31 Dec '09 00:15>
Originally posted by NowakowskiIt's the few of them that spoil it for the rest
Why pay money to play somewhere, when a slew of non-subscribing players can/could accuse you of foul play, over, and over, and over again?
Originally posted by NowakowskiWhy pay money to subscribe to a site where blatantly obvious cheats are allowed to move to the top of the ratings lists with impunity? And where attempts to simply cite to their earliest games (which are of completely novice quality) are censored?
or perhaps these systems are in place to stop players from accusing non-cheaters.
Any idea of broadcasting unprofessional and biased evidence in a open source setting
is at best, ludicrous. Cheating is certainly a problem, and it certainly needs a
solution. The solution however, is not to allow random players to protest openly
against other play ...[text shortened]... ver, and over, and over again?
I think the system has been built with more in mind.
-GIN
Originally posted by no1marauderOh,
Why pay money to subscribe to a site where blatantly obvious cheats are allowed to move to the top of the ratings lists with impunity? And where attempts to simply cite to their earliest games (which are of completely novice quality) are censored?
Originally posted by NowakowskiBaloney. The site has been scarred and discredited far more by the number of cheaters who have been allowed to continue to play on - in some cases for years - than by the accurate reporting of the evidence of their cheating by other players.
Oh,
blatant cheats? - how many still exist? What evidence creates such certainty?
Citing evidence - Why must it be for all to see? If its indeed accurate, revocation of
there account should be sufficient, not public humiliation in all cases, accurate or not.
Impunity - English Tal? Sea Devil? .. the list of bans from the first page is ra more by the public accusations, and the unending witch hunt; than it ever has due any cheater.
Originally posted by no1marauderIts silly to believe any method is completely accurate, and above error.
Baloney. The site has been scarred and discredited far more by the number of cheaters who have been allowed to continue to play on - in some cases for years - than by the accurate reporting of the evidence of their cheating by other players.
It is hypocritical to insist that no evidence be allowed to be presented and then to claim that no evidence exists because presentation of it has been censored.
Originally posted by chessisagameAre you saying Russ made this website for personal greed?
I agree with Number 1 and Now. There are points to both sides.
But, look at it this way, everytime they ban a cheater thats $29.99 coming out
of their pockets. Do you really think they really want to lose income?
The post that was quoted here has been removedplease EmLasker dude, that's the sort of thing that gets threads pulled,. Its much better to say something broad and general like, 'its only those who actually do cheat that have anything to fear', and in that way its not directed at anyone personally, but the point is still made. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe didn't meen chess improvement...
please EmLasker dude, that's the sort of thing that gets threads pulled,. Its much better to say something broad and general like, 'only those who actually do cheat that have anything to fear', and in that way its not directed at anyone personally, but the point is still made. 🙂
Originally posted by EmLaskerTough to get members without being able to "try before you buy"
Are you saying Russ made this website for personal greed?
If so, he should've made this site Member's only.