What is there to say?
Quentin is very active these days, and the result of his actions is what we have. I agree with those who says he's fol owing the treads - which should be a very good thing - but maybe some interlinear reading hasn't been done?
The questionmark above indicates that I too, at least via the tread, would add a bit to the confusion-part.
Basically, it looks as if Quentin is really reading the treads with interest, and react on them in relation to the election. A splendid thing, except for the forth and backs that occurs in those threads... If I was him, I guess I would sort out the confusion in general, what is written about the nominationis clear, but the personal information/e-mail notification is a miss, and the acceptance or declinance in other threads can be even more misleading; joking occurs there, as we see.
hi Henrik
well i guess this is what must be occurring
is he reading every single post on both boards in the off chance that in one post a nominee is declining and in a later post he is accepting??
obviously this is not a reliable way to post something as important as a nominees acceptance or rejection to run
the nominee should email the sponsor and then and only then should a posting be made
there is just too much of a chance for a mistake or a confusion
now Quentin has worked for ICD for a long time and i imagine he knows very well how Steve handled this process in the past
so why this switch from a tried and true process with emails.. to an unreliable process where he is now scouring all of the forums here reading every single post and then making a decision as to the nominees intentions ?
it is just beyond me
mclane wrote:another interesting thing: i nominated Chris Whittington and got the response that
Only current active members of CCC are eligible for nomination.
I wonder where
the rules say that, they say: only current active membes can vote.
but vote and beeing voted is IMO 2 things.
there's a long history in various elections round the world, political, I
mean, of bringing in outsiders.
this policy smells strange, it denies IMO the members the ability to vote by
pre-screening by the executive/owners/moderators.
If you don't do that, you get a brand new "member" that creates multiple accounts to nominate himself then vote for himself. It is harder if you require a period of activity first...
bob wrote:That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.
I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".
Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.
Actually they have been written down and published many times. And then discussed before each event starts. To say "I didn't know it was a violation for me to influence the program's play while a game is in progress" is simply beyond belief for anyone that has been even remotely involved in computer chess anytime during the last 40 years...
Is a link I saved from last year's ACCA event. If you click on the "rules" I think you will find them quite clear and specific, and that they mirror the ICGA rules we have used for the past 20+ years without modification.
bob wrote:That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.
I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".
Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.
Actually they have been written down and published many times. And then discussed before each event starts. To say "I didn't know it was a violation for me to influence the program's play while a game is in progress" is simply beyond belief for anyone that has been even remotely involved in computer chess anytime during the last 40 years...
Is a link I saved from last year's ACCA event. If you click on the "rules" I think you will find them quite clear and specific, and that they mirror the ICGA rules we have used for the past 20+ years without modification.
I guess that is right next to the rule about programs kibitzing their moves which you seem to say we have always whispered so that is ok - I am Bob so the rules do not apply to me - you are a man i used to respect now you are just a hypocrite. I wish I knew who this mystery emailer is who always lures you back each time you leave CCC.
I hope you get re-elected, as a moderator, the current CCC deserves you - I wont be back and I certainly wont pretend someone has emailed me to
ask me back.
What is there to say?
Quentin is very active these days, and the result of his actions is what we have. I agree with those who says he's fol owing the treads - which should be a very good thing - but maybe some interlinear reading hasn't been done?
The questionmark above indicates that I too, at least via the tread, would add a bit to the confusion-part.
Basically, it looks as if Quentin is really reading the treads with interest, and react on them in relation to the election. A splendid thing, except for the forth and backs that occurs in those threads... If I was him, I guess I would sort out the confusion in general, what is written about the nominationis clear, but the personal information/e-mail notification is a miss, and the acceptance or declinance in other threads can be even more misleading; joking occurs there, as we see.
hi Henrik
well i guess this is what must be occurring
is he reading every single post on both boards in the off chance that in one post a nominee is declining and in a later post he is accepting??
obviously this is not a reliable way to post something as important as a nominees acceptance or rejection to run
the nominee should email the sponsor and then and only then should a posting be made
there is just too much of a chance for a mistake or a confusion
now Quentin has worked for ICD for a long time and i imagine he knows very well how Steve handled this process in the past
so why this switch from a tried and true process with emails.. to an unreliable process where he is now scouring all of the forums here reading every single post and then making a decision as to the nominees intentions ?
it is just beyond me
Best
Steve
I just received an Email from the sponsor
from hereon-in all nominees MUST reply by email to the sponsor regarding his acceptance or rejection to run for moderator
so the process moving forward should be OK
i imagine ALL nominees will receive the same email i just did
bob wrote:That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.
