Russ, can you please explain?

I got a message from smurfchess through YouAreWrong.
Here it is exactly like I got it:

From: YouAreWrong
Date: Nov 27 23:03
Subject: This is smurfchess


I won't use this to play games....

This is smurfchess, you will win our game. I was blocked (wrongfully) from site by Russ. I don't know why he did it, but created this account to ask him.

This is how the sitemaster handles questions here??? I knew of nothing I was doing wrong. I wasn't an undefeated 4000 rated cheater. i have only 1 account(except this one). And he didn't even send an e-mail to me telling me of his actions, nor what is going on!!!

I play at REAL sites such as ICC and USChessLive... what is all the DRAMA HERE!!!! Not picking on you, SkipSlot and I are members at another site too and know one another, he called you a veteran which is why I played you.

Sorry about the game, smurfchess (yes, I am a female).

I'd very much appreciate it if you would react to this. I thought of asking in private but since it concerns banning people from the site I think it's important enough to discuss this openly.
I know too little of what's going on to have an opinion on this and welcome any input!

Quirine

sorry to confuse this thread a bit but :

i cant help comparing this issue, of whether or not russ should dislose all, with another issue, that of guantanamo bay (and other u.s. foreign policies).

russ is overwhelmingly powerful. he has information and abilities the rest of us do not have. he can use this to solve problems we cannot. and we are at his mercy. he is also a human with many issues of personal gain involved.

personally i feel unhappy with the trustworthiness of u.s. covert actions, but i trust russ.

this is an interesting revelation to me because they seem similar situations yet i have different intuition responses.

All I know about this is what Russ announced at the Tournaments forum; that Virus Carrier, smurfchess and lefthandedgambit have been removed from the site due to TOS infringements. Don't know anything more specific though, would be interesting to know the actual infringements.

If smurfchess doesn't know why she's been banned, I should think that the best way to find out would be to send Russ an e-mail asking about it.

-Jarno

In the business that I'm in, we always inform the customer before discontinuing server. Its common business ethics, even if they did do something wrong to fuel it. But somehow I'm not suprised here.

I wish to make this statement, knowing that I may (WILL) be banned from this site...

I have heard from a party who was banned from this site today. I have known this ACTUAL PERSON for some 3 years. We played in the 2000 World Open in the Open Section where she resigned after 38 moves of a tough Spanish Game.

There were 3 who were banned, none played vs each other in the tourney. All 3 HAVENOT played all 3. I believe that there was 2 games between the lot (hardly cheating).

It was brought to my attention that all 3 entered the same day (you got to be kidding), is that the common thread for being barred!!!

Please inform me, RUSS, what was the reason. Was it a case of a losing opponent complaining 47 times. If it was... do the right thing and throw him(them) out and re-instate the 3 barred members. This is a chess-playing site.

PLAY CHESS.

Furthermore, I have taken the time (3hrs) this Holiday, to scan some of the 3 players games and cannot see signs of playing aids(unless they are a rather weak).

I am not "hurrahing" for them, but was it entirely the correct thing to do?

Very disappointed, Baron of Chess State of Washington,USA

Originally posted by Pyrrho
All I know about this is what Russ announced at the Tournaments forum; that Virus Carrier, smurfchess and lefthandedgambit have been removed from the site due to TOS infringements. Don't know anything more specific though, would be interesting to know the actual infringements.

If smurfchess doesn't know why she's been banned, I should think that the best way to find out would be to send Russ an e-mail asking about it.

-Jarno

We should make this thread accordingly to what players have beem unset with in the last few weeks,. It startes with madknigth getting accusss but what about like Mister X, who got a really rool deal.Number 2 RATED player on other site, the list goes on though, I guess the conclusion is this will not mean anything, they has there rules, god knows where they are, Basically, I am re grouping. Have a NICE SOAP OPERO GUY, IT BEEN FUN. UNTIL NOW. ho well.

A few weeks ago everyone was up in arms for what one player did, he paid the price. I have forgiven him for hurting me, and moved on. At the time all of this was happening a few, several i do not know how many, people complained to Russ. Apparently, i have heard this from Russ, some of them threaten to leave the site because of what was happening.

