11 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartWhat part of the word "SPECIFICALLY" didn't you understand? Maybe you should try looking it up.
[/b]Be glad to:
TOS
6. Member Conduct...
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;
Now I'll parse it out for you:
Pos e TOS is closer to accurate than yours...
But you are used to tasting your feet anyway.
Truth is a defense to defamation and libel. Cheats can sue me if they want to.
11 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps you should try looking it up...
What part of the word "SPECIFICALLY" didn't you understand? Maybe you should try looking it up.
Truth is a defense to defamation and libel. Cheats can sue me if they want to.
The TOS I cited very clearly applies to the content that has been posted in this thread, and the type of content that you are trying to defend. That is specific. You can try to dance around it all you want, but you are being intelectually dishonest and you know it. I find it ironic that all of you people who claim to be doing something good by wanting rules enforced see no hypoctisy in your own rules violations. When confronted with your own wrongdoing, you can't even man-up and admit it. Some hero you are.
Truth is a defense to defamation and libel.
So then quit dodging your culpability and rest on your truth to defend your actions, if you really believe the end justifies the means.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease refrain from trying to make a tabloid headline from a considered argument, even if you disagree with its content.
Ridiculous. You want to enforce a forum posting rule barring the presentation of ANY evidence of engine use but then say there is no evidence because the existing evidence (consisting of dozens of analyzed games, perhaps more) can't be presented in the Forums?
How's the view under the sand?
Public allegations, made purporting to be fact, but without foundation, are defamatory (libel or slander, depending on context).
This is unlawful in most countries for obvious reasons - it is manifestly unfair to the person accused.
Even if evidence does exist (and I am contesting this assertion), it is your method that I am challenging.
If you suspect something, there is a clear mechanism for passing on this information - i.e. to the appropriate authority.
If you suspected your neighbour of child abuse, would you call the police, or put an advertisment in the local press outlining your suspicions?
But you appear to be saying that by pressing for public accusations to be removed from the forums, I am preventing the presentation of this evidence regarding cheating?
What nonsense. For one, whatever I think hasn't stopped people making the accustations, but I have yet to see the evidence being produced. Why would the accusers be bold enough to make the claim, but not bold enough to produce the supporting evidence? Surely producing it would increase their credibility?
So let me change the goal posts to your advantage No1.
Post your evidence, here and now.
How do you know, on the balance of probabilities (or better still beyond all reasonable doubt), that the Master Ronald Weyerstrass is a cheat?
Let us be your jury, and let us see if we convict. If your evidence only convinces you and a few serial paranoid contributors, but not a wider audience, then it is not evidence at all. It is opinion. And voicing opinion that is defamatory against the top player on this site is morally and legally unacceptable. If there is evidence that compells me to believe, I will join the club.
I look forward to you joining me in the sand 😉
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonSo, your theory is that because you play stronger cc than OTB, Weyerstrass is not "really good at chess"?
If they were really good at chess they wouldn't bother playing here.
Not a pleasant thought but very true I'm afraid. I'm an extremely average chess otb. Literally just an average club player. Here I'm in the top few hundred out of thousands.
Also, your ECF rating is 153 according to the link provided by you on your profile page, which, using the ECF to ELO formula of ELO = 1250 + (ECF*5) should give you an ELO rating of more than 2000; yet your rating here at cc is 1867. Doesn't look like an overrated pool to me.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartTo say there is a section in the TOS barring well founded cheating accusations is a lie. The vague sections you refer to don't do so and we both know it.
Perhaps you should try looking it up...
The TOS I cited very clearly applies to the content that has been posted in this thread, and the type of content that you are trying to defend. That is specific. You can try to dance around it all you want, but you are being intelectually dishonest and you know it. I find it ironic that all of you people who c ...[text shortened]... on your truth to defend your actions, if you really believe the end justifies the means.
The site has banned this in its forum posting guidelines. The guidelines are bad and are often not followed. In the last six months alone, I can think of three obvious cheats off the top of my head banned in large part because of public accusations: nmdavidb, clivestraddle and Seadevil. Following what you think is best for the site would mean that dozens, perhaps hundreds of players would have been cheated. That's fine with you, but not for most here.
There is no comparison between the blatant use of chess engines to cheat other players and someone outing those who do so. If you think every violation of any rule is equally wrong, you are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by PolicestateI've got 14 of this players' games analyzed; 6 by an older method though it was good enough to ID IronMan31 and others as cheats. There are two other players who have analyzed over 20 games apiece of this player. The results are all complimentary.
Please refrain from trying to make a tabloid headline from a considered argument, even if you disagree with its content.
