01 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by flexmorei think he should be instantly restored to his previous rating ... and simply incorporated back into rhp ... i do not think russ should feel embarrassed or awkward about this .. russ was given reasonable proof of guilt(that he was a computer engine) in the first place ... russ was then very patient ... no defence was offerred ... eventually russ acted ... on reasonable defence a reversal of the decision should be the only sensible course.
as a hypothetical ... please do not debate whether ironman is a human or a computer ... this thread is about rhp's response if [b]he can prove that he is a human.
should he be allowed back?
if so then how?[/b]
naturally this is hypothetical ... perhaps a little wishful thinking - i liked ironman.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by flexmoreSo someone is charged with murder: where were you on the
i think he should be instantly restored to his previous rating ... and simply incorporated back into rhp ... i do not think russ should feel embarrassed or awkward about this .. russ was given reasonable proof of guilt(that he was a computer engine) in the first place ... russ was then very patient ... no defence was offerred ... eventually russ acted ... o ...[text shortened]... urse.
naturally this is hypothetical ... perhaps a little wishful thinking - i liked ironman.
night of june 12, 2004? I was in my apartment playing solitair.
Prove it to me: How? How indeed. He says he was alone, evidence
says he was killing a cop. What defense can he bring up?
Insanity?
What possible defence could Ironman present? Would he trot out
friends who swear they saw him play the moves? What, on 5 or 10
games? Would that prove anything? What other means would he
have to defend himself? Right or wrong? He would be99% sure to
have been alone with either himself or his comps, so how would he
defend that?
02 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHow can you accept a system of justice whose process entails that an innocent person has no possible means of demonstrating his innocence?
So someone is charged with murder: where were you on the
night of june 12, 2004? I was in my apartment playing solitair.
Prove it to me: How? How indeed. He says he was alone, evidence
says he was killing a cop. What defense can he bring up?
Insanity?
What possible defence could Ironman present? Would he trot out
friends who swear they saw him play ...[text shortened]... be99% sure to
have been alone with either himself or his comps, so how would he
defend that?
The game mods are a farce, and they know it.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI believe that's the first intelligent thing I've seen you write in quite a while Scribbles.
How can you accept a system of justice whose process entails that an innocent person has no possible means of demonstrating his innocence?
The game mods are a farce, and they know it.
Well done!
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by flexmoreIf he (Ironman31) could prove that the game mod's findings were false, then what other option would there be than to restore his account and rating?
as a hypothetical ... please do not debate whether ironman is a human or a computer ... this thread is about rhp's response if [b]he can prove that he is a human.
should he be allowed back?
if so then how?[/b]
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat would be true if the Game Mods required all players that were accused to provide proof that they weren't cheating or be banned.
How can you accept a system of justice whose process entails that an innocent person has no possible means of demonstrating his innocence?
The game mods are a farce, and they know it.
However this isn't the case, the Game Mods collect evidence and then if that evidence is overwhelming the player will be banned.
Imagine that the proper authorities find your fingerprints in blood on a knife used to murder someone you know and your skin under their fingernails. Now you can't explain away the evidence and you are going to be found guilty and sent to prison. This is pretty much what the situation is here, evidence was found showing beyond doubt (you really think Russ would take this action on less than an absolute?) that Ironman was cheating. There can then be no counterargument.
He was a cheater. And now he's gone.
Pretty simple.
But of course it's much more fun to pretend that DavidTebb got Ironman banned so he'd be one spot closer to the top. Actually I bet that's exactly what happened. Damn that Tebb.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by flexmoreI agree. Given the hypothetical - which most of this thread is arguing about for no obvious reason other than a lack of capacity for logical thought and to stay on topic - then restoring his rating would be the only way to go.
i think he should be instantly restored to his previous rating ... and simply incorporated back into rhp ... i do not think russ should feel embarrassed or awkward about this .. russ was given reasonable proof of guilt(that he was a computer engine) in the first place ... russ was then very patient ... no defence was offerred ... eventually russ acted ... o ...[text shortened]... urse.
naturally this is hypothetical ... perhaps a little wishful thinking - i liked ironman.
02 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZI'm not talking about Ironman. I'm talking about a hypothetical truly innocent player, the subject of this thread.
That would be true if the Game Mods required all players that were accused to provide proof that they weren't cheating or be banned.
However this isn't the case, the Game Mods collect evidence and then if that evidence is overwhelming the player will be banned.
Imagine that the proper authorities find your fingerprints in blood on a knife used to m ...[text shortened]... 'd be one spot closer to the top. Actually I bet that's exactly what happened. Damn that Tebb.
Do you admit that under the Game Mod system, it is the case that an innocent player has no defense that he could present to the Game Mods during their investigation?
Do you claim that the Game Mod system will never convict an innocent person, and thus the question at hand is irrelevant?
Why not just make it a site rule: "Players shall not make moves which match with any engine at a rate greater than 90%", or whatever the threshold is, since that is what people are being convicted of? That way, you really would never convict an innocent person, since it would be objective that they had broken the rule, and you could prove that there exists no evidence that would exonerate the accused.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes because the Game Mods use exactly the same system as No1 does.
I'm not talking about Ironman. I'm talking about a hypothetical truly innocent player, the subject of this thread.
Do you admit that under the Game Mod system, it is the case that an innocent player has no defense that he could present to the Game Mods during their investigation?
Do you claim that the Game Mod system will never convict an in ...[text shortened]... n the rule, and you could prove that there exists no evidence that would exonerate the accused.
Exactly the same. That's why they had him killed. To shut him up.
I believe that it would not be possible for an innocent player to be found guilty of cheating if the Game Mods systems are anywhere as near robust as my own are. Therefore the situation is irrelevant.
02 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZI see.
I believe that it would not be possible for an innocent player to be found guilty of cheating if the Game Mods systems are anywhere as near robust as my own are. Therefore the situation is irrelevant.
Do you think that it is beneficial or detrimental to the community concerned about cheating that the Game Mod proceedings take place in secret and are not made public, except for the verdict?
If the system is so good that no innocent player could possibly be convicted, I don't see what the Game Mods have to lose by letting people in on the secret process. They might even convince people of just how good their methods are if they shared their process, their evidence and their analysis that led to Ironman's conviction. As it is, the public at large just has to take their word.
From the public perspective, the Game Mod process cannot be distinguished from Soviet arrests, with regard to whether justice is in fact being carried out.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn the raw numbers game the cheaters always have the edge, there are many members to check, the process is long and there are new potential cheaters joining everyday.
I see.
Do you think that it is beneficial or detrimental to the community concerned about cheating that the Game Mod proceedings take place in secret and are not made public, except for the verdict?
If the system is so good that no innocent player could possibly be convicted, I don't see what the Game Mods have to lose by letting people in o ...[text shortened]... distinguished from Soviet arrests, with regard to whether justice is in fact being carried out.
By keeping their methods secret the Game Mods stop the cheaters from developing ways around all their tests. Surely you can see that this would be a bad thing?
I think it would be great if the Game Mods could come out and put everyone's fears at rest however it would do more harm than good to do so.
02 Oct 05
Originally posted by shavixmirWell done indeed, Scribbles. About 18 months ago the Caissa site went through a witch hunt. Lots of bitterness, lots of insults, lots of people quit the site, and nobody ever proved anything except the tendency of chess players to engage in assholiness. I do not personally see how anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is cheating at internet chess. And I do not see what defense can possibly be presented once someone is accused.
I believe that's the first intelligent thing I've seen you write in quite a while Scribbles.
Well done!