Why not let Norman return to chess community

[bnemias]

i don't mind link censorship at all.

I do. Although I haven't clarified my position on the robbo* links issue. I actually think the mods made a mistake when they changed their minds and decided to allow links. I don't really see the absence of proof coming to light as a change from "questionable legal status."

I would be much quicker to ban links to Rybka under that clause than I would to unban links to Robbo*. Because of that, I would be much more inclined to campaign to alter that clause than any other action.

[Robert Flesher]

Since Norman has made great contribution to chess, I think it's time to let him return to our community.

Contribution to chess has nothing to do with banning. He was banned for violating the charter.

To be more precise, he kept saying Rybka was a clone but provided no proof.

You may notice that many here accused Ippolit and co. to be a clone without providing a proof. I don't remember any of them has been banned...

A damned untruth/halsehood. He wasnt banned for saying this but because he sold his several clones to the people and that is a crime. Therefore it's alsi in itself dirty to argue that he ported something to Windows and that were a fantastic contribution. This is similar (although one cannot compare the two cases!) to a murderer Bloodgood who spent a life sentence in jail and became a 1.g4 expert. IMO we cant ignore true crimes alone for the integrity of our youth. But honestly I would prefer Bloodgood as a chess expert over Kranium, who BTW is also playing around with many pseudos, and he is, above all, betraying chess fans with his clones. While Bloodgood didnt murder a chessplayer. So that one could argue that his chess dedication had absolutely nothing to do with chess! Other than with Kranium who abused chess fans themselves. That is why I see him a lot more dangerous than a murderer who sits forever in jail.

I agree with what you are saying, however, it never ceases to amaze me how wound up people become over issues that do not concern them. There will always be people to seek to gain and exploit others, this is the world we live in. By responding to threads that support accused theft and piracy, this only serves to feed the evil machine with attention. Again, I am more and more shocked at how this forum has fallen into stupid ethical chats over right and wrong. Maybe we need a third forum for political, ethical, and emotional rants ?
AKA ...."Chess Thinkers Forum"

I agree with you that such a message with a petition that Norm should be invited back because he had contributed so much - belongs into CTF but NOT CCC. Or should belong into Help,Suggestion subforum.

But then I would disagree. Simply because the logical weakness has affected too many real experts too. The reasons are different in each person but the main argument boils down to this one. we should judge computerchess as a field with old and hopefully always new contributions for the programming of new features and whole engines. So, as sort of engineering without ethical questions at all. If you want to build a bridge Earth-Moon and it is possible then we should do it, we shouldnt question this with too many doubts. Another would be the question of crimes. What does it interest the community if a Wch butcher was a serial murderer who dismantled his victims like cattle? What counts is his talent to work with a knife.

You seem to think that all this is belonging into CTF as a freaky monster show. But here in CCC we have the absolutely sane and cool logical stuff. I disagree because how we could alienate clones and their gamblers if we would only talk about code bits? I think the solution is easy. We already have the programmer's subforum where even a Norm could participate on topic. But in any other forum he cant because that would mean we would tolerate his crimes. Well crimes in our scene and when you look at the commited fraud by selling clones.

So, if a membership could be restricted on such a subforum, also Norm could participate. IF he reduced himself on code questions and wouldnt mention his philosophical reasons to clone stuff. Which is in fact what he did here in the General Forum as a member.

I agree with many who argue that we shouldnt censor the topic of cloning as such. Therefore I would create another subforum exclusively for cloner questions. There nobody should write his considerations why clones shouldnt exist. The problem would be if the host can risk to host such a support forum in favor of clones and cloners. But I would argue that having a public (or private?) forum about it would help many new members to understand what this is all about. Without censorship. Because now we have a difficult situation where ethical aspects overrule computerchess internal questions.

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. An interesting paradox, but not really to the point of the matter. However, the dichotomy of the two logics seems somewhat troubling, therein lies the problem. Some folks will argue for heads, and others will be tails. But, I see what you mean, *wink*

[djbl]

Since Norman has made great contribution to chess, I think it's time to let him return to our community.

Contribution to chess has nothing to do with banning. He was banned for violating the charter.

