Only Chess
06 Mar 08
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
06 Mar 08
Originally posted by wittywonkaI think there might be some confusion about the term "admin".
It wasn't a post by an admin. The post was a copy of an e-mail written by an admin (posted by a member).
I've always understood that term to refer to the site owners, Russ and Chris. They are the only "admin".
I highly doubt that either Russ or Chris would have sent a PM to someone revealing the results of an investigation into a suspected engine user. They don't do that sort of thing.
It's much more likely that the "admin" referred to was in fact a forum moderator. Perhaps it was someone who wasn’t very careful with their choice of words. They probably meant to say that no verdict had been reached, rather than the suspect was found to be not guilty.
06 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no opinion on the matter - I clearly don't have enough information to render an informed opinion. (And, of course, I wouldn't make such an opinion known even if I had a strong opinion.) However, I disagree with your contention that his leaving before the process is concluded is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt. True, he might be guilty, but he also might not be guilty. Some people simply don't care to hang around places where their reputations are constantly being brought into question (even if those accusations are false), and I can certainly sympathize with that feeling.
I didn't see it, but Gatecrasher has stated that it did not say Cludi had been found not guilty but merely that no verdict had been reached. If that is so, his leaving before the process is concluded is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.
06 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you read cludi's blog post?
People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time. Esp. when there is also direct evidence as there is in this case i.e. the Game Analysis of one of the strongest players on the site who was also an original Game Mod (and who's joining the Game Mods gave them great credibility from day 1).
Have you looked at the raw statistics?
This all comes back to the point that this never should have made it to the forums. How did it get here in the first place? Did you read that part of cludi's post?
06 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaI read Cludi's blog post. Unlike you, I don't accept it unquestioningly.
Have you read cludi's blog post?
Have you looked at the raw statistics?
This all comes back to the point that [b]this never should have made it to the forums. How did it get here in the first place? Did you read that part of cludi's post?[/b]
If there are no Game Mods, then I think cheating accusations based on game analysis and other facts are OK in the forums. Erice1 would still be here cheating if they weren't.
06 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mad Rook(Shrug) You can spin it any way you want. If a defendant left a trial in progress, the jury would almost certainly conclude that that was strong evidence of guilt. And that would be a rational and logical conclusion.
I have no opinion on the matter - I clearly don't have enough information to render an informed opinion. (And, of course, I wouldn't make such an opinion known even if I had a strong opinion.) However, I disagree with your contention that his leaving before the process is concluded is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt. True, he might be guilty, but he ...[text shortened]... tion (even if those accusations are false), and I can certainly sympathize with that feeling.
06 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't taking his post unquestioningly. I was taking the alleged e-mail from a member of the site staff unquestioningly, but if I misread it, then I'll stand corrected. But what a coincidence, it no longer exists! And what is the result, even more hype and rumors!
I read Cludi's blog post. Unlike you, I don't accept it unquestioningly.
If there are no Game Mods, then I think cheating accusations based on game analysis and other facts are OK in the forums. Erice1 would still be here cheating if they weren't.
As for the rest, the only place cheating accusations belong is in site feedback. No exceptions.
06 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe last sentence is your opinion. But it is beyond question that, in some instances, public cheating accusations led to a cheater leaving or getting banned. Erice1 is a recent example. Which "rule" is more important:
I wasn't taking his post unquestioningly. I was taking the alleged e-mail from a member of the site staff unquestioningly, but if I misread it, then I'll stand corrected. But what a coincidence, it no longer exists! And what is the result, even more hype and rumors!
As for the rest, [b]the only place cheating accusations belong is in site feedback. No exceptions.[/b]
A) Don't make cheating accusations in the forums;
OR
B) Don't cheat?
HINT: I didn't have to answer something when I logged in this morning about not doing A.
EDIT: It is getting annoying and confusing to keep posting in three threads regarding the same issue. Please state which one you prefer to use.
06 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIt seems to me you believe it is worth sacrificing players' integrity if it is possible (not proven) that they cheated. I cannot agree here without knowing for sure that they cheated. That's why I think (and why the forum moderators and site administrators have continually said) that cheating accusations don't belong in forums.
The last sentence is your opinion. But it is beyond question that, in some instances, public cheating accusations led to a cheater leaving or getting banned. Erice1 is a recent example. Which "rule" is more important:
A) Don't make cheating accusations in the forums;
OR
B) Don't cheat?
HINT: I ...[text shortened]... osting in three threads regarding the same issue. Please state which one you prefer to use.
This thread is more recent, so I'll stay in here.
06 Mar 08
The exact words from the admin were
"Noone has found that Cludi violated section 3b. The game moderation process is currently undergoing a review, but it is not the case that Cludi has been found guilty."
As I have said repeatedly, game moderation was suspended before a conclusion could be reached.
06 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaIf players haven't cheated, they they should be able to defend themselves adequately. I've faced cheating insinuations in the Clan Forum for days because I proved a member of a certain clan has lied about being a National Master. It comes with the territory if you have a good rating here; people are going to whisper things anyway, why not just face it openly?
It seems to me you believe it is worth sacrificing players' integrity if it is possible (not proven) that they cheated. I cannot agree here without knowing for sure that they cheated. That's why I think (and why the forum moderators and site administrators have continually said) that cheating accusations don't belong in forums.
This thread is more recent, so I'll stay in here.
Again, this is only if no Game Mods exist - which they don't right now.