Only Chess
06 Mar 08
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by Nordlysi see no harm bringing it into the forums at all, in fact it is a very logical approach. The outright ignorance, self-serving attitudes, hollow commentary, and shameful stupidity on this site by some of the posters here is amazing.
I rather think it was the last resort after having tried all other conceivable ways to solve this without getting anywhere.
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by sasquatch672False dichotomy, irrelevant ad hominem. 😉
King, let me give you a little perspective. What's sad is three-year-olds being thrown into bonfires in Africa because they were born to the wrong tribe. In all of the consequential things that happen in the universe, a good player whose integrity was brought into question in an utterly deplorable manner by a man or men whose chess skills far outpace ...[text shortened]... jealousy, and vindictiveness because in every walk of life, you'll encounter small people.
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by leisurelysloth🙄
It's really not his place to solve this.
We have a "Send Feedback" button which, as users of the site, is our next-to-last resort for dealing with problems. That doesn't always get the answer we desire, or get an answer within the time period we desire it, but it is the right thing to do.
If he didn't like the result of that, or the timeliness, ...[text shortened]... uch accusations should get slapped with a forum ban--whether their rating is 1300 or 2300.
09 Mar 08
All I can say is Russ has some serious problems and collateral damage clean up! You have a player who develops some statistical analysis who is a 2200+ in collusion with another +2100 rated, hmm, interesting to say the least. If there are to be any more mods on this site then they should be non playing and have no vested points interest! If all is to be believed then these two players should be summarily banned from the site themselves just for creating a atmosphere of innuendo, distrust and outright being selfserving jerks! Way to go you now win the Golden Rasberry award 🙁((
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Still does not in any way change or excuse the strange behavior of the former game mod. And it is rather obvious that you didn't read my post, or else somehow you didn't understand it, as i have already said that it is the persons reactions here that matter, not the possible punishment or non-punishment. Yes you can compare, just like one can compare seperate car crashes, even though circumstances may have been dramatically different and/or similar at the outset, the results may have been equal.
You go to jail if you bail on a trial, meaning there is more incentive to stay at a trial...you cannot compare that to this and say that just because he left he is automatically guilty! That would be the dumbest thing I had ever seen.
And yes you can "say that just because he left he is automatically guilty" because:
1) nothing prevents that from being true, and
2) that is clearly the most logical and consistent position to take, and
3) it is possible, in fact even probable that that is exactly what has occurred here.
Nor is he automatically innocent, as you have pretended, yet that is rather a sick and disasterous over-simplification, if nothing else. One which ignores the mountain of evidence that shows something else is clearly at play here.
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyAre you dull? Reactions are BASED off of consequences...we way the good and the bad and then decide what we want to do. In Cludi's case there was more bad in staying because he would forever be seen in a shady light if he was proved innocent and he would have to deal with the attacks from everybody while there is no consequence to leaving...If he was at a trial going to jail will probably be worse than facing the attacks and so he might stay... therefore the two are not comparable.
Still does not in any way change or excuse the strange behavior of the former game mod. And it is rather obvious that you didn't read my post, or else somehow you didn't understand it, as i have already said that it is the persons reactions here that matter, not the possible punishment or non-punishment. Yes you can compare, just like one can comp ne which ignores the mountain of evidence that shows something else is clearly at play here.
EDIT: Where can you quote me as saying that he is innocent?
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by sasquatch672Nice backpedal. Know any other tricks?
David: you're right. I can assume to know your motives with no more certainty than you had about Mr. Jensen when this became public. I don't care to revisit previous posts in this thread. It was improper of me to assume you were motivated by jealousy or envy. Seems this day's excitement is over with.
09 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by nmdavidbIs the title correct or should it be "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner?"
"Ah welladay, what evil looks,
had I from old and young.
Instead of the cross, the albatross,
about my neck was hung."
Coleridge, "Rime of the Ancient Mariner"
All sad
Dave
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyHe is automatically innocent until pronounced guilty. I say pronounced because this is not a court of law. The "defendant" is not even allowed into the "courtroom" in this case so it doesn't matter whether they are here or not.
Nor is he automatically innocent, as you have pretended, yet that is rather a sick and disasterous over-simplification, if nothing else. One which ignores the mountain of evidence that shows something else is clearly at play here.
This evidence that people keep on about. I have been told there is "overwhelming evidence" and now we have "a mountain of evidence". Where is it? Can I see it? Have you seen it? I strongly suspect the answer to those three questions is NO!
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by KeplerWell said. This public lynching makes me wanna puke. Innocent until proven guilty right? Cludi is right to leave, this dark cloud above him will never disappear. Makes me wonder which twisted mind brought it up in the forum. Nothing happens without a reason......
He is automatically innocent until pronounced guilty. I say pronounced because this is not a court of law. The "defendant" is not even allowed into the "courtroom" in this case so it doesn't matter whether they are here or not.
This evidence that people keep on about. I have been told there is "overwhelming evidence" and now we have "a mountain of evidence ...[text shortened]... see it? Have you seen it? I strongly suspect the answer to those three questions is NO!
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by OutpostThe full pattern of events is not available to those who were not reading the forums as this emerged. Many comments/statements were deleted almost as soon as they were posted. Consequently this thread has become rather diverse in its content and therefore isn't a 'reliable' source of info into what has happened.
Well said. This public lynching makes me wanna puke. Innocent until proven guilty right? Cludi is right to leave, this dark cloud above him will never disappear. Makes me wonder which twisted mind brought it up in the forum. Nothing happens without a reason......
And as you say - "Nothing happens without a reason..." 🙂
09 Mar 08
Originally posted by OutpostI don't buy this "innocent until proven guilty" thing which so many people have brought up. If you are dealing with one crime and there is no chance of the person committing more of the same (e.g. he may be in custody) then by all means take as long as it takes to decide on his innocence or guilt and give him the benefit of the doubt if there isn't overwhelming evidence.
Well said. This public lynching makes me wanna puke. Innocent until proven guilty right? Cludi is right to leave, this dark cloud above him will never disappear. Makes me wonder which twisted mind brought it up in the forum. Nothing happens without a reason......
With some types of crimes (especially sex crimes) the chances of reoffending are enormous. The question I ask is how much leeway do you give the person accused of the crime and how much to possible future victims if he is allowed to go free because there is not absolute proof of his guilt?
In this situation, the "crime" was ongoing and was not victimless - other players were still being matched against someone was probably an engine user. This may seem like a small thing to many people, but as someone who has spent hours and hours analysing my games on this site I can assure you it is damn annoying when you later realise you were playing an engine all along.
I would have been happy with two alternative outcomes:
1) The game mods were left to deal with Cludi in the usual way, without anyone outside of a very few people (the person accusing him, the owners of the site and the game mods) even knowing anything was happening. Cludi could have continued playing until the process was finished.
2) Once the game mods had been disbanded for whatever reason, I think Cludi needed to be "suspended" because everyone knew who it was who had been accused of cheating. In this scenario the site owners needed to make a public announcement letting people know what was going to happen (namely a new game mods group being set-up). If they weren't sure then they should have announced that, but it was unfair on his opponents to continue to allow Cludi to play on this site.
I don't understand the statistics of how it is determined if someone is an engine user and it does worry me a little bit that the evidence is not made public. However I can understand the reasons for this and I think we all need to trust the people who are made game mods to come to the correct decision.