Public allegations, made purporting to be fact, but without foundation, are defamatory (libel or slander, depending on context).
This is unlawful in most countries for obvious reasons - it is manifestly unfair to the person accused ...[text shortened]... mpells me to believe, I will join the club.
I look forward to you joining me in the sand 😉
Posting it in the forums is a time consuming waste; it'll just be quickly moderated. If you want the analysis, people can give it to you. I suspect you really don't want to know.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderTo say there is a section in the TOS barring well founded cheating accusations is a lie. The vague sections you refer to don't do so and we both know it.
To say there is a section in the TOS barring well founded cheating accusations is a lie. The vague sections you refer to don't do so and we both know it.
The site has banned this in its forum posting guidelines. The guidelines are bad and are often not followed. In the last six months alone, I can think of three obvious cheats off the top o ...[text shortened]... ink every violation of any rule is equally wrong, you are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
They very clearly do apply, and we both know it. To try to skew the facts is the real lie here.
The guidelines are bad and are often not followed.
Again, you are arrogant enough to think that you have the right to decide which rules should apply to you.
Following what you think is best for the site would mean that dozens, perhaps hundreds of players would have been cheated. That's fine with you, but not for most here.
This is patently untrue. You clearly have no idea what my position is on cheating, but I'll be happy to illuminate. I believe that when an individual is properly investigated and is shown to have cheated, they should be banned for life. End of discussion, no exceptions. Don't ever make the mistake of presuming to know my motivations, or misrepresenting them.
If you think every violation of any rule is equally wrong, you are morally and intellectually bankrupt
I think every violation is a violation, and should be dealt with accordingly. If your actions were OK, there wouldn't be a rule against them. To represent it any differently is simply a lie. To presume yourself to have the authority to run rampant over the rules because you think you are right is arrogant and irresponsible.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartLike any reasonable moral agent, I do what I think is morally just. The fact that there is an often ignored rule against something is a minor consideration particularly when rigid enforcement of that rule would make it far easier for some to violate a far more important rule. Maybe you wouldn't jaywalk to get to a child that was about to be hit by a bus, but most people have a bit more moral sense.
To say there is a section in the TOS barring well founded cheating accusations is a lie. The vague sections you refer to don't do so and we both know it.
They very clearly do apply, and we both know it. To try to skew the facts is the real lie here.
The guidelines are bad and are often not followed.
Again, you are arrogant enough ...[text shortened]... o run rampant over the rules because you think you are right is arrogant and irresponsible.
No matter what you claim and how many times you untruthfully claim it, there is nothing specific in the TOS barring well-founded accusations of engine use. And no matter what you claim, the truth is that outing engine users has led directly to less cheating on the site. People who bitch more about outing of cheaters than the cheating itself are hurting the cause of reducing engine use. Sanctimonious declarations of how much they supposedly abhor cheating doesn't change the reality that they are aiding cheats.
Originally posted by no1marauder1) I agree that the terms of service do not explicitly mention allegations of cheating, however that is the way it has normally been interpreted in the past. It does mention libel. So unless you can demonstrate that your analysis proves "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probability" you are still in contravention of it.
I don't care about people who make a concerted effort to protect obvious cheats. There's nothing in the TOS barring truthful assertions that someone is matching up to an engine far beyond what the greatest correspondence players in history ever could; that rule is simply a forum posting guideline. It's a bad one; the fact is without people continuing to hat you haven't seen game analysis of cheaters' games in these Forums is hypocritical.
2) I am not defending anyone. I just think that people should not be accused in public. This type of thing probably makes the games mods job harder not easier. For one thing it alerts the cheat!
3) What was the case before the Games Mods were introduced is not relevant now that they exist
4) Fat Lady's post about the time taken to ban SeaDevil et al puts more pressure on the mods than accusations against other players. His point is a good one. The site admins should answer it. Although I think the answer is to do with point 6 below.
5) Read my posts more carefully if you want to start trading insults. I said:
"...opening theory which the games mods are unaware of...".
Since no opening database is totally comprehensive the mods simply cannot be aware of every game played in the last decade or so although I'll grant you that the problem is a fairly minor one. I was making a general point about controlling sources of bias (the example wasn't ideal).
Essentially you are hoping that the comparison of the suspects match rate with the match up rates of your baseline population controls for this. By baseline population I mean players of sufficient strength who are likely not to be using engines.
Counterintuitively, I suspect that eliminating opening theory makes a positive result more likely as you would expect the match up rates of the baseline population to be dominated by opening theory moves, whereas for engine users the match up rates will be more homogenous over the game. So cutting out opening theory makes the process more not less sensitive. The same probably goes for moves where there is only one non-idiotic possibility.
