Originally posted by atticus2I was a subscriber, but when I was constantly being harrassed and threatened to be banned from the site, I did not renew just in case.
I honestly don't know the truth of this. But it rings true from bits I've heard from the mods. It may not be the whole story either.
Remember always: RHP isn't a public service (non-subs apart). It's a private website that must minimally cover its costs from subs - even, heaven forbid, make a penny. So from Russ's POV in business terms, £30/$45 from a ch ...[text shortened]... erned. And setting up another 'mod system', how would one do that? Pay Zygalski maybe 😉
Originally posted by RJHindsMaybe it has something do with the the fact that they don't spam up the forums like you do with such inane drivel Ron?!
At the time I made that statement, I was being intimidated and harrassed by the accusations, but when I discovered that players that I was being checked against had higher matchup rates than myself, I reconsidered my hasty decision. If I am considered a cheater then I wondered why were not the rest being harrassed. The only thing I could see was that they ...[text shortened]... ow stupid belief in evolution was. Therefore, I decided I was needed here to present the truth.
I wonder what happened to cohonas because he was once rated 2451 and now he is 2287. He is one of those that I was tested against for cheating and he had a higher matchup rate than me. He beat me in both games. Yet, I was the one accused of cheating. This was at the end of last year when I was rated 2202 and he was rated 2442. GameId 8845060 Game 8845060 and gameId 8845055 Game 8845055
how about a voluntary say $10 per annum levy on your annual subscription to fund a few non-game playing game mods research with an agreed set of banning criteria (published ?) ? if enough people signed up to this I'm sure there would be some volunteers to carry out the research if they were reasonably convinced their research would be acted upon
Originally posted by st40I might volunteer if the non-game playing part is changed.
how about a voluntary say $10 per annum levy on your annual subscription to fund a few non-game playing game mods research with an agreed set of banning criteria (published ?) ? if enough people signed up to this I'm sure there would be some volunteers to carry out the research if they were reasonably convinced their research would be acted upon
Originally posted by RJHindsRon....
I think at least 100 games should be used in the average and at least 90% of the 1st choice moves of the engine should be exceeded before anyone should be considered as an engine user.
I believe you know little about psychology, and how much you can really reveal about yourself in a few words.
1. In reference to this post, I quote your usage of the words 'the chess engine'.
The word 'the', as opposed to 'a' or 'an', suggests personal knowledge of the noun we talk about. That is before you suddenly realise possile suspicion, and revert back to 'an' engine user.
2. "I was a subscriber, but when I was constantly being harrassed and threatened to be banned from the site, I did not renew just in case."
You use the words 'just in case' - which is a pre-cursive finalisation. 'Just in case' is something persons do in order to achieve what they want for guaranteed outcome, as opposed to failure. Just in case - it's almost provocative in failure to accept rigid thinking, which goes against 'divergent thinking' - the creative manifestation of continued new ideas - as a chess player would normally have attributes for.
3. Then you say, "
Admins want to be sure they are correct and fair in their actions. That is why I am still here, IMO."
Your fixation with gratification is exampled by your tendency to suckle, i.e. rely upon Admin for your presence. In your fixation with suckling, you often forget your oral tendencies. Those present themselves with certain causes. One example would be your going to the refridgerator, opening it, closing it and then going for groceries with an explanation of what you want.
Very similar to your chess dialogue. 😉
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomYou are funny. Ha ha 😀
Ron....
I believe you know little about psychology, and how much you can really reveal about yourself in a few words.
1. In reference to this post, I quote your usage of the words 'the chess engine'.
The word 'the', as opposed to 'a' or 'an', suggests personal knowledge of the noun we talk about. That is before you suddenly realise possile suspicion, ...[text shortened]... anation of what you want.
Very similar to your chess dialogue. 😉
-m.
You really thinK all your fine words convinces me you understand psychology. Perhaps, you are just trying to grab the attention away from me. 😏
Originally posted by wolfgang59I was thinking that it might be a good idea to remove non-subs from the player tables, thus removing the temptation for engine cheats to seek 'glory'..
I really think that as soon as a non-subscriber hits 1900 they should not be allowed to start any more games until they pay up.
Cheats are bad enough but at least make them contribute!
(btw: I am NOT saying that 1900+ players are cheats!)