22 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou said it is up to Russ to determine if section6 of the TOS and/or section 3(c) have been violated. However for anything else it is not up to Russ but up to two individuals. See the irony?
What stops a thief from stealing again? Besides internal controls that nobody else can effect, the threat of punishment. It's true it's not much of a bother to just start up a new account after you've been banned, but you do lose all your game history and accomplishments and even have to hide your persona a bit. It's a bit of a nuisance if nothing else. ...[text shortened]... bition has been somewhat aggressively enforced in the past. That's what I am talking about.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by JieApparently the Site Admins here don't agree with your interpretation of the TOS, Section 6. Imagine that.
The site allows free users and paid up members/subscribers. However the site has a TOS that means even paid up members can be nuked for breaking the TOS. There are plenty of examples of two paid up members using abusive/insulting words contrary to section 6 of the TOS in this thread alone.
Put the crowbar in your wallet and purchase your own site if you want to run one.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reverse is also true, if the admins also disagree with your opinion of alleged double accounts. I heard a rumour you were leaving the site anyway.
Apparently the Site Admins here don't agree with your interpretation of the TOS, Section 6. Imagine that.
Put the crowbar in your wallet and purchase your own site if you want to run one.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by JieNo. It's up to Russ to decide if Section 6 of the TOS has been violated and if he so determines it's up to him what to do about it.
You said it is up to Russ to determine if section6 of the TOS and/or section 3(c) have been violated. However for anything else it is not up to Russ but up to two individuals. See the irony?
It's up to me and any moral agent to decide what they believe is morally correct under the circumstances and to act accordingly.
There is no irony or any contradiction between those two points of view.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by JieThey've banned numerous double accounts. They've yet to ban anyone for insulting someone in the Public Forums (there'd be hardly anybody left if they did).
The reverse is also true, if the admins also disagree with your opinion of alleged double accounts. I heard a rumour you were leaving the site anyway.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou and any "moral agent" can determine when to put the TOS in your pocket, abuse and harass others and make public cheating accusations then pull the TOS out of your pocket and claim the TOS has been violated. And you also happen to be some big time lawyer in real life. Interesting....
No. It's up to Russ to decide if Section 6 of the TOS has been violated and if he so determines it's up to him what to do about it.
It's up to me and any moral agent to decide what they believe is morally correct under the circumstances and to act accordingly.
There is no irony or any contradiction between those two points of view.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by JieAgain there is nothing in the TOS banning well-founded statements that Player W has a very high incidence of match ups with engines. It has generally been decided by the Forum Mods that this is undesirable in the Forums. I don't agree with them and have had a certain number of posts and threads removed. So be it; no one has ever told me that I risked a permanent ban from the site for doing what I do.
You and any "moral agent" can determine when to put the TOS in your pocket, abuse and harass others and make public cheating accusations then pull the TOS out of your pocket and claim the TOS has been violated. And you also happen to be some big time lawyer in real life. Interesting....
Cheating with engines, by contrast, is a bannable offense beyond question as specifically stated in 3(b) of the TOS. ALL persons on this site had to acknowledge that on several occasions. Unlike Section 6 there is no room for interpretation.
Now do you understand the difference?
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt appears once again you are wrong, and have been corrected by a very observant Mod! 😉 Don't get your panties all in a bunch over it though! It just goes to show everyone is wrong from time to time. 🙂
Again there is nothing in the TOS banning well-founded statements that Player W has a very high incidence of match ups with engines. It has generally been decided by the Forum Mods that this is undesirable in the Forums. I don't agree with them and have had a certain number of posts and threads removed. So be it; no one has ever told me that I risked a p ...[text shortened]... on 6 there is no room for interpretation.
Now do you understand the difference?
EDIT: You do understand my point?
22 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Very RustyNo, I'm not wrong. My statement regarding the TOS is correct. I have no way of verifying the veracity of CFT's claim, but I'll concede that it's true. The policy remains a Forum Posting Guideline and not a part of the TOS. The rest of my post is factually correct as well.
It appears once again you are wrong, and have been corrected by a very observant Mod! 😉 Don't get your panties all in a bunch over it though! It just goes to show everyone is wrong from time to time. 🙂
EDIT: You do understand my point?
22 Nov 08
Hi Jie,
Korch
Fat Lady
Squelchbelch
no1marauder
Tyrannosauruschex
(Why aint I on the list. Im higher graded, in the real world, than these guys).
Untouchable?
Fat Lady, Squelch, Korch and Rex all recently got a 3/4 day ban.
All have been banned before in the past.
Fat Lady is not long back from a 3 year ban!
(cannot recall No1 getting a recent forum ban. Suspect he has a few
under his belt. No1. sorry if I'm doing you a mis-service)
I know they all, including you, sail close to the wind.
But if you had your way the chess forum would be....dull...very dull.
Korch and Fat Lady should count to 20 before they post.
Squelch is the voice of the little people.
Rex is simply a wind-up merchant.
No1 never takes prisoners and does not suffer fools.
and me?
I'm apparently "off my head but very entertaining." A GM said that.
http://www.chessware.de/catalog/geoff-chandler-keith-ruxtonbrrampant-chess-p-2815.html
Yes!! a plug on the General Forum. Boy am I good.