I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".
Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.
Actually they have been written down and published many times. And then discussed before each event starts. To say "I didn't know it was a violation for me to influence the program's play while a game is in progress" is simply beyond belief for anyone that has been even remotely involved in computer chess anytime during the last 40 years...
Is a link I saved from last year's ACCA event. If you click on the "rules" I think you will find them quite clear and specific, and that they mirror the ICGA rules we have used for the past 20+ years without modification.
That's great, but how much better it would have been to have the registration form demand an acknowledgment of having read, understood and agreed to these terms. Get it in black and white right up front. That's why the world runs on contracts and not assumed understanding or assumed assent. I don't see a very good excuse for not doing this at EVERY SINGLE EVENT, because it seems to me there is a need to pound this into the skulls of some people who seem to have no clue otherwise.
The document should be improved to provide examples of past bad behavior that's not allowed (e.g. changing contempt or other evaluation weights, making draw decisions, etc.) as well as examples of what is allowed (e.g. correcting a whisper setting to kibitz). Making things more clear with examples is not a bad thing, even if it seems obvious or redundant. People can be thicker on such points than is often imagined.
bob wrote:That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.
I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".
Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.
Actually they have been written down and published many times. And then discussed before each event starts. To say "I didn't know it was a violation for me to influence the program's play while a game is in progress" is simply beyond belief for anyone that has been even remotely involved in computer chess anytime during the last 40 years...
Is a link I saved from last year's ACCA event. If you click on the "rules" I think you will find them quite clear and specific, and that they mirror the ICGA rules we have used for the past 20+ years without modification.
That's great, but how much better it would have been to have the registration form demand an acknowledgment of having read, understood and agreed to these terms. Get it in black and white right up front. That's why the world runs on contracts and not assumed understanding or assumed assent. I don't see a very good excuse for not doing this at EVERY SINGLE EVENT, because it seems to me there is a need to pound this into the skulls of some people who seem to have no clue otherwise.
The document should be improved to provide examples of past bad behavior that's not allowed (e.g. changing contempt or other evaluation weights, making draw decisions, etc.) as well as examples of what is allowed (e.g. correcting a whisper setting to kibitz). Making things more clear with examples is not a bad thing, even if it seems obvious or redundant. People can be thicker on such points than is often imagined.
Regards,
You are missing the point. This _is_ discussed at every last event. In minute detail. Some still fail to do everything right, such as kibitzing or whatever. Some have oversights and forget. Some intend to fix something but it just doesn't quite work out as planned. But the rules are known and discussed with the participants every last time. I am unaware of any event that doesn't do this. Each WCCC event has the rules published just like we did for the CCT and ACCA events.
The rules have not been kept a secret, because the programmers are the ones that developed the rules to make these events what we want them to be. We want to play program vs program. Not program + human assistant vs program. We've had several cases of such violations over the years. I could name names, but at least one of them has passed on so there's little good to be gained. But we know what we want, and if you read the rules as written, they really are quite obvious and would be exactly what we would come up with if we started from scratch. We intentionally kept the set of rules small, so that it wouldn't be too complex to properly follow them...
bob wrote:That idea is so very basic to all computer chess events, that saying "Oh, he didn't know, or didn't mean to hurt anything" just simply does not cut it. If a guy lives by himself deep in the jungle somewhere, and then makes his way to civilization at age 30 and immediately kills someone to take their food, does he get a "free ride" because he didn't know any better, or is he going to jail? In this case, the 30 years with no human contact didn't happen. Rules for the CCT/ICGA tournaments have been published over and over for years. They have been discussed over and over for years. We had a year-long thread about the DB match and how these rules were applied even there.
I've noticed that many younger CC enthusiasts are ignorant of the lessons learned in ancient CC times about what's kosher behavior in such events. But one stands even more amazed at why these supposedly "well known" rules and procedures have not been codified and made into a cohesive document for online events. Such a document should be made a part of every online registration process, e.g. "I have read and agreee to abide by the strict rules and terms herein defined and passed down from lessons learned in ancient times and which now apply to this event...etc. <click?>".