In a reactionary move Russ and Chris, the site administrators, decided to take action to prevent people abusing the system here. We have all known for a long time that people could create multiple accounts. We have all seen the evidence in the forums about fellow members complaining that someone is cheating by using bogus aliases to win games. The incident that caused all of this happened when a player entered one tournament numerous times using multiple accounts.

So now we are left with the pieces of this mess. The terms of service agreement forced me to close the account i had, which had the sole purpose of playing chess and never have a forum identity. Trekkie, me, and my other account NEVER played each other and never were going to play each other. That is an aside back to the real point, i personally wrote to Russ when news of the service agreement came out warning him something like this was likely to happen.

You can throw me a "thousand" ways of trying to crack down on people using multiple accounts. And i can throw you, because of the implicit nature of the internet, a thousand and one ways of getting around all of those solutions. If i really was desperate enough to want to, in this case, cheat the system and win more games of chess.

So the question is who are these "terms of service" agreements going to affect:

1) The stupid idiots who want to cheat the system but do not know how not to get caught. They deserve to be banned for sheer idiocy.

2) A group of innocent people, who are hard to pinpoint, but through circumstance are caught in the net because no system can be fool proof, no matter how many checks and balances are used.

3) Absolutely every member on this site. Why ? Because we now know we have this system that "prevents people from using multiple accounts" and blocks them if they are caught. Which sound all well and good, until you think about the reality.

* Is the system going to catch everyone who is doing wrong, on this site ? NO

* Is this system fool proof in the matter of preventing innocent people from being caught up in the it ? NO

* Can i be sure that i will not be banned solely because of circumstance and not because i broke the agreement ? NO

* Does this system make me comfortable at night knowing i will not be abused or cheated or have any wrong done to me whilst i am here ? NO, because how can i be 100% sure.

In my mind four No's from four question is four too many. I would be happier if the whole thing was removed. I might even be happier if i was banned from the site, i suppose that is asking for trouble, but at least it would prove that this post was not written in vain.

-mike

ps i have copied what i have written here before i post it so that if it gets moderated, i can show people what has become of this site.

My take, I think that everyone should just play chess. I read through the forums and people wine about how things should change, and how they are not being treated fairly. I love chess, I love this site enough that someone as cheap as me paid the money. I feel bad for the admins that they probobly get online and their mailboxes are full of complaints and hate mail. I think that some of the people should be a little more greatful and less spitfull and just play chess. I work in the construction trades and there is a saying.....every one else seems to know how to do the job better than the fellow doing it.

Paying for a subscription does not put you on the board of directors!
Mike

Here's a question for Baron of Chess, Skipslot and others: Did the person who Russ banned have multiple active accounts?

If the answer is no, then the problem seems easily solved.

If the answer is yes, then Russ was well within his rights. Not only are players warned of the prohibition against multiple active accounts by the TOS agreement, but having multiple active accounts is also unethical if they are merely used to get around the six-game limit for those users who haven't subscribed. If you don't want to be limited to six-games, then play elsewhere. I, at least, have been around here long enough to remember the site almost folding for lack of funds. I remember Russ selling his car to help support this site. I remember Russ quitting his job to devote his time to this site. Anyone who comes here and creates multiple accounts simply to get around subscribing has a real lack of character.

Bennett, there should be proof, so far for what I have seen Russ announces something and goes to sleep, simply as that.

Originally posted by SkipSlot
Bennett, there should be proof, so far for what I have seen Russ announces something and goes to sleep, simply as that.

Originally posted by bbarr
Here's a question for Baron of Chess, Skipslot and others: Did the person who Russ banned have multiple active accounts?

If the answer is no, then the problem seems easily solved.

If the answer is yes, then Russ was well within hi ...[text shortened]... s simply to get around subscribing has a real lack of character.

Originally posted by bbarr
Agreed, there should be some type of evidence available when a decision to ban a member is made. So, the question is whether Russ justifiably banned one person with multiple accounts or whether he mistakenly banned three people who use the same computer, correct? Are smurfchess, lefthandgambit, etc. all members of the same family using a common computer? Ar ...[text shortened]... rst would be an explanation if the three banned members had joined using the same credit card.

Originally posted by bbarr
These would be explanation for why they would use a common computer, though only the first would be an explanation if the three banned members had joined using the same credit card.