To be more precise, he kept saying Rybka was a clone but provided no proof.

You may notice that many here accused Ippolit and co. to be a clone without providing a proof. I don't remember any of them has been banned...

A damned untruth/halsehood. He wasnt banned for saying this but because he sold his several clones to the people and that is a crime. Therefore it's alsi in itself dirty to argue that he ported something to Windows and that were a fantastic contribution. This is similar (although one cannot compare the two cases!) to a murderer Bloodgood who spent a life sentence in jail and became a 1.g4 expert. IMO we cant ignore true crimes alone for the integrity of our youth. But honestly I would prefer Bloodgood as a chess expert over Kranium, who BTW is also playing around with many pseudos, and he is, above all, betraying chess fans with his clones. While Bloodgood didnt murder a chessplayer. So that one could argue that his chess dedication had absolutely nothing to do with chess! Other than with Kranium who abused chess fans themselves. That is why I see him a lot more dangerous than a murderer who sits forever in jail.

I agree with what you are saying, however, it never ceases to amaze me how wound up people become over issues that do not concern them. There will always be people to seek to gain and exploit others, this is the world we live in. By responding to threads that support accused theft and piracy, this only serves to feed the evil machine with attention. Again, I am more and more shocked at how this forum has fallen into stupid ethical chats over right and wrong. Maybe we need a third forum for political, ethical, and emotional rants ?
AKA ...."Chess Thinkers Forum"

I agree with you that such a message with a petition that Norm should be invited back because he had contributed so much - belongs into CTF but NOT CCC. Or should belong into Help,Suggestion subforum.

But then I would disagree. Simply because the logical weakness has affected too many real experts too. The reasons are different in each person but the main argument boils down to this one. we should judge computerchess as a field with old and hopefully always new contributions for the programming of new features and whole engines. So, as sort of engineering without ethical questions at all. If you want to build a bridge Earth-Moon and it is possible then we should do it, we shouldnt question this with too many doubts. Another would be the question of crimes. What does it interest the community if a Wch butcher was a serial murderer who dismantled his victims like cattle? What counts is his talent to work with a knife.

You seem to think that all this is belonging into CTF as a freaky monster show. But here in CCC we have the absolutely sane and cool logical stuff. I disagree because how we could alienate clones and their gamblers if we would only talk about code bits? I think the solution is easy. We already have the programmer's subforum where even a Norm could participate on topic. But in any other forum he cant because that would mean we would tolerate his crimes. Well crimes in our scene and when you look at the commited fraud by selling clones.

So, if a membership could be restricted on such a subforum, also Norm could participate. IF he reduced himself on code questions and wouldnt mention his philosophical reasons to clone stuff. Which is in fact what he did here in the General Forum as a member.

I agree with many who argue that we shouldnt censor the topic of cloning as such. Therefore I would create another subforum exclusively for cloner questions. There nobody should write his considerations why clones shouldnt exist. The problem would be if the host can risk to host such a support forum in favor of clones and cloners. But I would argue that having a public (or private?) forum about it would help many new members to understand what this is all about. Without censorship. Because now we have a difficult situation where ethical aspects overrule computerchess internal questions.

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. An interesting paradox, but not really to the point of the matter. However, the dichotomy of the two logics seems somewhat troubling, therein lies the problem. Some folks will argue for heads, and others will be tails. But, I see what you mean, *wink*

and when the hammer meets the nail which moves first??

[Michael Diosi]

hi michael,
a bit off the topic but i'm just wondering if you could give me a little advice. i use the shredder and arena gui's, but mostly arena (80%ish) and for the life of me i have never been able to work out how to use the permanent hash feature in rybka 3. i know this is not an arena exclusive question but when i bring up the engine configs and i get the point to perm hash file etc i have no idea where or what this file should be. is this a file i need to make myself, if so, how? if not, where might i find it? i hope this makes some sort of sense. and yes, i really am that dumb when it comes to computers so speak real slowly! thanks in advance

Hi,

sorry I don't know this one.


Michael
http://www.playwitharena.com

[djbl]

...

You cannot be serious! The essence of your post is that you developed
this entity for CCC, only because you still did not get Rybka4???

