Second, RHP is not giving out the real names of the cheats. They maintain their anonymity, and suffer no real reputational damage.[/b]
It is affecting their reputation on RHP.
It is also possible (and indeed likely) that the people are known by their real names to some members on here and hence there is a link between their reputation here and in the real world.
Originally posted by noxidjkram I think there is a major difference between privately removing someones access for being suspected of cheating, and actually saying "This person was banned for cheating".
[edit] And as for saying Ironman was proved to be cheating, that is wrong. He was shown to be beyond what the site admin considered to be reasonable doubt of cheating - a very different thing. [\edit]
M
Have you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map? If you had you may have noted the text:
"The Chess At Work game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated."
As I said, players are not bad for "reasonable doubt of cheating" (what does that even mean?), we would be in a bad way if they were.
So, my saying that Ironman has been removed for cheating is correct beyond a doubt.
Originally posted by noxidjkram It is affecting their reputation on RHP.
It is also possible (and indeed likely) that the people are known by their real names to some members on here and hence there is a link between their reputation here and in the real world.
M
RHP isn't liable if people voluntarily tell others their real name.
They also aren't liable if they name a real name as a cheat, if they have proof that the player cheated. No lie, no libel.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Have you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map? If you had you may have noted the text:
"The Chess At Work game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminate were.
So, my saying that Ironman has been removed for cheating is correct beyond a doubt.
Note the words "concluded beyond reasonable doubt"
This is different from 'proved'.
To prove something you have to show that it is true - they have not, they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt.
As to your other point:
3 (b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
Where here does it mention the word 'cheat' or 'cheating'?? It doesn't - it says that you must follow the terms of service with regards to chess engines... etc.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem RHP isn't liable if people voluntarily tell others their real name.
They also aren't liable if they name a real name as a cheat, if they have proof that the player cheated. No lie, no libel.
My point is that they don't have 'proof' - they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt. I suggest this is very different.
Also, as pointed out in an earlier post - these people havent been removed for cheating, they have been removed because site admin have come to the conclusion that they didn't folllow the terms of service.
Going back to the post i commented on saying we should label people "BANNED FOR CHEATING" - this would indeed be libelous without proof - which again, we don't have.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ Have you perhaps seen the (public) list of removed players on the Site Map?
I hadn't - thanks for that.
Interesting to note how many people have been concluded to have been contravening the terms of service - and how many of these were very highly rated players.
Originally posted by noxidjkram Note the words "concluded beyond reasonable doubt"
This is different from 'proved'.
To prove something you have to show that it is true - they have not, they have concluded beyond reasonable doubt.
As to your other point:
3 (b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. ...[text shortened]... ys that you must follow the terms of service with regards to chess engines... etc.
M
You're arguing semantics now. And badly.
Concluding beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, not fufilling your registration obligations in regard to 3b is cheating.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ You're arguing semantics now. And badly.
Concluding beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, not fufilling your registration obligations in regard to 3b is cheating.
Arguing semantics - yep, for sure...
badly - probably... 😀
Giving up as i can't seem to make my point clearly enough (or perhaps indeed i am just plain wrong - but i don't believe so).