Will RHP ever rate Blitz?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sir, I'll have you know that I have never obfusticated in my entire life. 😛

You're still not addressing my rebuttal. Before you can properly call someone malicious, you need to show that they have distressed or damaged you in some non-trivial way. So, how exactly were you damaged or distressed?

Again, when it comes to chess, let the ethics primari ...[text shortened]... kers out there, and it's very easy to do online. I think society will survive despite them.

There is nothing to address, this is yet another red herring. It's as if I'm explaining a chess game and you focus on the texture of the pieces. This isn't a mathematical proof. Language is relatively imprecise and highly context sensitive. One could argue forever about whether any given word fits perfectly for a certain case. What matters is if you understand what's being communicated. Since you think I'm using the word incorrectly, you must already understand what I mean and the whole discussion is moot. Although, I will briefly add that the word was used appropriately and your definition is nonstandard. Maliciousness refers to one's psychological state and not actual harm. For example, if one delights in seeing others suffer, this would be a malicious person.

Additionally, I find your view of ethics alarming. It seems that you consider anything moral as long as there is no explicit prohibition. To use an extreme example, I suppose slave labor is fine too as long as there are no laws against it. Ethics transcend such artificiality. The rules of chess may reflect ethics, but they are not sufficient to define and deal with ethics. For example, I don't think there is a rule against lying to your opponent but such behavior is certainly not ethical. In fact, I'm still waiting for your response to the hypothetical situation I offered. Claiming that you would never be in such a position is a cop-out. Although don't worry, your advice does not come as a shock to me. I do not believe everything I read and I realize there are disingenuous people. However, it is particularly pathetic and despicable when one acts this way for no gain at all. At least the scammers on the internet have a higher price to sell their morals.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So why aren't verbal agreements enforced under some TOS of some sort?

Does RHP/uChess not care about 'malicious, opportunistic liars' taking advantage of its morally upright players?

If it is so clearly unethical, why not let game mods read the chat logs and boot the guy off the site for failing to uphold his binding verbal agreement?

Don't just , humor me and try to think about these questions - try to see things in a different light.

Not everything that isn't enforced or explicitly prohibited is moral. For example, verbal agreements are close to unenforceable but that does not mean that people have no obligation to them and that they should be disregarded. There are countless clearly immoral acts that are not mentioned in any law books, company policies, etc. Luckily some of this is changing. For example, child labor is now illegal virtually everywhere.

For anyone else following this thread, you're welcome to chime in. It may seem like SwissGambit and I have a monopoly on the discussion, but it's certainly not private. I have already stated my position and am more curious about what others think. Moral issues are always interesting to me. 🙂

BTW: SG, thanks for pointing out that it is obfuscated. At least you know what you do. 😛 I don't mind being corrected since it's the fastest way I'll learn. Sometimes I make errors because I'm in a rush or careless but I really just remembered the wrong spelling for this word.

Originally posted by exigentsky
There is nothing to address, this is yet another red herring. It's as if I'm explaining a chess game and you focus on the texture of the pieces. This isn't a mathematical proof. Language is relatively imprecise and highly context sensitive. One could argue forever about whether any given word fits perfectly for a certain case. What matters is if you under ...[text shortened]... at all. At least the scammers on the internet have a higher price to sell their morals.

Since you think I'm using the word incorrectly, you must already understand what I mean and the whole discussion is moot.

Nonsense. It is obviously possible to understand what someone means to say and yet disagree with their assertion.

Maliciousness is intent to cause distress or damage. You need to establish that intent before claiming maliciousness. I see no evidence that your opponent even cared about your mental state at all. Perhaps he just really wanted to win the game and that was his sole motivation.

Additionally, I find your view of ethics alarming. It seems that you consider anything moral as long as there is no explicit prohibition.

What part of "when it comes to chess' do you not understand?

However, it is particularly pathetic and despicable when one acts this way for no gain at all. At least the scammers on the internet have a higher price to sell their morals.

You've got it bass ackwards. People who actually cause real [financial, physical, etc.] harm to others are despicable and pathetic, not people who win online blitz games. It is far, far more immoral to cheat someone out of their life savings than to win a blitz game on a technicality.

Originally posted by exigentsky
Not everything that isn't enforced or explicitly prohibited is moral. For example, verbal agreements are close to unenforceable but that does not mean that people have no obligation to them and that they should be disregarded. There are countless clearly immoral acts that are not mentioned in any law books, company policies, etc. Luckily some of this is c ...[text shortened]... I'm in a rush or careless but I really just remembered the wrong spelling for this word.

Again, you're having some trouble with the words 'when it comes to chess', and forgetting that I stated that chess rules ought to be changed if they lead to an unethical situation.

I had some fun on uchess two days ago. My opponent made a howler of a move (some random king move into the centre) and then told me he'd made a mouse slip and if I wanted to help him take it back.
Obviously he was trying to cheat me out of a well-earned win so I agreed with him, but then screwed him up badly. That'll teach him for trying to cheat his way to an acceptable position.