hgm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:07 am
I treat complaints as confidential, and was not planning on changing this policy. People must not feel impaired by fear for petty harrassment in retaliation for flagging wrong-doing. By the nature of things it are the most aggressve and viscious members that violate rules, and have a tendency to bully other people.
Moderators do not 'obey' complaints any more than judges obey district attorneys in criminal court cases. It is their task to independently judge whether postings violate the charter (in which case they are censored or removed alltogether), or disruptive to ordered discussion (in which case they might be locked or moved). The complaints merely act to bring matters to our attention.
This is all fair enough, but I have a thought or two.
1. Without transparency, what is to stop a moderator from inventing an 'anonymous complaint' (or two) to further their own interest on a matter. For example, I know that you and Ed don't always see eye-to-eye and there's some bad blood. Is there a 3rd party mod who verifies that said complaints exist from real established members?
2. This brings to mind the hole in your judge analogy.
Perhaps a moderator is nothing more than a judge, but a plaintiff still has to make their case in open court, right?
If a judge and prosecution team prepared to indict a suspect for say, sexual harrassment, even in this case they'll never say "an unknown, anonymous person has made a complaint against you and we find you guilty"...this is unfair and against the spirit of legal transparency.
Instead, they'll be asked by the prosecuter: "Would you be willing to make your statement in an open court?"
We can all see the notifications. There were complaints. HGM acted before I logged in and saw them. I would probably have done nothing myself since I was involved in the thread...
This is not really similar to open court. Everyone can see the thread, and it was certainly an engines-origin topic. Didn't take much for anyone to see that pretty clearly.
But it is against the historic perspective why EO was created, the 2009-2011 chaos of overwhelming R/F posts. What was new back then is hardly a topic nowadays as knowledge increased. Generally speaking, the community (chess programmers) included is much more tolerant now.
2019 isn't the same situation as the 2009-2011 period and you are giving a few members who complain a lot of power.
90% of coding is debugging, the other 10% is writing bugs.
Rebel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:57 am
But it is against the historic perspective why EO was created, the 2009-2011 chaos of overwhelming R/F posts. What was new back then is hardly a topic nowadays as knowledge increased. Generally speaking, the community (chess programmers) included is much more tolerant now.
2019 isn't the same situation as the 2009-2011 period and you are giving a few members who complain a lot of power.
It was moved exactly to where it belongs. Kudos to the moderators.
Note that I created this thread in the General Topics section at the same time as I moved the original one exactly to prevent the problem mentioned by Ovyron; members not normally reading Engine Origins would be made aware of the Similarity Report thread, and could go there when they are interested in this topic. Although discussions about EO are rare today, they still have the tendency to be heated and intense when they occur.
"Discussion of the origination and/or derivation of computer chess program source code."
Was such a thing discussed in the Similarity Report 2019? Or just the similarity of the moves made, which isn't related to source code discussions?
It seems some people have made up their minds about what belongs where, even when this subforum still reads "Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines."
"Anything and everything" seems like a false advertisement for the last 8 years.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Ovyron wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:51 pm
But the description of EO is:
"Discussion of the origination and/or derivation of computer chess program source code."
Was such a thing discussed in the Similarity Report 2019? Or just the similarity of the moves made, which isn't related to source code discussions?
It seems some people have made up their minds about what belongs where, even when this subforum still reads "Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines."
"Anything and everything" seems like a false advertisement for the last 8 years.
It's not like that - there is history here that largely goes unstated and you have to pay attention. The "Similarity Report 2019" is an euphemism for who's borrowing/stealing code from others, hence, why it was moved to the engine origins. That's what this report is about.
Okay, if that's the case I stand corrected (I wouldn't know because I don't visit EO, because I don't care about engine's source code origins, though I'm interested in engine's similarities. Any thread moved there is one I'll miss.)
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Ovyron wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:51 pm
But the description of EO is:
"Discussion of the origination and/or derivation of computer chess program source code."
Was such a thing discussed in the Similarity Report 2019? Or just the similarity of the moves made, which isn't related to source code discussions?
It seems some people have made up their minds about what belongs where, even when this subforum still reads "Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines."
"Anything and everything" seems like a false advertisement for the last 8 years.
It's not like that - there is history here that largely goes unstated and you have to pay attention. The "Similarity Report 2019" is an euphemism for who's borrowing/stealing code from others, hence, why it was moved to the engine origins. That's what this report is about.
The Similarity Report, using an entirely unbiased engine selection process, an unbiased and established epd test suite, and produced, via transparent and verifiable engine d=1, move selection process, a correlation matrix showing percentages of same move selection across the 135 engines tested.
The Similarity Report reports and shows the results, as data. As such it is not a euphemism for anything. The data speaks for itself, both positively and negatively.