Guenther

really?? i thought the essence of my post was that people are innocent until 'proven' guilty, or that we all have a right to express our views, or that even so called 'experts' are in conflict over said issue - take yr pick. i think my point about R4 was a very small one, a side issue in brackets, and hardly the 'essence' of my post. this just shows how people will see whatever they choose to see, and that they take from something only that which suits their own agenda. and btw, this isn't an entity, it is a forum profile - something that has no 'distinct and seperate existence' (OED) from its author.

[bob]

i don't mind link censorship at all.

I do. Although I haven't clarified my position on the robbo* links issue. I actually think the mods made a mistake when they changed their minds and decided to allow links. I don't really see the absence of proof coming to light as a change from "questionable legal status."

I would be much quicker to ban links to Rybka under that clause than I would to unban links to Robbo*. Because of that, I would be much more inclined to campaign to alter that clause than any other action.

Here's a different angle, with a question for you to answer.

Crafty is a private engine, not open-source. In this alternate universe, someone then claims that Crafty is derived from their program, They offer no proof of any kind. Crafty is stronger than their program. But with no source to compare, and with no proof offered, what do you do? Ban links to Crafty? For how long? Isn't a year long enough for the person making this claim to substantiate it by providing some evidence? Or is Crafty (and myself) just out of luck with regard to participating in CC events or being rated in the various rating lists, or being tested by those interested in obtaining a copy, but unable to due to a lack of links allowed?

I don't think you can take the word of a programmer that obviously copied another programmer's work to start with, and then he offers no proof of any kind to back up his derivative work / almost identical copy claim. I happen to agree with the logic that says "a new program, stronger than all or most others, doesn't just pop onto the CC scene, legitimately." Yet I can think of several such examples that are well-known, including (of course) Rybka 1. But is that good enough to ban the program from competition and such? Hasn't so far, yet we _know_ such derivative works exist now.

We banned the links for months. Should we have done so for years? Why? If the police charge you, should they be allowed to immediately ship you off to prison while the trial drags out? What if you are actually innocent?

This is a huge mess. Primarily caused by one person, and that is _not_ the author(s) of Robo*.

One could just as easily replace "Norm" with "Vas" and the past acts and discussions really should be exactly the same.

[bnemias]

Here's a different angle, with a question for you to answer.

Crafty is a private engine, not open-source. In this alternate universe, someone then claims that Crafty is derived from their program, They offer no proof of any kind. Crafty is stronger than their program. But with no source to compare, and with no proof offered, what do you do? Ban links to Crafty? For how long? Isn't a year long enough for the person making this claim to substantiate it by providing some evidence? Or is Crafty (and myself) just out of luck with regard to participating in CC events or being rated in the various rating lists, or being tested by those interested in obtaining a copy, but unable to due to a lack of links allowed?

I don't think you can take the word of a programmer that obviously copied another programmer's work to start with, and then he offers no proof of any kind to back up his derivative work / almost identical copy claim. I happen to agree with the logic that says "a new program, stronger than all or most others, doesn't just pop onto the CC scene, legitimately." Yet I can think of several such examples that are well-known, including (of course) Rybka 1. But is that good enough to ban the program from competition and such? Hasn't so far, yet we _know_ such derivative works exist now.

We banned the links for months. Should we have done so for years? Why? If the police charge you, should they be allowed to immediately ship you off to prison while the trial drags out? What if you are actually innocent?

This is a huge mess. Primarily caused by one person, and that is _not_ the author(s) of Robo*.

One could just as easily replace "Norm" with "Vas" and the past acts and discussions really should be exactly the same.

Bob, did you read my post? The point I was making is the charter is flawed. I don't disagree with your arguments here.

