05 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is affecting their reputation on RHP.
Second, RHP is not giving out the real names of the cheats. They maintain their anonymity, and suffer no real reputational damage.[/b]
It is also possible (and indeed likely) that the people are known by their real names to some members on here and hence there is a link between their reputation here and in the real world.
M
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by noxidjkramHave you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map? If you had you may have noted the text:
I think there is a major difference between privately removing someones access for being suspected of cheating, and actually saying "This person was banned for cheating".
[edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]
M
"The Chess At Work game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated."
As I said, players are not bad for "reasonable doubt of cheating" (what does that even mean?), we would be in a bad way if they were.
So, my saying that Ironman has been removed for cheating is correct beyond a doubt.
06 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by noxidjkramRHP isn't liable if people voluntarily tell others their real name.
It is affecting their reputation on RHP.
It is also possible (and indeed likely) that the people are known by their real names to some members on here and hence there is a link between their reputation here and in the real world.
M
They also aren't liable if they name a real name as a cheat, if they have proof that the player cheated. No lie, no libel.
06 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZNote the words "concluded beyond reasonable doubt"
Have you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map? If you had you may have noted the text:
"The Chess At Work game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminate were.
So, my saying that Ironman has been removed for cheating is correct beyond a doubt.
This is different from 'proved'.
To prove something you have to show that it is true - they have not, they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt.
As to your other point:
3 (b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
Where here does it mention the word 'cheat' or 'cheating'?? It doesn't - it says that you must follow the terms of service with regards to chess engines... etc.
M
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemMy point is that they don't have 'proof' - they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt. I suggest this is very different.
RHP isn't liable if people voluntarily tell others their real name.
They also aren't liable if they name a real name as a cheat, if they have proof that the player cheated. No lie, no libel.
Also, as pointed out in an earlier post - these people havent been removed for cheating, they have been removed because site admin have come to the conclusion that they didn't folllow the terms of service.
Going back to the post i commented on saying we should label people "BANNED FOR CHEATING" - this would indeed be libelous without proof - which again, we don't have.
M
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI hadn't - thanks for that.
Have you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map?
Interesting to note how many people have been concluded to have been contravening the terms of service - and how many of these were very highly rated players.
Cheers,
M
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by noxidjkramYou're arguing semantics now. And badly.
Note the words "concluded beyond reasonable doubt"
This is different from 'proved'.
To prove something you have to show that it is true - they have not, they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt.
As to your other point:
3 (b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. ...[text shortened]... ys that you must follow the terms of service with regards to chess engines... etc.
M
Concluding beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, not fufilling your registration obligations in regard to 3b is cheating.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZArguing semantics - yep, for sure...
You're arguing semantics now. And badly.
Concluding beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, not fufilling your registration obligations in regard to 3b is cheating.
badly - probably... 😀
Giving up as i can't seem to make my point clearly enough (or perhaps indeed i am just plain wrong - but i don't believe so).
Cheers for discussion.
M
06 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by noxidjkramThe Earth is round, but the only way to know this is to either sail around it... or view it from space.
Arguing semantics - yep, for sure...
badly - probably... 😀
Giving up as i can't seem to make my point clearly enough (or perhaps indeed i am just plain wrong - but i don't believe so).
Cheers for discussion.
M
Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it.
A jury judges people who kill. They may find the suspect to be guilty. Are they guilty, or is that just someone's opinion?
P-
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by Phlabibitnot to argue semantics, but actually earth is more of an oval shape
The Earth is round, but the only way to know this is to either sail around it... or view it from space.
Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it.
A jury judges people who kill. They may find the suspect to be guilty. Are they guilty, or is that just someone's opinion?
P-