1. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    05 Jun '06 21:24
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem


    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.

    M
  2. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    06 Jun '06 00:41
    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.
  3. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 Jun '06 04:16
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    Libel is written or published defamation of character. - http://www.investorwords.com/2796/libel.html
    Ugh, I hate games of dueling links, but here ya go:

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/libel

    Note definitions 2.a and 2.b.1.
  4. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 Jun '06 04:192 edits
    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.
  5. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 10:441 edit
    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.

    M
  6. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 10:45
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Ugh, I hate games of dueling links, but here ya go:

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/libel

    Note definitions 2.a and 2.b.1.
    I like it - it says what i'm saying. 😀

    M
  7. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 10:49
    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.

    M
  8. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 11:07
    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.

    Cheers,

    M
  9. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    06 Jun '06 11:36
    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.
  10. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 13:52
    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).

    Cheers for discussion.

    M
  11. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    06 Jun '06 14:231 edit
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    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).

    Cheers for discussion.

    M
    The Earth is round, but the only way to know this is to either sail around it... or view it from space.

    Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it.

    A jury judges people who kill. They may find the suspect to be guilty. Are they guilty, or is that just someone's opinion?

    P-
  12. Standard memberPocketKings
    Banned from edits
    Grammar dyslexic
    Joined
    20 May '05
    Moves
    11372
    06 Jun '06 14:41
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    The Earth is round, but the only way to know this is to either sail around it... or view it from space.

    Otherwise, you are taking someone else's word for it.

    A jury judges people who kill. They may find the suspect to be guilty. Are they guilty, or is that just someone's opinion?

    P-
    not to argue semantics, but actually earth is more of an oval shape
  13. Subscribernoxidjkramonline
    Data Warehouser
    Back in the UK!
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    132580
    06 Jun '06 14:46
    Originally posted by PocketKings
    not to argue semantics, but actually earth is more of an oval shape
    😀
  14. Standard memberPocketKings
    Banned from edits
    Grammar dyslexic
    Joined
    20 May '05
    Moves
    11372
    06 Jun '06 15:37
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    😀
    you hear the term "rec whore" thrown around here sometimes. well you are a "rec prude". have you taken a rec vow of chastity or something?
  15. Standard memberBigDogg
    Secret RHP coder
    on the payroll
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    155080
    06 Jun '06 17:56
    Originally posted by noxidjkram
    I like it - it says what i'm saying. 😀

    M
    Only if you ignore those inconvenient, nagging little words like unjust.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree