Roll Back Tourney Victories for Cheaters

Originally posted by PocketKings
you hear the term "rec whore" thrown around here sometimes. well you are a "rec prude". have you taken a rec vow of chastity or something?

I only use recommends as a way of alerting the site admin that there is something worthy of their attention.

Whilst your comment was amusing to me, and worthy of a grin, it did not fit my recommendation criteria.

A 'rec prude' - well i've never been called one of those before... 😀

Thanks - i think...

M

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Only if you ignore those inconvenient, nagging little words like [b]unjust.[/b]

And that returns us to square one.

We have a difference of opinion here that i don't think we can reconcile via our discussion.

M

Originally posted by noxidjkram
And that returns us to square one.

We have a difference of opinion here that i don't think we can reconcile via our discussion.

M

Why aren't the banned players suing RHP?

Originally posted by noxidjkram
My point is that they don't have 'proof' - they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt. I suggest this is very different.

Difference, but not very different. Absolute 'proof' is not really required by the site admins.

On agreeing to the TOS, players agree to Clause 13: "Further, you agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in RHP's sole discretion and that RHP shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account, any associated email address, or access to the Service."

While not absolute proof in its purest form, "overwhelming evidence and a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard, and certainly high enough to be considered "sufficient proof" for cheating on an on-line chess site.

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.

Not abiding by the TOS is, by definition, cheating

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.

"Banned for cheating" is a statement of fact. Like "Convicted for Muder" or "Fined for speeding". A statement of fact cannot be libelous.

Whether one can prove or disprove Player X cheated does not change the fact that player X has quite clearly been "banned for cheating".

Going back to the original point, though, I don't see any merit in changing the past tournament results. Nor do I see any merit in having "BANNED FOR CHEATING" on an ex-players profile. But I do think banned players should be removed from the Tournaments Overview.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Difference, but not very different. Absolute 'proof' is not really required by the site admins.

On agreeing to the TOS, players agree to Clause 13: "Further, you agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in RHP's sole discretion and that RHP shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account, any associated email address, or access to the Service."

Yes - not liable for termination of account - fine.

But where does it say that RHP will not be liable for defamation of character if they label you a cheat?

I'm sure (at least i think i am 😕) that my argument is that you can't label/publish/advertise someone a cheat, as it is libelous without proof, and that we can't prove that they are a cheat. We can only conclude that they probably are.

M

Originally posted by Gatecrasher


"Banned for cheating" is a statement of fact. Like "Convicted for Muder" or "Fined for speeding". A statement of fact cannot be libelous.

Whether one can prove or disprove Player X cheated does not change the fact that player X has quite clearly been "banned for cheating".

You are right it doesn't - they indeed have been banned for the reason of cheating if the site admin says they have.

What i'm saying is that the site admin cannot say that for fear of libel - since they cannot absolutely prove that the person has cheated.

Originally posted by noxidjkram
But where does it say that RHP will not be liable for defamation of character if they label you a cheat?

Right here:

18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT RHP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF RHP HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE; (ii) THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS AND SERVICES RESULTING FROM ANY GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH OR FROM THE SERVICE; (iii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iv) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE SERVICE; OR (v) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE SERVICE.

As it says, RHP is not liable for any matter relating to the termination of the service.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Right here:

18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT RHP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF RHP HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (v) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE SERVICE.

So it does - i'm clamped! 😀

We're not liable for anything to do with owt! Thats a great catch all statement!

*bows out (hopefully) gracefully*

M