AVOIDING THE POTENTIAL RISK OF COSTLY DEFAMATION LAWSUITS/A COMMONSENSE APPROACH
1. Premise: All lost chess games are lost for the same reason. All fragmented and messed up human lives are fragmented and messed up for the same reason. All floundering companies suffering self induced headaches flounder and take expensive aspirins for the same reason. Conclusion: That same reason has always been, still is and always will be... sloppy thinking.
2. Premise: All men are created equal. Conclusion: Despite the fact that this gentle rose colored myth has been around for a long time, nothing could be further from the truth. Genetic, cultural, social class, wealth and other privileges of birth (and time and place) always cause great disparity. All men enjoy equality only in the sight of the law.
3. Premise: Presumption of innocence is one of the pillars of western hemisphere law. Conclusion: Presumption of innocence is not only the starting point but, also, the mid-point and the concluding point within the astute mindset of human nature savvy, risk averse, well run companies (who prefer to stay out of court and protect their bottom lines).
4. Premise: Language matters. Conclusion: The RHP Site is leading with its chin to the extent that the C-word is permitted to be used.
5. Premise: The inflammatory words 'cheat', 'cheating' and 'cheater' convey a grossly presumptive, often inaccurate, rush to judgement bias and, therefore, represent an ill advised point of view in the public domain. Conclusion: These words should be stricken from all RHP contractual statements, including terms of service, and should be prohibited from casual use by any and all members in the public forums as well as in permanently archived in-game messages.
6. Premise: By definition, these words focus on the member, i.e., the person. Conclusion: The correct focus is the member's game history.
7. Premise: We may have reason for concern, speculation or even suspicion whenever play in a given series of games appears contradictory to a player's previously demonstrated overall strength profile. Conclusion: That's all we have. We do not have conclusive evidence, hard proof or any other legally sound basis for accusation.
8. Premise: Use of the words 'ban' and 'banned' pose similar business risk. Conclusion: If and whenever a player's machine matching percent substantially exceeds his or her rating percent (beyond the impartial and established tolerance limits as stipulated in written RHP Site Policy of record) the player is simply notified of his or her 'out of tolerance rating versus machine matching profile' with specific and objective reference to site policy. Membership may be allowed to continue to permit further fact finding and confirmation (some will voluntarily quit during this interim) and/or the membership is summarily and amicably concluded... without accusation or labelling of any kind. RHP assumes no burden of proof of member misconduct. A documented out of tolerance profile is the only issue. Prorated or full subscriber fee refund should probably also be promptly made.
9. Premise: You seldom go too very far wrong in this life or in a business venture by giving the benefit of doubt and treating others better than they deserve, Conclusion: No membership should ever be concluded on the basis of only a handful of games. In most instances, several dozen or more would likely insure a fair sample size and allow for random brilliance and the flukes of exceptional play.
10. Premise: The C-word is neither accurate, justified nor useful. Conclusion: Regret having used it as part of the title of this thread. Another example of 'sloppy thinking'.