the mods "clone" standpoint

[govert]

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.



Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

[mariaclara]

Martin,

clarification:

one candidate posted this about censorship which is self explanatory -

take note of the phrase "have-never-allowed".

"My last moderation term in this forum would have _never_ allowed the discussion, links, or results of a possible clone program."

Chris posted:

6. Allow freedom of expression within the scope of my interpretation of the Charter.

Graham is silent on censorship.

thanks for correcting my previous post.

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.

Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

[Matthias Gemuh]

Graham is silent on censorship.

Graham says:

Code: Select all

- discussion on Ippo and its derivatives will be managed in a manner that it doesn't give the impression of spamming any of the subforums.
No links to these engines will be allowed and I will endeavour to delete existing ones that have already been posted.

[mariaclara]

Matthias,

interesting post.

I think only Graham himself can clarify this.

is he for or vs freedom of expression/speech.

( of course within the limits of our charter, civility, respect and
courtesy to our co-members. no insults, name-calling/etc.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graham is silent on censorship.

Graham says:

Code: Select all

- discussion on Ippo and its derivatives will be managed in a manner that it doesn't give the impression of spamming any of the subforums.
No links to these engines will be allowed and I will endeavour to delete existing ones that have already been posted.

[govert]

OK. I can understand Grahams position of removing links to the pages, if he considers the legality if the content provided on those pages to be questionable.

(If you are of the opinion that the legality status of a particular engine is unquestionable, please start a different thread about that particualr engine)

However, we must be allowed to continue discussing the different aspects of the suspected clones.

I would suggest a sticky from the mods titled "Engines of questionable legal status", which lists the current engines under suspicion, and the rules that apply to them.

Why? Many reasons. One of them being that for a person as me who is an infrequent visitor of these forums, it is VERY hard to keep up with what is going on.

[BubbaTough]

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

Here is my perspective as a candidate:

Should a program be decided by the mods to be of questionable legal status, I am still in favor of allowing a managed discussion. Links, or other forms of promotion of use of something of questionable legal status I would deem inappropriate. Notice, that regarding the ippolit family of engines, there has been a lot of what I would consider promotion, so should the team decide that this family of engines was of questionable legal status, I would be in favor of reducing that. There has also been a lot of aggression and name calling between people of extreme views, and I am also in favor of reducing that. In this sense, I am in favor of censorship.

"Questionable Legal Status" is itself a bit of a fuzzy thing, and so in my mind the degree of harshness which "promotion of use" is cracked down on depends a bit on how confident the mods are in their conclusions. For example, if the mods believed something was questionable, but were not confident in their conclusions, any discussion related to investigation of whether something was "of questionable legal status" would certainly be allowable, even if aspects of it had some promotional undertones.

HOWEVER, if elected I would view my primary role as a technical consultant (I consider it somewhat important that at least one mod have experience as a chess engine programmer) and if my fellow mods were united in a different but also plausible interpretation of their role I would back them. In this respect I agree with Dann Corbit's perspective expressed in this thread:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... e26f4e46e9
"I do not think it right for me to attempt to inflict my will upon the other members of the team, since their opinions are just as valid as mine. "

-Sam

[Steve B]

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

Here is my perspective as a candidate:

Should a program be decided by the mods to be of questionable legal status, I am still in favor of allowing a managed discussion. Links, or other forms of promotion of use of something of questionable legal status I would deem inappropriate. Notice, that regarding the ippolit family of engines, there has been a lot of what I would consider promotion, so should the team decide that this family of engines was of questionable legal status, I would be in favor of reducing that. There has also been a lot of aggression and name calling between people of extreme views, and I am also in favor of reducing that. In this sense, I am in favor of censorship.

"Questionable Legal Status" is itself a bit of a fuzzy thing, and so in my mind the degree of harshness which "promotion of use" is cracked down on depends a bit on how confident the mods are in their conclusions. For example, if the mods believed something was questionable, but were not confident in their conclusions, any discussion related to investigation of whether something was "of questionable legal status" would certainly be allowable, even if aspects of it had some promotional undertones.

HOWEVER, if elected I would view my primary role as a technical consultant (I consider it somewhat important that at least one mod have experience as a chess engine programmer) and if my fellow mods were united in a different but also plausible interpretation of their role I would back them. In this respect I agree with Dann Corbit's perspective expressed in this thread:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... e26f4e46e9

"I do not think it right for me to attempt to inflict my will upon the other members of the team, since their opinions are just as valid as mine. "

-Sam

Hi Sam
your link does not show a message from Dann
let me know the link you were referring to and i will edit your post
OR
you can show the proper link in another post
Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

Here is my perspective as a candidate:

Should a program be decided by the mods to be of questionable legal status, I am still in favor of allowing a managed discussion. Links, or other forms of promotion of use of something of questionable legal status I would deem inappropriate. Notice, that regarding the ippolit family of engines, there has been a lot of what I would consider promotion, so should the team decide that this family of engines was of questionable legal status, I would be in favor of reducing that. There has also been a lot of aggression and name calling between people of extreme views, and I am also in favor of reducing that. In this sense, I am in favor of censorship.

"Questionable Legal Status" is itself a bit of a fuzzy thing, and so in my mind the degree of harshness which "promotion of use" is cracked down on depends a bit on how confident the mods are in their conclusions. For example, if the mods believed something was questionable, but were not confident in their conclusions, any discussion related to investigation of whether something was "of questionable legal status" would certainly be allowable, even if aspects of it had some promotional undertones.

HOWEVER, if elected I would view my primary role as a technical consultant (I consider it somewhat important that at least one mod have experience as a chess engine programmer) and if my fellow mods were united in a different but also plausible interpretation of their role I would back them. In this respect I agree with Dann Corbit's perspective expressed in this thread:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... e26f4e46e9

"I do not think it right for me to attempt to inflict my will upon the other members of the team, since their opinions are just as valid as mine. "

-Sam

Hi Sam
your link does not show a message from Dann but rather from Rolf whom i am sure will be pleased to be quoted by you

let me know the link you were referring to and i will edit your post
OR
you can show the proper link in another post
Regards
Steve

[BubbaTough]

Hi Sam
your link does not show a message from Dann
let me know the link you were referring to and i will edit your post
OR
you can show the proper link in another post
Regards
Steve

It is the one with the quote I gave from Dann on page 11 of the 'What is a "clone"? Can 3 people decide for us?' thread. I am not sure how to link to a particular entry in a thread, so I just posted a link to the thread. Feel free to edit my post however you want .

-Sam

[Steve B]

Hi Sam
your link does not show a message from Dann
let me know the link you were referring to and i will edit your post
OR
you can show the proper link in another post
Regards
Steve

It is the one with the quote I gave from Dann on page 11 of the 'What is a "clone"? Can 3 people decide for us?' thread. I am not sure how to link to a particular entry in a thread, so I just posted a link to the thread. Feel free to edit my post however you want .

-Sam

click on the thread in question
switch to "thread view''
click on the post you want by Dann
and then copy and paste from your web browser address bar
i edited your post and all replies
let me know if its OK now and i can delete these last few messages

Steve