Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichI read this thread with interest.
Originally posted by Mark Adkins
[b]You originally began the thread with the presumption that the process used to detect engine use is highly unreliable and that therefore banning is unjustified. Then, in a recent reply to scandium's criticism, you wrote: "Contrary to your claim, I didn't insist on anything. I merely posed a question: 'Is ...[text shortened]... eated... I made no such argument. Correct me (with a quote, please) if I am wrong.[/b]
I think Yuri, that you need to flag your position in this discussion *clearly*.
As an impartial reader, even I can see that whilst not directly stating some of the points you are being accused of - you are certainly implying them.
Either you agree with the current banning rules with their pros and cons or you do not. The other posters here cannot debate with you if you refuse to say anything concrete about what YOU believe. Asking them to quote you just verifies that you've said nothing decisive.
If you do have a problem with RHP rules then some constructive comments on how to improve them would not go amiss.
On a personal note your comment regarding wondering whether it's worth bothering to catch cheats beggars belief. Following that logic to its conclusion invites a world where a level playing field means EVERYBODY cheats...
Originally posted by crazycol
Either you agree with the current banning rules with their pros and cons or you do not. I respectfully disagree. I'm new here and I am just questioning one of the policies that doesn't make sense to me. I explained WHY the policy doesn't make sense to me, and I posed the question: Is banishment reasonable?" in order to get an education.
For what it's worth, no one has yet responded to my question about how banning makes sense in an environment in which banned players can easily return under new names.
If you do have a problem with RHP rules then some constructive comments on how to improve them would not go amiss. I don't have a problem with the rules. I just want to understand
1) why more people aren't concerned about the validity of the process, and
2) why people think tracking down cheaters is worth the effort when they can waltz right back in again with a new alias.
On a personal note your comment regarding wondering whether it's worth bothering to catch cheats beggars belief. Following that logic to its conclusion invites a world where a level playing field means EVERYBODY cheats... I don't see my logic leads to that conclusion. Police don't spend a lot of time prosecuting jaywalkers and litterbugs, for instance, because taxpayers don't think it's worth their time and energy. That hasn't led to the breakdown of society, and on a personal note, it also doesn't incline me, as an individual, to jaywalk or to litter.
I understand your point, though, which is that without an enforcement mechanism you believe that more people would cheat. Perhaps that's true, but I'm inclined to believe that most people aren't affected by policies such as this. In other words, I believe that most people aren't going to cheat, regardless of the threatenend punishment, for reasons I've stated previously, whereas the types of people who would cheat at online chess are going to do so anyway, regardless of the threat of punishment.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichThey might return, although it is far more difficult to come back as a paying subscriber, unless one can fake one's real world identity.
For what it's worth, no one has yet responded to my question about how banning makes sense in an environment in which banned players can easily return under new names.
But even if they do return, it is as a 1200p non-sub with no tournament, clan or league victories. It takes a long time to rebuild the house of cards.
It is far better, in my opinion, to live with the possibility that a cheat might return under a new guise, than it is to live with the certainty that they will be allowed to continue cheating with impunity.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichA large number of the people on the banned list are still playing on at other sites.
I believe that most people aren't going to cheat, regardless of the threatenend punishment, for reasons I've stated previously, whereas the types of people who would cheat at online chess are going to do so anyway, regardless of the threat of punishment.
D
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichYou ask why they cheat?
I ask this for three reasons.
First, I can't imagine why anyone (aside from a few smart-ass teenagers who just want to feel they've gotten away with something) would cheat on a chess-playing website.
1) The anonymous nature of the Internet brings out the worst in People
2) Chess Players on the Internet have huge huge huge fragile egos
3) Too many People have an abnormal obsession with their ratings
I use to play around 100 CC Games on other sights I've drastically cut down the amount of games I play to like 1 or 2 and I hardly play on Fics anymore it's full of immature little brats using Rybka and the Shredder program and it's the same story for other sights all engines if you play honestly you have 0 chance in hell of beating them even if your a Master Player.
