Questions for the FG about the organization of the election

[LazySMP]

I don't understand. The evidence of what? Something that dispels HGM's argument? It will be hard to find that retroactively, because as he gets banned from Stockfish pages, his posts get removed. LazySMP is the current name. He has gone by KomodoChess, something with Kasparov Chess, and ginko20, ChessOverflow, atumanian, and some others which I cannot recover as the git accounts are replaced with the text "ghost" after being deleted.

Github could prove that these are the same user, knowing the ips possibly. But a thread like this one ( https://github.com/mcostalba/Stockfish/pull/324 ) has LazySMP using multiple accounts to say the same thing, one by one as they get banned from SF. And then rallied them all for a thread in mcostalba/Stockfish, since bans are not across forks.

1. I am not banned from Stockfish pages, you can see my emoji on your PR. https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... /pull/5612

2. The accounts you mentioned do not belong to me. I only know Tumanian who is my best friend.

3. By reading the link you posted, I understood that Fishtest admins are good and reasonable people.

[chrisw]

I don't understand. The evidence of what? Something that dispels HGM's argument? It will be hard to find that retroactively, because as he gets banned from Stockfish pages, his posts get removed. LazySMP is the current name. He has gone by KomodoChess, something with Kasparov Chess, and ginko20, ChessOverflow, atumanian, and some others which I cannot recover as the git accounts are replaced with the text "ghost" after being deleted.

Github could prove that these are the same user, knowing the ips possibly. But a thread like this one ( https://github.com/mcostalba/Stockfish/pull/324 ) has LazySMP using multiple accounts to say the same thing, one by one as they get banned from SF. And then rallied them all for a thread in mcostalba/Stockfish, since bans are not across forks.

1. I am not banned from Stockfish pages, you can see my emoji on your PR. https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... /pull/5612

2. The accounts you mentioned do not belong to me. I only know Tumanian who is my best friend.

3. By reading the link you posted, I understood that Fishtest admins are good and reasonable people.

What is it you're supposed to have done wrong? Sorry, I mean more precisely, what do they say you have done wrong?

[AndrewGrant]

'Degree of assumptions' sounds rather subjective. Anyway, I am not going to ban people just on assumptions; that would abandon the principle or 'reasonable doubt' applied in the entire civilized world. And since other people are going here by incomplete or fake names, or have no longer any registered name at all, the principle of equal treatment requires either banning all of those, or leave them alone. So I only act on names that have intrinsic problems, other than their factual correctness. If someone wants to call himself Mickey Mouse or Anatoly Karpov I don't think the doubt that this could be his real name can be called 'reasonable'.

What happens in the SF forums is of no relevance. There might be a technical reason that you have to return under a diffrent name, and that someone gets banned there IMO is more likely to be the fault of the SF crowd than of the person anyway. TalkChess is not an subsdiary of the SF discord or GitHub channels. And I guess this is the true cause of the angry responses.

Perhaps you can operate in that way. But it seems odd that when a MASSIVE # of the users you oversee, point out that a wolf is wearing sheep's clothing, and that they know it due to their vast experience with said wolf, to not take any action.

How about you verify the identity of the poster? That is slightly invasive, but probable cause exists. I mean, we are asking the same thing of a guy who has a "funny" last name if he wants to vote. Suppose I'm not actually Andrew Grant. And then tomorrow 15 users, which are already established here, come out and say "Hey, he is not really Andrew Grant, he is some imposter trying to make trouble. We know this because he has done it before". You should then do some due diligence.

BUT I do agree with the comment about the SF forum. I mean, they have people over there calling for the deaths of individuals and eradication of racial groups, who still actively contribute to the project. They even have a top level guy lobbing unfounded cloning accusations by pretending to know some timeline of things... They are nothing to shoot for -- and their actions don't imply correctness. So indeed it is CORRECT of you to say that just because this user has been repeatably banned for trolling in the Stockfish world, does not strictly mean he should be banned here.

[Viren]

In the case you are talking about, the user is a "well known troll". As in, has spent multiple years creating and recreating new accounts on Github, in order to spam threads / discussions / issues on Github, argue and attack developers for changes they don't like, and just generally waste the time of others. Okay, so do you kick the guy because of his activity on Github, even if he might not yet be trolling on talkchess? In general that is a bad idea. But perhaps such a case is extreme and is warranted. I would say moderators exist in part to deal with such things. In this specific case, I believe it to be wrong. Although to be reductive, in this case the user was openly lying about their name on the forum, which itself should have been enough. I mean, we've stripped people of their rights for having funny last names, so you would expect openly fake names to be looked into.

It is really unfortunate. Trying to discredit new members and make them look like trolls, why really? I remember that for a short time, the ShashChess Engine was the most powerful chess engine in the world ranking. But Stockfish members started to disrespect and insult Andrea Manzo because they didn't like another engine being more powerful than theirs.

BTW, I thank the CCRL members for trusting and testing my engine, and I am really happy that the SF members' attempt to destroy my engine was unsuccessful.

