By the way personally I've given up trying to reason with you on this subject as that presupposes that the person is amenable to reason. You have, no matter how you evade it - and your attempts at that are transparent for all to see here - a very concrete conviction that's about as easy to get through to; in fact, so much so that it borders on agenda and I can't help but wonder how many of us, at this point, merely wonder what yours is and just wish you'd come out with it.
Instead you continue to waver like a flag in the wind; I visit and post only in this thread now not to reason with you, as I'm convinced that's impossible, but sheerly for the amusement of watching your contortions.
Originally posted by tomtom232
This is one of the most popular chess sites on the web because it bans cheaters...all popular chess sites ban cheaters..I think that after all this time if people thought that banning was unjust then they would stop but people just keep on joining.
DEBATE CLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF OVERWHELMING PROOF FOR BANNING BEING JUSTIFIED.
Originally posted by scandium
Despite your claims at being "undecided" (which imply being impartial and unbiased) Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about being undecided while still having a bias one way or the other. A great many voters, for instance, remain undecided right up until they step into the voting booth, but that doesn't mean they're not leaning heavily toward one candidate or another. Rational people tend not to make up their minds until they feel they've seen sufficient evidence to do so.
Likewise, I am skeptical -- and even fearful -- of all judicial processes that are not open and transparent. So yes, I am inclined to disagree with a banning process that is not open to public scrutiny. However, I started this thread specifically to get more evidence about it before making up my mind. There is nothing at all inconsistent about that. I'm sorry if you and a few others in this forum can't see the subtelty in that, but frankly, it's not all that subtle.
Some of you guys are wound up pretty tight.
At any rate, Gatecrasher has pointed out that conditions were worse at this site before the banning policy, and Tomtom claims that in his experience conditions are worse at other sites that don't ban players. That's good evidence, and I am swayed by it. What's really sad, though, is that it took nearly four pages of posts before enough people put down their flamethrowers that we could reach that level of discussion.
I am satisfied now, and I'm willing to bring this to a close. I thank those of you who contributed calm, rational ideas to this thread.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichScandium gave you a reasonable answer on page one, you chose to ignore it.
Originally posted by scandium
[b]Despite your claims at being "undecided" (which imply being impartial and unbiased) Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about being undecided while still having a bias one way or the other. A great many voters, for instance, remain undecided right up until they step into the voting booth ...[text shortened]... close. I thank those of you who contributed calm, rational ideas to this thread.[/b]
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibit
Scandium gave you a reasonable answer on page one, you chose to ignore it.
I'd really like to close out this thread now, but what you just said isn't true and I have to respond to it. I did not ignore Scandium on page one. I found him unconvincing on page one, and I explained why on that same page. As it happens, I found him much more convincing on page three, and I told him so on page four.
More to the point however, is the fact that even if I had found him completely convincing on page one, there was still no reason at that time not to continue to solicit more opinions from more people. One's man's opinion does not end a discussion just because you happen to agree with it.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichI actually think some of the points you raised were quite fair. There is something a little disturbing about people being found guilty without fair and transparent process. Of course, the counter-argument that making it fair and transparent would benefit actual and potential engine users also carries considerable weight. I'm not sure there is any entirely satisfactory solution to this conundrum.
Originally posted by scandium
[b]Despite your claims at being "undecided" (which imply being impartial and unbiased) Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing inconsistent about being undecided while still having a bias one way or the other. A great many voters, for instance, remain undecided right up until they step into the voting booth ...[text shortened]... close. I thank those of you who contributed calm, rational ideas to this thread.[/b]
As someone else in another thread put it, RHP is a private company not a democracy, and the management can to a large extent do whatever it sees fit. Maybe we sometimes have to accept what may appear to be a less than ideal state of affairs. After all, we're only supposed to be here to play chess!