Go back
Russ, do you protect people from banning?

Russ, do you protect people from banning?

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Fat Lady
The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/
I guess that'll get deleted again though...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
I guess that'll get deleted again though...
I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.
I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.
The wording of the earlier post was unacceptable, this wording is OK.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wittywonka
Would it be alright to explain what the (most recent) moderated post explained, substituting names?
My last 2 posts were removed.. in short these posts said:

The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..

That was removed removed because I quoted the source of that..
And because I mentioned the name of the accused (although 'accused' approved to mention his name)

Second post that was removed contained the website / weblog of the 'accused'..

Vote Up
Vote Down

Mods honestly you are exagerating. Sheesh!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Forum Moderator
Users are reminded again NOT to name users when discussing cheating allegations in the forums.
Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by saffa73
Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....
Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by adramforall
Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!
Prob this then...

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

I guess it might be seen as libelous or defamatory...

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amsterdamn
The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..
That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY
If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY
Well, of course, there is always a presumption of innocence. That goes without saying. But that is very, very different to "reaching a verdict of not guilty." Surely, you can see the huge difference.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.
...and I guess if the chair the defendant is sitting on is set ablaze that is telling something too...

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.