04 Feb 10
Originally posted by clandarkfireFrom The TOS
What did he do wrong?
I thought it was Ok to make multiple accounts, so long as you only use one of them?
Line 3
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by clandarkfireThat's true. You can create a new account as long as you never use your old account again. However, if a user is banned then he cannot come back at all. What would be the point of banning someone if you just let them come back with a new account? If I remember correctly, and I might be wrong about this, I believe Diskamyl was banned for things he either posted in the forums or in a pm to another member.
What did he do wrong?
I thought it was Ok to make multiple accounts, so long as you only use one of them?
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsYeah and I heard yesterday that I'm DanVM
From The TOS
Line 3
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by Fat LadyRemembering that the guy in question does not speak English as his first language, it looks like he is saying "You may use any means to try to defeat me". Regardless of the posturing and willy waving on chess.com, that says nothing about what he uses when playing chess, just that he doesn't mind what aids you employ against him.
What's this all about then? User 458573
Is he saying "I use everything available..." or "Feel free to use everything available against me"?
04 Feb 10
Atlantischess has now been banned for cheating on chess.com:
http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/atlantischess
Wouldn't it would be great if the online chess sites adopted a "banned from one, banned from all" scheme!
(e.g. see http://www.luton.gov.uk/0xc0a80123%200x0d440020)
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by Fat LadyI suppose that would have to depend on why they were banned. Imagine if you were banned from every pub in town for saying "bum" in the posh winebar.
Atlantischess has now been banned for cheating on chess.com:
http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/atlantischess
Wouldn't it would be great if the online chess sites adopted a "banned from one, banned from all" scheme!
(e.g. see http://www.luton.gov.uk/0xc0a80123%200x0d440020)
To me, it looks as if chess.com responded to the baying of the mob rather than any evidence that had been presented. I get the distinct impression that all chess sites that disallow engine assistance are in the habit of dragging their feet over banning cheats, or even just not acting at all! However, I dislike the idea that a ban should be based solely on how many pitchfork waving peasants are currently outside the castle gates. That kind of policy could easily lead to people being banned for no real reason.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by DiophantusDid you bother to look at this at all?
I suppose that would have to depend on why they were banned. Imagine if you were banned from every pub in town for saying "bum" in the posh winebar.
To me, it looks as if chess.com responded to the baying of the mob rather than any evidence that had been presented. I get the distinct impression that all chess sites that disallow engine assistance are i ...[text shortened]... castle gates. That kind of policy could easily lead to people being banned for no real reason.
http://www07.chess.uo.zerolag.com/forum/view/game-analysis/top-cc-according-to-rybka-3
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by heinzkatI wonder how often there is sufficient evidence to ban a player for engine use but a site has simply not acted on it. It seems to me this often happens in high profile bannings where the player is known to be titled or has been at or near the top of the rankings on the site for a while. I have noticed quite often a site will exhibit apparently bad timing, waiting to ban someone who is clearly a cheat until the number of vocal pitchfork wavers grows to some critical mass. This seems to have happened with Atlantischess and Ouachita on chess.com, and also DanVM here. I am not sure if this deliberate policy (hope the problem goes away) or just coincidence. Either way, the more often this happens the more likely it is that people will think that shouting "CHEAT" loudly will result in their target being banned. I am also puzzled as to why chess.com allowed the Atlantischess thread to carry on until he had been banned considering that such discussions are clearly against chess.com forum rules.
Yeah that was the pitch fork crowd
NB Just to forestall any (deliberate) misunderstanding, I am not saying anyone is or is not a cheat, I am not saying any particular method of cheat detection is or is not accurate and I am definitely not saying that any site or individual ignores cheating!