OTB is the only way to go if you want to play real People
Mark Adkins to Yuri: "Your entire premise lies on a presumption... that the process used to detect engine use is highly unreliable and that therefore banning is unjustified."
Yuri: (quoting the above sentence): "Yes, that is my presumption."
OK, there's your quote -- a second time.
Can it be that you don't know what the word "presumption" means, here? It means that you have a position. Thus, in stating that position you have made an assertion, not "merely asked a question": and it cannot be the case that you "insist on nothing" while making an assertion.
The fact that you claim to be willing to change your position, if presented with evidence contraindicating it, is irrelevant to the fact that you DO have a position.
Yuri: "I sat thinking for a long time about why someone like that (ih8sens) would cheat. And I couldn't come up with a motive. (See my first post in this thread about motive.) And that's when I thought I should ask folks in the forum to consider whether or not banning is reasonable."
OK, there's another quote -- also a second time. Clearly, in that quote, you indicate that you do not think ih8sens cheated, because you "couldn't come up with a motive". Ostensibly, this prompted you to "ask others to consider whether or not banning is reasonable", but we have already seen that you consider it to be unreasonable, though offering no evidence for this other than the unsupported allegation that the detection process is "highly unreliable".
You then demanded that others refute this bald assertion, while essentially ignoring all remarks contrary to it. You have already been told that a detailed description of the methods used by the administrators to detect engine use will not be forthcoming, for security reasons. It is unclear what you hope to gain: perhaps a rhetorical victory that was denied you where concrete events are concerned; if so, I fear that your incompetently conducted propaganda campaign will lead to further disappointment for you.
Da svedanya, "Yuri".
Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Can it be that you don't know what the word "presumption" means, here? It means that you have a position. Thus, in stating that position you have made an assertion, not "merely asked a question": and it cannot be the case that you "insist on nothing" while making an assertion. You may indeed be a splendid chess player, Mark, but you need some practice with logic. You are confusing a premise with a conclusion, and a conclusion with a policy position. I might, for example, make the presumption that many immigrants are entering the United States illegally. I might also raise the question of whether or not there is something more we could do about it. And I could do both of those things quite legitimately without also asserting that I know exactly what should be done about it.
Clearly, in that quote, you indicate that you do not think ih8sens cheated, because you "couldn't come up with a motive". Your assertion here is preposterous. The fact that I cannot think of a motive does not mean that I believe no motive exists. That's one of the reasons I posted my question here: to find out what else might be going on in the minds of online chess players. I have since learned from others with more experience than I that chess players will indeed cheat under circumstances that mystify me, and I've gained a lot from the discussion. Nevertheless, you have no basis for concluding that I think ih8sens is innocent. By way of another example from history: I think the Nuremberg Trials were unfairly rigged to favor the prosecution, but that does mean that I think the Nazis who were tried at Nuremberg were innocent.
Da svedanya, "Yuri". And to you, Mark.
Originally posted by Gatecrasher
They might return, although it is far more difficult to come back as a paying subscriber, unless one can fake one's real world identity. Good point. You've probably already considered and dismissed my follow-up question, but I'll ask anyway: Would it hobble the site too much to require more ID info from non-subscribers as well as from subscribers? It seems likely that putting up a higher gate of entry would discourage some banned players from returning, but are you concerned that would it also deter newbies?
It is far better, in my opinion, to live with the possibility that a cheat might return under a new guise, than it is to live with the certainty that they will be allowed to continue cheating with impunity. Well, since as a game moderator you are presumably the very person whose time and energy goes into investigating cheating allegations, the fact that you think it's worth it carries significant weight. Thanks for addressing that particular concern of mine.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichNot a good idea.
Would it hobble the site too much to require more ID info from non-subscribers as well as from subscribers? It seems likely that putting up a higher gate of entry would discourage some banned players from returning, but are you concerned that would it also deter newbies?
I remember reading a research article that stated websites win or lose most clients within the first 5 minutes.
