TalkChess.com

Marcel van Kervinck, Netherlands

Second, I would also like to inform you that with the knowledge I have today, I would have voted differently in the investigation process. I will explain why: I'm not sure anymore that information provided for making a conclusion about the breaking of the 'spirit' of rule 2 was sufficient. In particular, the entry forms of prior entrants were not considered and should have been. I feel the investigators were insufficiently instructed about how prior entrants have declared their origins.

....

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7926

[MODERATION]

Ed, we would prefer such topics regarding the Rybka/Fruit case (or any other discussion regarding the originality or not of any engine) to be created directly in the Engines Origin forum, where they belong. So, please, next time consider it before posting in this forum, where it annoys the majority of users (and our task is mainly to keep Talkchess be a nice place).

We won't directly move or lock this thread yet, but we will watch it very carefully and will lock it as soon as it derails (@all: see point #1 of our Moderation Policy Statement).

JuLieN wrote:[MODERATION]

Ed, we would prefer such topics regarding the Rybka/Fruit case (or any other discussion regarding the originality or not of any engine) to be created directly in the Engines Origin forum, where they belong. So, please, next time consider it before posting in this forum, where it annoys the majority of users (and our task is mainly to keep Talkchess be a nice place).

We won't directly move or lock this thread yet, but we will watch it very carefully and will lock it as soon as it derails (@all: see point #1 of our Moderation Policy Statement).

+10

Already loving the new moderation team!!

JuLieN wrote:[MODERATION]

Ed, we would prefer such topics regarding the Rybka/Fruit case (or any other discussion regarding the originality or not of any engine) to be created directly in the Engines Origin forum, where they belong. So, please, next time consider it before posting in this forum, where it annoys the majority of users (and our task is mainly to keep Talkchess be a nice place).

We won't directly move or lock this thread yet, but we will watch it very carefully and will lock it as soon as it derails (@all: see point #1 of our Moderation Policy Statement).

The moderators have the right to ask people to post such topics in the Engine origin forum but I think that they have no data to know if posting them in this forum annoys the majority of users.

Uri Blass wrote:

JuLieN wrote:[MODERATION]

Ed, we would prefer such topics regarding the Rybka/Fruit case (or any other discussion regarding the originality or not of any engine) to be created directly in the Engines Origin forum, where they belong. So, please, next time consider it before posting in this forum, where it annoys the majority of users (and our task is mainly to keep Talkchess be a nice place).

We won't directly move or lock this thread yet, but we will watch it very carefully and will lock it as soon as it derails (@all: see point #1 of our Moderation Policy Statement).

The moderators have the right to ask people to post such topics in the Engine origin forum but I think that they have no data to know if posting them in this forum annoys the majority of users.

Exactly. Actually, Uri, he said the "vast majority", which is very different - a point I made on the Engine Origins forum in reply to Julien's claims about the many and the few:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 81&t=42500

Agree. How would he know if it annoys me for example? Actually what I find annoying is his recent vast number of posts like someone out trying to prove a point

Daniel Shawul wrote:Agree. How would he know if it annoys me for example? Actually what I find annoying is his recent vast number of posts like someone out trying to prove a point

Guys,

don't let our newly elected mods feel that being a mod is not a blessing.

+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view

mar wrote:+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view

All these +10 and +1 posts are pointless - just as it would be for others to respond with -10 or -1. The way to count numbers is not for dozens of posts with +1 or -1 but a poll. Better still would be to post nothing unless one actually has something to say other than a mere "agreed" or its wordy variants such as "count me as well".

dj wrote:

mar wrote:+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view :)

All these +10 and +1 posts are pointless - just as it would be for others to respond with -10 or -1. The way to count numbers is not for dozens of posts with +1 or -1 but a poll. Better still would be to post nothing unless one actually has something to say other than a mere "agreed" or its wordy variants such as "count me as well".

+777

Seriously, I have to agree. All those +/- no content posts look so childish
and I would welcome, if this tendency would vanish again(I have not much hope though...)

Guenther