Why are you responding in this way to a post which did not mention you?

Because it mentions him?

Where?

[AndrewGrant]

In the case you are talking about, the user is a "well known troll". As in, has spent multiple years creating and recreating new accounts on Github, in order to spam threads / discussions / issues on Github, argue and attack developers for changes they don't like, and just generally waste the time of others. Okay, so do you kick the guy because of his activity on Github, even if he might not yet be trolling on talkchess? In general that is a bad idea. But perhaps such a case is extreme and is warranted. I would say moderators exist in part to deal with such things. In this specific case, I believe it to be wrong. Although to be reductive, in this case the user was openly lying about their name on the forum, which itself should have been enough. I mean, we've stripped people of their rights for having funny last names, so you would expect openly fake names to be looked into.

It is really unfortunate. Trying to discredit new members and make them look like trolls, why really? I remember that for a short time, the ShashChess Engine was the most powerful chess engine in the world ranking. But Stockfish members started to disrespect and insult Andrea Manzo because they didn't like another engine being more powerful than theirs.

BTW, I thank the CCRL members for trusting and testing my engine, and I am really happy that the SF members' attempt to destroy my engine was unsuccessful.

Why are you responding in this way to a post which did not mention you?

Because it mentions him?

Where?

Viren is correctly pointing out that I never mentioned LazySMP in that initial post, and yet LazySMP still responded.
Now that could be an admission that he is indeed the aforementioned repeated troll with many deleted account and fake aliases.
It could also just be basic reading comprehension. Although I suspect the former.

[towforce]

There's a business opportunity for a trusted identity agency that confirms that people are who they say they are, and does this at a large enough scale to be able to offer the service at a low cost. Subscriptions to online services could then go through these agencies.

Many businesses use social media accounts this way ("sign up with Google") - but that's only for when, say, 90% accuracy is good enough.

[hgm]

Viren is correctly pointing out that I never mentioned LazySMP in that initial post, and yet LazySMP still responded.
Now that could be an admission that he is indeed the aforementioned repeated troll with many deleted account and fake aliases.
It could also just be basic reading comprehension. Although I suspect the former.

Nonsense. All this has been literally said about him in public. One must be a complete idiot to not understand you were talking about his case.

[hgm]

Perhaps you can operate in that way. But it seems odd that when a MASSIVE # of the users you oversee, point out that a wolf is wearing sheep's clothing, and that they know it due to their vast experience with said wolf, to not take any action.

The problem is that the wolf metaphore doesn't really apply. It depicts a situation where not acting proactively incurs large irreversible damage, because the wolf will only reveal himself by starting a killing spree. A so-called troll, OTOH, cannot do any damage to a moderated forum at all. Any unwanted behavior of his side will be as swiftly removed as that of anyone else, or even faster when he is under scrutiny because of the warnings. The experience of the other users will be exactly the same, whether he starts misbehaving as predicted, or not. So there is no need to err on the safe side. So a more apt metaphore would be getting massive warning against a kangaroo in sheep's clothing. I would still lock him in with the sheep, when the fences are high enough.

In addition it is an oversimplification, because there is more than one kind of unwanted behaviour, and what qualifies as such is very dependent on the place where it is exhibited. On GitHub it is sensible to ban people who put in a never ending stream of pull requests of buggy code. Such people are harmless on TalkChess, as we don't do pull requests here. So a massive number of GitHubbers complaining about this 'trolling' mean zilch. I know a case where someone proposed on a XiangQi forum to play a 960-like shuffle version of XiangQi. His posting about it was swiftly deleted. When he inquired why, his account was deactivated in response. If the same idea would be posted here, those people that care at all about variants would probably find it a cool idea. What is considered reason for banning elsewhere can be completely different.

How about you verify the identity of the poster? That is slightly invasive, but probable cause exists. I mean, we are asking the same thing of a guy who has a "funny" last name if he wants to vote. Suppose I'm not actually Andrew Grant. And then tomorrow 15 users, which are already established here, come out and say "Hey, he is not really Andrew Grant, he is some imposter trying to make trouble. We know this because he has done it before". You should then do some due diligence.

I think at the very least those people should inform me what kind of trouble you are 'known to make'. So that I can judge for myself whether I consider that troublesome. I would not kick users off the forum because they build engines for XiangQi variants, no matter how many angry Chinese demand it. Considering that it seems to be an international hobby nowadays to deny other people to exist anywhere on the internet, it would be plain stupid to pay attention to poeple that want others banned without any valid reason. It is not my task to figure out their reasons.