Especially sites like this that requires a basic registration process - the owners can't take the chance to cut off a good flow of money from people who subscribe easily and quickly because 'we' want to deter some returning cheaters.
Registration must be easy, quick and preferably less than 10 fields to fill in.
Originally posted by Yuri Sumnoffabich
You may indeed be a splendid chess player, Mark, but you need some practice with logic. You are confusing a premise with a conclusion, and a conclusion with a policy position.
I am not the one confusing these things: I am the one pointing out that in committing the logical fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) YOU have confused these things, by explicitly/implicitly assuming the proposition to be proven in your formulation of the premises.
Mark Adkins to Yuri: "Your entire premise lies on a presumption... that the process used to detect engine use is highly unreliable and that therefore banning is unjustified."
Yuri: (quoting the above sentence): "Yes, that is my presumption."
Again, you are not "merely asking a question", as you claim. You are begging the question, as this admission by you makes clear.
Yuri: "I sat thinking for a long time about why someone like that (ih8sens) would cheat. And I couldn't come up with a motive. (See my first post in this thread about motive.) And that's when I thought I should ask folks in the forum to consider whether or not banning is reasonable."
It is not "preposterous" to interpret this statement as a suggestion that ih8sens was innocent and that banning, in his specific case and often in the general case, involves a miscarriage of justice. The word "preposterous" means completely contrary to reason or common sense, whereas any reasonable person would concur with me that your remark can reasonably be interpreted this way, especially when considered in the context of your claim that the engine use detection process is "highly unreliable", and in the broader context of the general tenor of your messages in this thread. How you have revised your claims since making this statement is irrelevant.
Why raise the issue of ih8sens' banning unless you consider it questionable, and why link this dubiety with remarks about your inability to come up with a motive for him to cheat at chess, unless this (supposed) inability contributed to your doubts about the propriety of his banning? You aren't arguing a general case, because you specifically said that you were unable to come up with a motive "for someone like that" after having painted ih8sens as a kind of paragon for offering to play unrated tutorial games with lower-ranked players.
A better question -- and note that I am merely asking and not insisting on anything -- is why Yuri is possessed of the incorrigible conviction that his debating opponents are idiots and that his pathetic, endless attempts to muddy the waters represent a clever manipulation of his readers instead of a pathetic demonstration of his own fatuity?
Here is a statement, Yuri:
"ih8sense should not have been banned"
Yuri, do you describe yourself as agreeing, disagreeing, or being undecided?
Here is a more general statement, Yuri:
"banning under TOS (3b) is unjustified and/or a bad idea"
Yuri, do you describe yourself as agreeing, disagreeing, or being undecided?
Ignoring the questions and/or refusing to answer the questions within the limits of the circumscribed answers -- "agree", "disagree", "undecided" -- constitutes evasion.
Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Here is a statement, Yuri:
"ih8sense should not have been banned"
Yuri, do you describe yourself as agreeing, disagreeing, or being undecided? Undecided, of course. That's like asking me to render a verdict in a trial I didn't see.
Here is a more general statement, Yuri:
"banning under TOS (3b) is unjustified and/or a bad idea"
Yuri, do you describe yourself as agreeing, disagreeing, or being undecided? As yet undecided, but at present it seems like a bad idea to me.
Thanks for asking, but I fail to see how that clarified anything. It's what I've been saying all along.
Originally posted by Yuri SumnoffabichDespite your claims at being "undecided" (which imply being impartial and unbiased), time and again you post statement after statement which always lean heavily in one direction only, which is that banning is unjust. You've flat out said this and you've given reasons why you feel that way; yet whenever challenged or shown the practical refutation to your position you become evasive and try and discredit the argument by distancing yourself from your original position rather than address the substance of the arguments themselves.
As yet undecided, but at present it seems like a bad idea to me.
This is one of the most popular chess sites on the web because it bans cheaters...all popular chess sites ban cheaters..I think that after all this time if people thought that banning was unjust then they would stop but people just keep on joining.
DEBATE CLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF OVERWHELMING PROOF FOR BANNING BEING JUSTIFIED.