Game Mod Vote

Originally posted by no1marauder

3) I think from what I understand the Game Mods' prior standards were too lax; there are many blatant cheaters here operating freely. While the Site Admins are ultimately responsible for the final decisions, I think the Game Mod team should be more forceful in demanding prompt action. I have already proposed that once the team has found overwhelming ev ssential with a view to improving them to assure that cheats are swiftly IDed and dealt with.

Nice proposal, do you have an OTB rating that can verify your identity?

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Well we all know you're qualified.

Just one question how come you started the site at 1500 and are now 2200? I looked at a few of them and they seem to have a lot of tactical mistakes, did you move alot quicker back then? You're moving slow as molasses in our game thats for sure.

As a game mod I err on the side of caution, but the same can't be said of my chess!

I had not played serious chess since I emigrated from the UK in 1984, where I played for school, university and club. When I started here 4 years ago, I was having lots of fun. Still, I did win 19 of my first 20 games.

I moved fast, impetuously, played too many games (over 150 concurrently at one stage), and I made lots of mistakes. Its hard to play so many games and ensure that it is to your best ability. Despite that, my win/loss ratio always stayed well above 80%. I've slowed down since then, and with study I've improved various aspects of my game. I still drop clangers, but far less frequently.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Well we all know you're qualified.

Just one question how come you started the site at 1500 and are now 2200? I looked at a few of them and they seem to have a lot of tactical mistakes, did you move alot quicker back then? You're moving slow as molasses in our game thats for sure.

😵

From Thread 89499

My basic function as a game mod last time was limited running of batches, reviewing results posted, answering PM messages, and it helps me as a forum mod when people get into an uproar as a player is removed or is under suspicion.

I also came up with ideas for a few of the tools the game mods used last time around, and am sure to come up with new ideas for us to consider. Same goes for Forum moderation, I'm very active there and consider myself a problem solver when a new tool or idea is needed to keep the forums going smooth and happy for most users on either side of any dispute.

Being in both positions for some time now has given me the ear of Russ who I can contact and usually get a quick response. I will in no way be as powerful a number cruncher or have the extensive understanding of results like the higher rated chess players should, but I believe myself a valuable asset.

P-

I think Ive narrowed it down to these candidates:

Korch: Pros- Nice resume, very little doubt he's a very strong player. Good at chess, has beatin some very strong players on our blitz site at low time controls of 1/3. cons- Cant really think of any. I guess if you really wanted to dig deep you could say maybe arrikas wasnt as delusional as he sounded.

no1marauder: Pros- Good proposal, iron fist against cheating. Great win against Yozzer cons: might be alittle too aggressive, but I think its just what the doctor ordered.

cmsMaster: Pros- Vocal in the forums, a known asset to the site. Has alot of integrity. Cons- how can he tell the difference between a true strong player and an engine one if he's not a strong player himself.

Gatecrasher: Pros- Experience with game moderation, inventor of the mysterious, "tool." Been very deligent with his work. High rated player, seemed like the leader of the former game mods. One of the few players to have winning chances vs. Weyerstrass Cons: Why the 700 pt improvement although it looks like a gradual ascention and mistakes that looks like toomany games. why the slow rate of bannings? does his slow rate of moving translate to slow rate of moderation?

David Tebb: Pros: Verified strong player. Experience with game moderation. Respected, proven. And he beat Kasperov, how can go wrong? Cons: Its hard to find anything with this candidate, but if he wants to be a mod so bad why did he quit the first time? Is he going to quit again?

!~Tony~! Like cms, respected in the forums, vocal cons- like cms is he qualified for the job can he tell the difference between a legit strong player and a machine?


Well I really havent made up my mind. I really like all these candidates Im going to take Korch probably for sure, Ive played him many times on fast blitz controls and just comfortable with him, and 1 more high rated player, Im leaning towards marauder at the moment, because I can choose 3 and I dont think Marauder will get as much love as Gate but I do like Gatecrasher, I like the inventiveness of Gate to create the tool and I know he can deliver the goods, I like that kind of self initiative, Ive soured on Tebb because Im not sure if he wants to be a game mod. I want 1 lower rated player, either cms or Tony, I just know cms a little better so I think I'll go with him not theres anything wrong with Tony.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I would like to hear from themselves why they should get my vote.
Their opinion of cheating, and how severe the action will be, how active they can promise to be in moderate games, and other things of interest.