And in the case at hand, I only have heard the most silly of reasons. Like:
- His avatar is the image of an actor
- He has deleted his GitHub account
- The new version of his engine that fixed the crashing problem of the previous version shows the same node counts when searching the initial position
Well people are not expected to have their own picture as avatar here, there is no obligation to have a GitHub account for posting on TalkChess, and likewise we don't have any rules on nodecounts for engines. And as to names, your example seems to mix two issues that are really independent, namely being an 'imposter', and making trouble. Making trouble can just as well be addressed when it happens. And I would not call using a fake name 'being an imposter'. The latter should be reserved for using fake names that are somehow meaningful, so that it causes confusion. If someone would try to register as another Andrew Grant, I would certainly question it. And even if both of you could prove that you happen to share that name, a solution would have to be found (like adding a number) to prevent confusion. But none of that applied here. Using the same name as some unknown person that is not a member here cannot cause confusion. Using the same name as a famous fictional character cannot cause any confusion. I am on the fence as to use of names of famous persons that have no relation to chess. (Should I allow Mick Jagger?) The task of the moderator is to see to it that the forum can be properly used. Not enforcing the real-name policy.

[LazySMP]

What is it you're supposed to have done wrong? Sorry, I mean more precisely, what do they say you have done wrong?

To be honest, I don't know what I have done wrong. I just created a PR to enable Exception Handling in Stockfish.

[AndrewGrant]

Perhaps you can operate in that way. But it seems odd that when a MASSIVE # of the users you oversee, point out that a wolf is wearing sheep's clothing, and that they know it due to their vast experience with said wolf, to not take any action.

The problem is that the wolf metaphore doesn't really apply. It depicts a situation where not acting proactively incurs large irreversible damage, because the wolf will only reveal himself by starting a killing spree. A so-called troll, OTOH, cannot do any damage to a moderated forum at all. Any unwanted behavior of his side will be as swiftly removed as that of anyone else, or even faster when he is under scrutiny because of the warnings. The experience of the other users will be exactly the same, whether he starts misbehaving as predicted, or not. So there is no need to err on the safe side. So a more apt metaphore would be getting massive warning against a kangaroo in sheep's clothing. I would still lock him in with the sheep, when the fences are high enough.

In addition it is an oversimplification, because there is more than one kind of unwanted behaviour, and what qualifies as such is very dependent on the place where it is exhibited. On GitHub it is sensible to ban people who put in a never ending stream of pull requests of buggy code. Such people are harmless on TalkChess, as we don't do pull requests here. So a massive number of GitHubbers complaining about this 'trolling' mean zilch. I know a case where someone proposed on a XiangQi forum to play a 960-like shuffle version of XiangQi. His posting about it was swiftly deleted. When he inquired why, his account was deactivated in response. If the same idea would be posted here, those people that care at all about variants would probably find it a cool idea. What is considered reason for banning elsewhere can be completely different.

How about you verify the identity of the poster? That is slightly invasive, but probable cause exists. I mean, we are asking the same thing of a guy who has a "funny" last name if he wants to vote. Suppose I'm not actually Andrew Grant. And then tomorrow 15 users, which are already established here, come out and say "Hey, he is not really Andrew Grant, he is some imposter trying to make trouble. We know this because he has done it before". You should then do some due diligence.

I think at the very least those people should inform me what kind of trouble you are 'known to make'. So that I can judge for myself whether I consider that troublesome. I would not kick users off the forum because they build engines for XiangQi variants, no matter how many angry Chinese demand it. Considering that it seems to be an international hobby nowadays to deny other people to exist anywhere on the internet, it would be plain stupid to pay attention to poeple that want others banned without any valid reason. It is not my task to figure out their reasons.

And in the case at hand, I only have heard the most silly of reasons. Like:
- His avatar is the image of an actor
- He has deleted his GitHub account
- The new version of his engine that fixed the crashing problem of the previous version shows the same node counts when searching the initial position
Well people are not expected to have their own picture as avatar here, there is no obligation to have a GitHub account for posting on TalkChess, and likewise we don't have any rules on nodecounts for engines. And as to names, your example seems to mix two issues that are really independent, namely being an 'imposter', and making trouble. Making trouble can just as well be addressed when it happens. And I would not call using a fake name 'being an imposter'. The latter should be reserved for using fake names that are somehow meaningful, so that it causes confusion. If someone would try to register as another Andrew Grant, I would certainly question it. And even if both of you could prove that you happen to share that name, a solution would have to be found (like adding a number) to prevent confusion. But none of that applied here. Using the same name as some unknown person that is not a member here cannot cause confusion. Using the same name as a famous fictional character cannot cause any confusion. I am on the fence as to use of names of famous persons that have no relation to chess. (Should I allow Mick Jagger?) The task of the moderator is to see to it that the forum can be properly used. Not enforcing the real-name policy.

Okay so I can accept everything you said here, even if I disagree with some of it, but NOT if you simultaneously believe that Viren should be subject to additional scrutiny over his name. The two seem to be contradictory. Now it is Chris that has been making an issue of an "unusual" sirname, not you. So I guess I would like to know your opinion on the matter?

The "evidence" that Viren is using a false name is that his last name is not one that any of you have encountered in your travels.
The "evidence" that LazySMP is using a false name is the testimony of many users that are well established here.

I don't think its possible to coherently believe that the "evidence" against Viren is more pressing... unless it is indeed as I have stated I believe, which is selective moderation against opposition. But, perhaps you don't believe this, and therefore we are all good, and I understand your views.