[Steve B]

The point I was making is the charter is flawed. I don't disagree with your arguments here.

it is an interesting question as to how to go about actually amending the charter
i have thought about this on and off over the years
the Club was started when a group of people split away from RGCC and set up this club with a sponsor and a set of rules(charter)
there has never been a procedure put in place as to how to actually change the charter


the charter has served this club well for 13 years but perhaps it is now outdated in some respects?
forgetting for a moment if it needs changing ...what should be the procedure to change it?

perhaps the idea is that the charter is an enduring document not subject to change while this sponsor carries the board?
certainly any changes to the charter would need be to be ratified by the sponsor

if the charter is a document that can be amended...how to do so?

clearly no single moderation team alone would have the right to amend the charter..
teams come and go every 6 months
mod teams are elected to enforce the charter (to the best of their ability and interpretation)and not to physically amend it


perhaps a vote of the membership requiring a Super Majority..Like in the US Senate.. 2/3 or something similar?
perhaps there would need to be a certain minimum number actually voting..we don't want 12 people voting and changing the charter

perhaps a panel can be put together to consider the issues and make recommendations or perhaps the new mod team can put this issue on their agenda when they take office if their is any interest in this?

Some Food For Thought
Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

The point I was making is the charter is flawed. I don't disagree with your arguments here.

it is an interesting question as to how to go about actually amending the charter
i have thought about this on and off over the years
the Club was started when a group of people split away from RGCC and set up this club with a sponsor and a set of rules(charter)
there has never been a procedure put in place as to how to actually change the charter


the charter has served this club well for 13 years but perhaps it is now outdated in some respects?
forgetting for a moment if it needs changing ...what should be the procedure to change it?

perhaps the idea is that the charter is an enduring document not subject to change while this sponsor carries the board?
certainly any changes to the charter would need be to be ratified by the sponsor

if the charter is a document that can be amended...how to do so?

clearly no single moderation team alone would have the right to amend the charter..
teams come and go every 6 months
mod teams are elected to enforce the charter (to the best of their ability and interpretation)and not to physically amend it


perhaps a vote of the membership requiring a Super Majority..Like in the US Senate.. 2/3 or something similar?
perhaps there would need to be a certain minimum number actually voting..we don't want 12 people voting and changing the charter

perhaps a panel can be put together to consider the issues and make recommendations or perhaps the new mod team can put this issue on their agenda when they take office if their is any interest in this?

Some Food For Thought
Steve

Something that is surely worth discussing. The 2/3 majority idea is a good one with a minimum number of people voting and then getting it ratified by the hosts.

The facility probably exists for the site admin to send an email to all members notifying them of proposed changes and when the ballot would be.

[BubbaTough]

The point I was making is the charter is flawed. I don't disagree with your arguments here.

it is an interesting question as to how to go about actually amending the charter
i have thought about this on and off over the years
the Club was started when a group of people split away from RGCC and set up this club with a sponsor and a set of rules(charter)
there has never been a procedure put in place as to how to actually change the charter


the charter has served this club well for 13 years but perhaps it is now outdated in some respects?
forgetting for a moment if it needs changing ...what should be the procedure to change it?

perhaps the idea is that the charter is an enduring document not subject to change while this sponsor carries the board?
certainly any changes to the charter would need be to be ratified by the sponsor

if the charter is a document that can be amended...how to do so?

clearly no single moderation team alone would have the right to amend the charter..
teams come and go every 6 months
mod teams are elected to enforce the charter (to the best of their ability and interpretation)and not to physically amend it


perhaps a vote of the membership requiring a Super Majority..Like in the US Senate.. 2/3 or something similar?
perhaps there would need to be a certain minimum number actually voting..we don't want 12 people voting and changing the charter

perhaps a panel can be put together to consider the issues and make recommendations or perhaps the new mod team can put this issue on their agenda when they take office if their is any interest in this?

Some Food For Thought
Steve

Something that is surely worth discussing. The 2/3 majority idea is a good one with a minimum number of people voting and then getting it ratified by the hosts.

The facility probably exists for the site admin to send an email to all members notifying them of proposed changes and when the ballot would be.

Agreed. For example, it would be nice if the charter had a clear position on discussion/links/promotion of unauthorized derived work (the position could be different for each). Currently this falls under the "legal" aspect of the charter, which requires mods to have both technical and legal backgrounds. The result is a lot of flip-flopping between mod groups, and a lot of confused disagreements and arguing in general. If we could separate the issue, it would simplify the discussion a lot (we would have a lot of disagreements and arguing and such of course, but at least for me what was being argued about would be more clear).

-Sam