Hi Fabian

I have already posted something over
[http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=88786&page=6]
here, so I won't repeat that.

I'll just clarify that my reservations have been met. GateCrasher explained what the expected workload is. I am confident that I can cope with that without difficulty. There have also been suggestions that the mods should be investigated as a matter of course every few months (Korch). I have suggested "at election, and again each year (or when reported, if that is sooner)."

What else to say? Are you interested in voting for someone who keeps quiet when there is little or nothing to say? I'll answer questions, if asked here.

And yes, if asked, I'll prove my identity and rating to the Site Admins. Putting too much detail in a public forum is not my way of doing things.

Cheers,
Gezza
edit: inserted link again.

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson
Nice proposal, do you have an OTB rating that can verify your identity?

Yes, it seems to be quite well known on this site.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, it seems to be quite well known on this site.

At least not for me. Could you tell it please? Just for interest.

There is not the remotest correlation between OTB and this site, by rote, a Correspondence Site. To allude to this fact is ignorant and uninformed. To put forth your name real or imagined as a bar for inclusion is also redundant. FICGS requires your real name. Does that mean you are anyone important or that you don't use an engine and they allow it tacitly, absolutely not! This whole process is getting over the top and may possibly defame and disservice this site!

Originally posted by Korch
At least not for me. Could you tell it please? Just for interest.

Hear hear!

Originally posted by Katonah
There is not the [b]remotest correlation between OTB and this site, by rote, a Correspondence Site.[/b]

That's patently ridiculous.

Originally posted by dottewell
That's patently ridiculous.

I have no OTB rating, giving me a 1400 point difference between my CC and OTB rating....chew on that 😛

Originally posted by HomerJSimpson


!~Tony~! Like cms, respected in the forums, vocal cons- like cms is he qualified for the job can he tell the difference between a legit strong player and a machine?

As far as my ability to differentiate between a strong human and an engine, I think I could. I use engines quite a bit during my preparation for OTB tournaments, trying to find interesting new moves, and I've also used it for hours and hours analyzing the 9. 0-0-0 Yugoslav Attack (trying to save Black!). Anyway, in doing this I've really realized how unhumanlike and unnatural an engines play can be. It's commonplace now for me to have to mess with the engines lines, trying to pick out moves that humans would actually play, and to try moves that computers generally wouldn't look at, or evaluate positions that computers don't really understand. It turns out that engines don't particularly understand the Dragon that well. Anyway, I don't feel that I need to defend myself any longer against these quasi-insults. 😀 And BTW, I don't consider 1870 to be low rated, especially given that OTB I'm over 100 points stronger. 😀 Happy voting everyone.

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Hear hear!

He already posted it and you know it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't consider it "damning evidence". My OTB rating is 385 points lower than my rating here. If one is used to playing without a clock most of their life in casual settings or on an internet CC site, the changeover to OTB tournament play with a clock ticking can be quite a shock.

He also posted it was about 100 points greater than nmdbaker, and you know his his OTB rating... what was it? 2200?

P-

Originally posted by Katonah
There is not the remotest correlation between OTB and this site, by rote, a Correspondence Site. To allude to this fact is ignorant and uninformed. To put forth your name real or imagined as a bar for inclusion is also redundant. FICGS requires your real name. Does that mean you are anyone important or that you don't use an engine and they allow it tacitly, ...[text shortened]... t! This whole process is getting over the top and may possibly defame and disservice this site!

So, for instance, a 1350 OTB patzer uses a db, thinks for several hours on each move & suddenly becomes a tactical & strategic powerhouse, sweeping away 98% of the other players on the site & gets a 2000+ rating???

I don't buy it for a second.

Maybe there's a couple of hundred points difference either way (more so at lower levels, obviously) but the OTB & CC ratings should be roughly in the same ball park.

OTB in my first season I've drawn ECF 163, 128 & beaten a few ECF 60-100's. I've also lost around 45% of my games, mostly against ECF 90+'s.
My ECF rating should be around 90 = roughly 1500-1600. My site rating here is roughly 1550 average.