6) You have to demonstrate not just that the rate is much higher, but that it is significantly higher. Statistical significance is normally quoted as a p-value which is the probability that the result could have come about by chance. Before the analysis starts you set your threshold. Popular thresholds in RCTs are 0.05 and 0.01. 0.01 (i.e. 1% ) is probably the figure that should be used here. You also need to do a power calculation to find the number of games needed to get a result. (At a guesstimate you'd need to analyse at least 500 non-opening moves to be confident that you are getting a real effect for a blatant cheat).
7) All I ever see in forums are raw match up rates for players (see Squelchbelch's post above) I don't see analysis of how many games are needed and so on. If you can present a methodology that would satisfy a statistician and then make the accusation I might be more convinced.
Summary)
Ages ago GateCrasher made a post where he stated that the probability one particular cheat was cheating was 99.999% (not the exact figure but it was something like that).
This gives me confidence that the games mods do the analysis properly (essentially he was quoting a p-value). I am confident that the people who have been banned deserved it.
I am not confident that the people throwing around accusations in this forum do their analysis properly. It could well be that some of them have, although I kind of doubt it.
Edit: 😵 ---->% )
Also corrected the point about Gatecrasher - I can't remember the exact figure the post is age old from one of the debates from shortly after IronMan31 was banned. I can't be bothered to dig around in ancient forums to find it.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAs usual, you refuse to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. Yet you hypocritically insist that others are held accountable. Attempting to muddy the argument with ridiculous metaphors of children in traffic shows the true nature of your integrity. But since you obviously prefer to conceptualize in the fantasy world, and you refuse to defer to reason, and the Admins are going to continue to do nothing about you and your endless nonsense, I am going to opt out of this discussion. Feel free to post all the lies and misrepresentations you like. I'm confident that most people will be able to see through you without much difficulty.
Like any reasonable moral agent, I do what I think is morally just. The fact that there is an often ignored rule against something is a minor consideration particularly when rigid enforcement of that rule would make it far easier for some to violate a far more important rule. Maybe you wouldn't jaywalk to get to a child that was about to be hit by a bus, ...[text shortened]... ow much they supposedly abhor cheating doesn't change the reality that they are aiding cheats.
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartGood riddance.
As usual, you refuse to accept any personal responsibility for your actions. Yet you hypocritically insist that others are held accountable. Attempting to muddy the argument with ridiculous metaphors of children in traffic shows the true nature of your integrity. But since you obviously prefer to conceptualize in the fantasy world, and you refuse to de ...[text shortened]... u like. I'm confident that most people will be able to see through you without much difficulty.
11 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAges ago GateCrasher made a post where he stated that the probability one particular cheat was cheating was 99.999% (not the exact figure but it was something like that).
1) I agree that the terms of service do not explicitly mention allegations of cheating, however that is the way it has normally been interpreted in the past. It does mention libel. So unless you can demonstrate that your analysis proves "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probability" you are still in contravention of it.
2) I a Man31 was banned. I can't be bothered to dig around in ancient forums to find it.
This gives me confidence that the games mods do the analysis properly (essentially he was quoting a p-value). I am confident that the people who have been banned deserved it.
I am not confident that the people throwing around accusations in this forum do their analysis properly. It could well be that some of them have, although I kind of doubt it.
Don`t forget that its site admins who makes final decision. Which may not match with opinion of mods. From one side it decreases influence of possible game mod bias, but on the other side it makes possible decisions, based on "out of chess" factors.
Also you ignore fact that many banned cheats were accused before in public forums by these "people throwing around accusations".
11 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI am not a legal expert so this needs to be checked with an English libel lawyer. It is possible I am wrong. Also I realise that you can reasonably claim the public interest defence, this is just a point of information.
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#2
In English law to avoid an allegation being libelous it must be true and it must be in the public interest that the information is released. So accusing a politician of an affair is still libelous, even if he was, unless you can show that there was a public interest in releasing the information - for example starting a moralistic campaign or if there is an issue of National Security (c.f. the Profumo scandal, not that that involved libel).
In practice most of the time the truth defence is going to be sufficient as the applicant (used to be plaintiff) then have to establish that there is no public interest in the information being released, Generally this means that the case isn't going to get to court.
The only total defence against libel is that you make your accusation from the witness stand. You cannot be tried for libel even if you lie. You go on trial for purjury instead - in the UK you don't even necessarily get a trial, it is in the Judges power to imprison you for Contempt of Court and there is no right to appeal.