truth. He also stated that knowing the truth *can* influence a decision that has already been made, in the sense of possibly reconsidering the decision. Deriving "irrelevance of truth" from that statement simply lacks logical correctness.

However before you slap the member too hard look to your own logic.

Although it seems to me that your points that are now following below are slightly different from what was the topic here, by referring indirectly to things I have said in other (related) discussions, they are not completely unrelated to the current topic, and I'd like to reply here just to ensure that the impression everyone may get about "my own logic" will not go too far beyond reality.

Decisions can be made without any proof or support whatsoever or without perfect information.

There is a name for that.

If a decision *has* to be made, or *should* be made but there is no perfect information yet then what else do you propose, instead of deciding without having a proof? What's wrong with my own logic here?

Decisions can also be made - even in the presence of mounting evidence which may indicate the contrary - to stick with the original decision made.

There is a name for that too.

The question may be allowed, what is "mounting evidence" worth if I have good reasons to raise substantial doubts against that evidence but simply fail to convince a "majority"? Assume two people show their arguments, 88 others support them, I oppose to several arguments of the two, and only 9 people support my view: it is like 90:10 in total. But if I am very sure that the arguments of the two are partially invalid, and I say so clearly, then which side has "proven" their opinion? The one with the majority behind? Of course ... So you see how "mounting evidence" can be created? Now my point is: I can still be *very sure* that the presented arguments are failing, even if there is a loud and dominating majority against me. It is not about being stubborn here, and it is not about abiding to someone's principles, nor having an "agenda", nor having personal, financial, or even irrational reasons - the key point is entertaining major doubts against statements that are presented as if they were "facts".

Let me give an example. I was about 12 years old. At school, my math teacher Mrs. H. made some statement (don't quite remember what it was, doesn't matter, at least it was relevant for the class) which I *knew* was logically wrong. I discussed with her and gave my view. She denied it and insisted on her arguments. The whole class were on her side, simply due to the fact that I was kind of a class winner at that time, and everybody was thrilled when it turned out once that I could be proven wrong, even if most of them either had no clue, or were not sure about it. Since I was unable to convince the teacher and everyone else I needed help. I discussed the problem with my father. He helped me by writing down the facts and explained his reasoning using a purely logical approach. Next day I showed the paper to Mrs. H.

It turned out I was correct. She apologized to me. I don't quite remember the reaction of my classmates, at least I think they were quite surprised.

But there was "mounting evidence" against me?!

I hope you can see my point. There are surely a couple of people swimming with majorities. I am not one of that kind.

Sven

[Gino Figlio]

My personal comments:

1- Decisions can be taken without evidence or they can also be taken disregarding evidence. As long as we know what we are doing, those are valid options.

2- In case of "moral" decisions, they are based on personal values but they are different and have different weight than decisions based on friendship.
Friendship tends to cloud things, job interviews are an example.

3- Evidence can be technical or based on experience, this explains the value of "evidence" in your classroom example.

We can use your example in our situation, we the regular "classmates" expect you the "teachers" to provide us with a technically valid assessment. Most of us will follow that, however there will be some who will ignore it and go by friendship.