Whose fault is it that this is still not done? Such a document should be as familiar to everyone and as readily available as a GNU Public License. Organizers have only themselves to blame for not leading by clear instruction and example for all such events. I'm surprised that you have never insisted upon this clarity given the chronic problems we've seen in such events, especially ICGA events. Just look how many participants still think the ICGA events are great and that they're doing a fine job of it. If automated competitions are to supplant the ineptly handled and out-dated ICGA events, then they're doing a poor job of showing them how it supposed to be done.
Actually they have been written down and published many times. And then discussed before each event starts. To say "I didn't know it was a violation for me to influence the program's play while a game is in progress" is simply beyond belief for anyone that has been even remotely involved in computer chess anytime during the last 40 years...
Is a link I saved from last year's ACCA event. If you click on the "rules" I think you will find them quite clear and specific, and that they mirror the ICGA rules we have used for the past 20+ years without modification.
I guess that is right next to the rule about programs kibitzing their moves which you seem to say we have always whispered so that is ok - I am Bob so the rules do not apply to me - you are a man i used to respect now you are just a hypocrite. I wish I knew who this mystery emailer is who always lures you back each time you leave CCC.
I hope you get re-elected, as a moderator, the current CCC deserves you - I wont be back and I certainly wont pretend someone has emailed me to
ask me back.
If you can't see the difference between (A) having to leave to fix a major hardware problem so that I could play at all and forgetting to make the program kibitz, leaving it to only whisper instead; and (B) violating a major rule about not changing _anything_ once a round starts, that the program must make every last decision for itself including offering and accepting draws; then I suppose there is no need to continue the discussion.
My error only prevented my opponent's account from seeing the analysis, the whispered output did go to all observing the game except for the opponent himself. That had zero effect on the outcome of the game, and would have made it possible for anyone to verify that I was not making the moves, that Crafty was actually playing. So my "omission" had zero influence on how crafty played, nor on the final standings of the tournament. On the other hand, your interference in the game directly violated at least two rules and _did_ affect the outcome of the game and how others might have finished up. There _is_ a difference. If you don't see it, it isn't my problem...
BTW, I didn't "pretend" anything. I was contacted to respond to a post that was addressing the moderation concern I had, which I felt was a direct violation of our original charter that the ten of us set up when we started this place. Your sleazy comment is not worth any further response... I personally don't care whether you return or not, it just doesn't matter to me.
The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.
I'm not sure if i can take it as it is written.
I believe it was written in a time where it wasn't possible, from technical software view of this forum, to edit positings. So, they just thought, ok, how to define if its time to delete a positing or not.
If this is true, it's time for an CCC charter "upgrade", because it's outdated already.
Best,
Daniel
Sorry, but when we decided to start CCC, there were no software "limits" imposed as we discussed the charter. We didn't develop the charter to match the software capabilities we had available, we developed the charter to define the way we envisioned CCC functioning.
Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.
If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.
The only person entitled to edit a post is the poster. He can always repost without the offending part. From the charter: "A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club". "Erase", not edit, correct, partially delete, value, censor. By not sticking to the charter moderators will unavoidably open the can of confusion, dissatisfaction, double standards, silly arguments about fairness, so on and so forth. As far as I know, moderators enforce the charter, don’t reinvent it.
I'm not sure if i can take it as it is written.
I believe it was written in a time where it wasn't possible, from technical software view of this forum, to edit positings. So, they just thought, ok, how to define if its time to delete a positing or not.
If this is true, it's time for an CCC charter "upgrade", because it's outdated already.
Best,
Daniel
Sorry, but when we decided to start CCC, there were no software "limits" imposed as we discussed the charter. We didn't develop the charter to match the software capabilities we had available, we developed the charter to define the way we envisioned CCC functioning.
Allowing someone to modify someone else's words is simply a lousy policy. The potential for abuse is significant. The probability of unintentionally changing the meaning of a post is more significant. Neither is acceptable, IMHO.
If a post is that bad, delete it and let the poster either rewrite it in an acceptable way, or let it disappear forever. Keeping bits and pieces is no good.
It seems all that's happening with the "editing" of posts is the deletion of offending portions. Deleting a thread contribution (an entire post) is the same as deleting a thread contribution (part of a post). It's hard to see much logical difference.
If one doesn't like having his charter infractions deleted -- either wholly (past policy) or in part (current policy) -- then one probably shouldn't submit them in the first place.
Either way, one struggles to understand how such an issue rises to the level of deciding to leave or stay.
