20 Jul 03
Originally posted by TosserWhat a load of crap. Tosspot73 has played three legitimate games here at RHP, one against Shallot, one against Planck and one against Cutegal2. The other ~ 30 games he's played are quick mates or resignations against you, with just a couple moves played. You're a fraud.
So my friend, if someone falsely accused you of something, would you not attempt to defend yourself? By mentioning other people, I am simply highlighting the fact if you look closely, there numerous "suspicious" results out there even if genuine! The law in my country is that your innocent until proved guilty in a court of law (And the accusers aint proved ...[text shortened]... ing in life seriously! As ive said before, I havnt cheated and have nothing to be ashamed of!!😴
20 Jul 03
1 edit
Bbarr, please behave in a manner befitting a literate and rational person, and goddamit stop embarassing the Freethinkers 😉. It's quite simple:
1. Tosser is a cheat in the manner you discuss
2. No rational being cares.
Think of it another way. You frequently win games against very skilled players. Clearly, you are an exceptional chess player. You also have a high rating, which means ONLY that the number of players who have a low probability of beating you is high. You ahould be (an I hope you are) proud of your skill. You should not have any emotional attachment to your rating per se, only to what it represents. however, the fact that you are taking someone else's inflated rating very seriously only serves to indicate that this number holds meaning for you as something other than a theoretical parameter for choosing opponents. Such an opinion is basically pointless and useful primarily as fertilizer or as the basic ingredient of adobe.
And YOU, Tosser. You are being foolish for the same reason. You can, by cheating, inflate your rating, which in view of what I said above is pointless and indicates that you have some deluded perception of what a rating is that is far worse than Bbarr's. So stop, dammit. Now that we all know your rating is a meaningless statistic, just let it go at that and play chess if you want. And if you don't actually enjoy the chess, get out. Quite simple.
Crikey. I feel like I have kids or summat.
20 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenIf in response to the allegations in this thread, Tosser had admitted to artificially inflating his rating, then I would let the whole matter drop. But his repeated protestations of innocence, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, pisses me off. You have mistaken what it is I care about. It behooves a Freethinker to get clear on the actual views of others prior to subjecting them to condecension and criticism. Your failure to do this has left you criticizing a straw man.
Bbarr, please behave in a manner befitting a literate and rational person, and goddamit stop embarassing the Freethinkers 😉. It's quite simple:
1. Tosser is a cheat in the manner you discuss
2. No rational being cares.
Think of it another way. You frequently win games against very skilled players. Clearly, you are an exceptional chess pla ...[text shortened]... ally enjoy the chess, get out. Quite simple.
Crikey. I feel like I have kids or summat.
20 Jul 03
Dude...I don't knock scarecrows. Why does it piss you off that he won't admit to it? If you truly don't care about the cheating, why does it matter whether or not we have an official acknowledgement of its ocurrence by the perpetrator? We both know it happened, and no-one likes it for a variety of reasons. Why do you insist on extracting a confession?
20 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenAgain, Mark, please try to be clear. I never said I didn't care about cheating. I don't particulalry care about ratings, for the reasons you mention. But these are different things. His protestations of innocence piss me off because I hate being lied to, or played for a fool. Besides, it takes very little energy to refute his claims. Why are you so interesting in mediating this debate, or appearing as the Voice of Reason?
Dude...I don't knock scarecrows. Why does it piss you off that he won't admit to it? If you truly don't care about the cheating, why does it matter whether or not we have an official acknowledgement of its ocurrence by the perpetrator? We both know it happened, and no-one likes it for a variety of reasons. Why do you insist on extracting a confession?
20 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not interested in mediating, as the exchange between Tosser and the rest of us bears more resemblance to, say, a lower primate brought before the Inquisition than it does to a debate. That said, I think I should answer your points. It seems from what you say that you don't have any real objections to the cheating itself, but rather to his refusal to admit to it. You, like most people, do not like being lied to. Fine. But now I have two questions:
Again, Mark, please try to be clear. I never said I didn't care about cheating. I don't particulalry care about ratings, for the reasons you mention. But these are different things. His protestations of innocence piss me off because I hate being lied to, or played for a fool. Besides, it takes very little energy to refute his claims. Why are you so interesting in mediating this debate, or appearing as the Voice of Reason?
3. Where you being lied to by Tosser before you read this thread, i.e. before you asked him about his cheating?
4. Also, and this is the comical one (the real answer to your last question), why did you pick this particular instance of you being the victim of lies to bark about? If your circumstances are sufficiently close to those of the enormous majority of the human race, you are being lied to by multitudes so great that you can't possibly cross-examine all of them. Why (and I do not mean to sound belligerent here, only curious) do you choose to attack this one? Is it because, as you say, "it takes very little energy to refute his claims."?
20 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenDidn't I just claim, in my last post, that I did care about cheating. Please pay attention.
I'm not interested in mediating, as the exchange between Tosser and the rest of us bears more resemblance to, say, a lower primate brought before the Inquisition than it does to a debate. That said, I think I should answer your points. It seems from what you say that you don't have any real objections to the cheating itself, but rather to his refusal ...[text shortened]... ck this one? Is it because, as you say, "it takes very little energy to refute his claims."?
1) No.
2) This instance was obvious. I act in a similar fashion when other obvious lies present themselves.
20 Jul 03
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarr"Didn't I just claim, in my last post, that I did care about cheating. Please pay attention. "
1) No.
2) This instance was obvious. I act in a similar fashion when other obvious lies present themselves.
No, you said that you didn't previously say that you didn't necessarily not care about cheating. But okay, you care about cheating. Why? (See an old thread called "a small warning". Search for "digthepig". I used to care about figs.) Is there some direct lie to you that is inherent in cheating? Or is there something else about cheating that you find repulsive?
