Questions for the FG about the organization of the election

[Graham Banks]

The forum has become a bit like Communist China.
You can stand to become a moderator only if you're rubber-stamped by the supreme leader(s).

Care to explain yourself what you mean by that?

The FG decides which applicants are fit to apply as moderators.

[Rebel]

The forum has become a bit like Communist China.
You can stand to become a moderator only if you're rubber-stamped by the supreme leader(s).

Care to explain yourself what you mean by that?

The FG decides which applicants are fit to apply as moderators.

If you mean the list of electable people to run for moderator, there were always some sort of minimum requirements, minimum number of posts, at least member of x months, members in good standing. And most important exclude the number of sleepers those with double/triple accounts to sabotage the election.

[Graham Banks]

The forum has become a bit like Communist China.
You can stand to become a moderator only if you're rubber-stamped by the supreme leader(s).

Care to explain yourself what you mean by that?

The FG decides which applicants are fit to apply as moderators.

If you mean the list of electable people to run for moderator, there were always some sort of minimum requirements, minimum number of posts, at least member of x months, members in good standing. And most important exclude the number of sleepers those with double/triple accounts to sabotage the election.

No. I meant that it seems that of those eligible to stand, you're going to accept only those you deem acceptable.
Some. like myself, have already been told that perhaps we shouldn't bother applying.

[Rebel]

The forum has become a bit like Communist China.
You can stand to become a moderator only if you're rubber-stamped by the supreme leader(s).

Care to explain yourself what you mean by that?

The FG decides which applicants are fit to apply as moderators.

If you mean the list of electable people to run for moderator, there were always some sort of minimum requirements, minimum number of posts, at least member of x months, members in good standing. And most important exclude the number of sleepers those with double/triple accounts to sabotage the election.

No. I meant that it seems that of those eligible to stand, you're going to accept only those you deem acceptable.
Some. like myself, have already been told that perhaps we shouldn't bother applying.

What ?!

Of course not.

Not sure how anyone could draw that conclusion from the announcement.

[AndrewGrant]

The forum has become a bit like Communist China.
You can stand to become a moderator only if you're rubber-stamped by the supreme leader(s).

Care to explain yourself what you mean by that?

The FG decides which applicants are fit to apply as moderators.

If you mean the list of electable people to run for moderator, there were always some sort of minimum requirements, minimum number of posts, at least member of x months, members in good standing. And most important exclude the number of sleepers those with double/triple accounts to sabotage the election.

No. I meant that it seems that of those eligible to stand, you're going to accept only those you deem acceptable.
Some. like myself, have already been told that perhaps we shouldn't bother applying.

What ?!

Of course not.

Not sure how anyone could draw that conclusion from the announcement.

The fix was already in earlier, Graham, with the unfounded ban of Shawn Xu, Myself, and the discrimination against Viren. They filtered who they needed to filter out already.

[Rebel]

The fix was already in earlier, Graham, with the unfounded ban of Shawn Xu, Myself, and the discrimination against Viren. They filtered who they needed to filter out already.

What fix ?

There was no fix.

Mind you, we are quite tolerant in upholding the charter, you trampled the charter multiple times, showed no regret after the (what was it?) one week ban, not even a sign of improvement and you expect we would allow you to run for moderator with the job to uphold the charter you trampled? Try to improve and stay out of trouble the next 6 months.

[AndrewGrant]

The fix was already in earlier, Graham, with the unfounded ban of Shawn Xu, Myself, and the discrimination against Viren. They filtered who they needed to filter out already.

What fix ?

There was no fix.

Mind you, we are quite tolerant in upholding the charter, you trampled the charter multiple times, showed no regret after the (what was it?) one week ban, not even a sign of improvement and you expect we would allow you to run for moderator with the job to uphold the charter you trampled? Try to improve and stay out of trouble the next 6 months.

You/They banned me for a joke lol.
Your simex threads are in greater violation of the/your rules than my comment.

3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
6. Are not bullying, or vicarious bullying

You, without any due diligence, accused a handful of up-and-coming engine authors of cloning each other engines -- specifically accusing them of sharing the same neural nets, a claim which is disproved just by opening the engine's github pages and noting the wildly different sizes and architectures. At the very least, you are a bully towards the young kids. Although libelous is on the table too. Thankfully the discord communities are present, and so support was rallied behind those defamed.

So I'm not sure you even pass your own purity test, Ed.

And before we flip the tables, you'll recall my threads about Fire and Houdini which were firstly correct, and secondly contained plentiful evidence including code snippets, disassembles, your simex scores, binary analysis, and more.

[Rebel]

What a nonsense.

From the charter - Please note that unsubstantiated cloning or copying or plagiarising accusations are considered insult / libel, and that substantiated accusations are allowed only in the Engine Origins section.

The key word here is : unsubstantiated

And it became fully documented - https://rebel7775.wixsite.com/rebel/simex

And its conclusion -

Meaning there is a 15-20% increase of move similarity and thus a decrease of 15-20% in originality in one year.

We asked for an explanation but satisfying answers did not came.

I still stand by that.

---

And let's not forget of what you said yourself.

I think you may be misinterpreting my commentary, or perhaps I am not clear enough.

Just because I agree with the notion that a significant portion of the "new crop" of engines are unoriginal, uninteresting, uninspired, and unworthy, does not mean that I ASSERT that this simex proves my beliefs. Simex might suggest we're onto something. MAYBE. Still OPINION......... But to say it proves anything is lunacy.

I tend not to go on my full rants about engine originality in public, as my opinion ( just as yours' ) is a highly negative one that only makes people upset. Posting my messages won't do anything to change our argument, since we already agree on some form of the hypothesis.

[AndrewGrant]

Meaning there is a 15-20% increase of move similarity and thus a decrease of 15-20% in originality in one year.
We asked for an explanation but satisfying answers did not came.

LOL. You would ban me for making a equally flawed post about your engine.
Here is an answer that is satisfying, and clearly points out the claim about network sharing is wrong.

And yet if you look at the 60+ engine list Stormphrax has a 60+ similarity with Viridithas, if it''s not the net than what is the explanation?

On Discord I heard the argument "It's Leela data, period." and that's highly unlikely, REBEL and CSTAL both use Leela since SF made that switch and set a new precedent. Both engines have the same root search and same QS and that will guarantee a higher similarity than engines that have different root and/or QS. And yet REBEL and CSTAL pass the test, lower than 60%

there is no explanation that fits in the framework of your methodology, because your methodology is fundamentally flawed

for the severalth time, everything about our engines differs. neither of us use leela data (nor ever will we), we both generate our own, with different arches and training processes, and we have different qsearches - none of this information is hidden

note that I am not *asking*, I am *telling* you that your conclusion is wrong. there is no ambiguity here, no room for debate, you are arguing that the sky is green.

[Rebel]

Ah, you conveniently snipped your own words -

I think you may be misinterpreting my commentary, or perhaps I am not clear enough.

Just because I agree with the notion that a significant portion of the "new crop" of engines are unoriginal, uninteresting, uninspired, and unworthy, does not mean that I ASSERT that this simex proves my beliefs. Simex might suggest we're onto something. MAYBE. Still OPINION......... But to say it proves anything is lunacy.

I tend not to go on my full rants about engine originality in public, as my opinion ( just as yours' ) is a highly negative one that only makes people upset. Posting my messages won't do anything to change our argument, since we already agree on some form of the hypothesis.

It more or less proofs my analysis was right.

So why complain?