20 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenThis is just hair splitting, it was obvious from the context of my last post, and from the fact that I not only point out cheaters but take them to task in the forums that I take cheating seriously.
"Didn't I just claim, in my last post, that I did care about cheating. Please pay attention. "
No, you said that you didn't previously say that you didn't necessarily not care about cheating. But okay, you care about cheating. Why? (See an old thread called "a small warning". Search for "digthepig". I used to care about figs.) Is there ...[text shortened]... hat is inherent in cheating? Or is there something else about cheating that you find repulsive?
I think cheating constitutes an attack on the autonomy of others, in that it attempts to prevent others from engaging in informed deliberation. This indicates that the cheater places little if any value on the ability of rational agents to set their own ends. Further, cheating amounts to treating the cheated as mere means to the satisfaction of the cheater's ends. Thus the cheater makes an exception of himself, and fails to extend to others' ends the same respect with which he treats his own. The cheater fails to recognize the value intrinsic to others, seeing them as merely causal forces able to be manipulated for the derivation of his own pleasure. I find this outlook repugnant.
Mark, I find it very difficult to believe that you merely forgot about unrated games in your challenge to tosser. In your posts leading up to your challenge with tosser, you make it clear that part of the motivation for the challenge is the promise of easily won points. You could have easily shown that tosser doesn't deserve his win/loss record by challenging himto an unrated game. The fact is, you just didn't think about the moral dimension to the issue. None of us should endeavor to benefit from the ill-gotten gains of others.
21 Jul 03
1 edit
All quoted material was originally posted by bbarr.I apologize for replying to your points out of sequence. I have to think as I go here.
Mark, I find it very difficult to believe that you merely forgot about unrated games in your challenge to tosser. In your posts leading up to your challenge with tosser, you make it clear that part of the motivation for the challenge is the promise of easily won points.
Actually, consider the fact that of the 117 games I have played to completion, 116 were rated, including many that I knew from the start that I would lose. Further, the last unrated game I played was in December. The thought really did not cross my mind. As I don't want to be the Tosser figure in The Inquisition II: Unrated, I deleted that game (Tosser had not moved) and started #242435: Marsupial's Revenge. It is unrated. The 'easily won points' business was silliness on my part. Of course I had no guarantee of anything to do with Tosser's chess abilities. He could be Kasparov for all I know.
The fact is, you just didn't think about the moral dimension to the issue.
I didn't. Morality is such a jumbled heap of undefineds for me that I usually don't think about morals in anything but a detached way, and most of my theoretical conclusions, no matter how airtight, fall apart in some bizarre unforeseen situation.
Further, cheating amounts to treating the cheated as mere means to the satisfaction of the cheater's ends. Thus the cheater makes an exception of himself, and fails to extend to others' ends the same respect with which he treats his own.
This I agree with. However, what strike me as odd are the things which satisfy the cheater. Tosser is cheating for the sake of making a number meaningless except to the casual observer. I find that rather sad.
The cheater fails to recognize the value intrinsic to others, seeing them as merely causal forces able to be manipulated for the derivation of his own pleasure.
Where does the intrinsic value of individuals come from? Surely you hold moral notions, which are admittedly quite important, to higher intellectual standards than that. Sure, I also have some conception of the 'value of people' (I am not a sociopath), but I don't invoke it in arguments because I haven't rigourously defined it, and I am confused by it. Maybe you aren't; describe this 'intrinsic value of others'. It seems to me that values are a property of the valuer, not the object, and, as such, the cheater is recognizing the value of others, namely as "causal forces able to be manipulated for the derivation of his own pleasure". Again, I think that what causes Tosser pleasure is rather sad.
I think cheating constitutes an attack on the autonomy of others, in that it attempts to prevent others from engaging in informed deliberation. This indicates that the cheater places little if any value on the ability of rational agents to set their own ends.
This I can accept, except in circumstances where the cheating constitutes 'informed deliberation' to a greater degree than does the activities of others involved.
21 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenObviously I don't think that in a world without valuers there would be anything like value. That is, I think that it is something about us as persons in virtue of which other things have value. You should know what this is, as I've remarked on it in other threads. I think that moral notions are derived from rules of rationality. You take yourself to be a locus of intrinsic value, in that you feel others have done something wrong when they take advantage of you. Failing to extend this recognition of value to others is inconsistent.
I apologize for replying to your points out of sequence. I have to think as I go here.
[b]Mark, I find it very difficult to believe that you merely forgot about unrated games in your challenge to tosser. In your posts leading up to your challenge with tosser, you make it clear that part of the motivation for the challenge is the promise of easily ...[text shortened]... s 'informed deliberation' to a greater degree than does the activities of others involved.
21 Jul 03
Originally posted by kirksey957I totally agree with you Kirk, those freethinking Freethinkers think to freely, I think...🙂
AHHHHHHHH! Is there no end to this freethinking? I am waiting for this to degenerate until the subject of sin comes in. 🙂
But about ICTWizz, a person I know played him, the first two times he trashed him, but after those two, he didn't stood a chance anymore, and after checking ICTWizz' moves with the Fritz engine....guess what....all the same....
Olav
21 Jul 03
Originally posted by LivingLegendInteresting - Do ICTWizz and Cymro share the same PC? I heard that they are related
I totally agree with you Kirk, those freethinking Freethinkers think to freely, I think...🙂
But about ICTWizz, a person I know played him, the first two times he trashed him, but after those two, he didn't stood a chance anymore, and after checking ICTWizz' moves with the Fritz engine....guess what....all the same....
Olav
Romeo