Chief Differences between CCC v OPEN

[Steve B]

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

Sam has made it very clear what the sponsor wanted
i will post again from Sams PM of yesterday
and i QUOTE...

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

as i see it these two quotes are not mutually exclusive
the moderators shall decide what they feel are questionable or not
not the sponsor
there would be no need for Quentin to beat around the bush here Graham
he could simply say...
no more links to IPPO or i drop the board
period
but he does not say that
he left it up to the mods to determine the legality issue

Steve

What I quoted you is what these mod teams were told to do. This was immediately interpreted by Jeremy as meaning Ippo and family.
I have not quoted the full message because I think that it is best kept in the mods forum. It would cause too much of an uproar amongst some members anyway.
However, I will not be painted as a liar.

Cheers,
Graham.

well your interpretation is not the same as mine would have been
you have your reasons for interpreting this one way and so did Jeremy i guess
perhaps it was the ammunition he needed to go off and start his new forum?.i don't know

either way .. if you and i were on the same team i would have said the statement is way too unclear and vague to now rush off and start deleting links

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation
a simple question like..
are you requiring us to delete all links to IPPO and family Engines?
YES OR NO?
the topic was way too explosive to rely on a statement like that without a clear and concise statement by ICD


BTW..i am not portraying you as a liar
not sure where that is coming from
Steve

[Rolf]

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

Sam has made it very clear what the sponsor wanted
i will post again from Sams PM of yesterday
and i QUOTE...

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

as i see it these two quotes are not mutually exclusive
the moderators shall decide what they feel are questionable or not
not the sponsor
there would be no need for Quentin to beat around the bush here Graham
he could simply say...
no more links to IPPO or i drop the board
period
but he does not say that
he left it up to the mods to determine the legality issue

Steve

What I quoted you is what these mod teams were told to do. This was immediately interpreted by Jeremy as meaning Ippo and family.
I have not quoted the full message because I think that it is best kept in the mods forum. It would cause too much of an uproar amongst some members anyway.
However, I will not be painted as a liar.

Cheers,
Graham.

I had hoped that native English speakers wouldnt cause uproar that isnt there in the first place at all!

Why all you cannot express what this is all about?

the host has a legal problem if e.g. Hipo etc or other illegal software would be linked here. The minute the host tells the mods that such links arent welcomed the host is out of focus. But if now the mods would say, ok lets link this or that. Then the host is still out of danger because he would say I told them to avoid it but they thought theat were possible in this case, so they made a mistake but the policy of the board is clearly against clones e.g.

Was this clear by now, Graham?

I dont see a reason for you to fantasize about hidden reasons or such because the whole topic is crystal clear. It has legal impact and thats all. It was never a real order by the host but an expressing of a defense if some legal issuess might come from the outside. There is absolutely no issue here to hypostate a sort of new measure by the host or of a threat or such things.

I mean an experienced mod like you should have understood this right away.

BTW I am deeply unhappy by a mod like JB who says bye bye with some reproaches then goes away and suddenly is back as if we had no pool of likewise good mod talents. I missed that you or others I read had made this also quite clear. I think I alsso made clear that I could never understand why Sam after having been torn through the mud and being name-called in dirty ways was then happy to greet the culprit in the candidate role again for mod elections. Somewhere there should be a limit. In German we say that you make the fox tzhe gardener of the chickens if you proceed like this. Very stupid design indeed.

[Graham Banks]

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation

The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) have taken it that way. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.

[Steve B]

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation

The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) have taken it that way. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.

i dont know Jermeys reasons for interperting this one way or the other
and its certainly not clear to me
I would have persisted
Contacted Sam...called ICD
anyway...
it is clear now isnt it?
I have asked the question and received the response
ICD does not prohibit links to IPPO
they leave that decision to the current mods

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35117

Steve

[Rolf]

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation

The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) take it otherwise. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.

It is too much what you expected. Also because there is no need for more since it's all clear already.

[Graham Banks]

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation

The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) have taken it that way. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.

i dont know Jermeys reasons for interperting this one way or the other
and its certainly not clear to me
I would have persisted
Contacted Sam...called ICD
anyway...
it is clear now isnt it?
I have asked the question and received the response
ICD does not prohibit links to IPPO
they leave that decision to the current mods

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35117

Steve

It's because you haven't seen the full message in the mods forum.
However, if your electioneering campaign is successful, all will be revealed.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Terry McCracken]

i would have refrained from pell mell..helter skelter link deletion and simply contacted ICD for a more concise explanation

The message regarding links was quite clear. Otherwise, why would Jeremy (who has been one of the biggest proponents of allowing links) have taken it that way. I emailed Quentin for clarification on whether he expected us to go further, but never got a response.

i dont know Jermeys reasons for interperting this one way or the other
and its certainly not clear to me
I would have persisted
Contacted Sam...called ICD
anyway...
it is clear now isnt it?
I have asked the question and received the response
ICD does not prohibit links to IPPO
they leave that decision to the current mods

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35117

Steve

It's because you haven't seen the full message in the mods forum.
However, if your electioneering campaign is successful, all will be revealed.

Cheers,
Graham.

This is becoming an annoying habit with you, going back to the private mod forum. Don't insult people's intelligence.

Bureaucracy

[mariaclara]

Graham,

so it's the Mod's "interpretation".

Lemme get it straight.

If we follow the rule of majority,

then that means 2 out of 3 Mods, right?

So, for instance:

if Graham & Jeremy interprets a thread as acceptable,

even though Swami doesn't like it,

rule of majority , 2 out 3 , means

Jeremy & Graham's interpretation over rules Swami.

Am I wrong????

Now, what happens if Swami still insists he is right.?

are the other 2 mods obligated/required to follow him???

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

[swami]

Maria,

The post that we interpreted was about 3 weeks ago.

Jeremy hasn't been online for the past week.

If Jeremy comes online and reads Steve B's quote(recent) from Sam below, Jeremy would surely have allowed links to Ippolit again. We have BB's report as evidence.

Graham,

so it's the Mod's "interpretation".

Lemme get it straight.

If we follow the rule of majority,

then that means 2 out of 3 Mods, right?

So, for instance:

if Graham & Jeremy interprets a thread as acceptable,

even though Swami doesn't like it,

rule of majority , 2 out 3 , means

Jeremy & Graham's interpretation over rules Swami.

Am I wrong????

Now, what happens if Swami still insists he is right.?

are the other 2 mods obligated/required to follow him???

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

[Terry McCracken]

Maria,

The post that we interpreted was about 3 weeks ago.

Jeremy hasn't been online for the past week.

If Jeremy comes online and reads Steve B's quote(recent) from Sam below, Jeremy would surely have allowed links to Ippolit again. We have BB's report as evidence.

Graham,

so it's the Mod's "interpretation".

Lemme get it straight.

If we follow the rule of majority,

then that means 2 out of 3 Mods, right?

So, for instance:

if Graham & Jeremy interprets a thread as acceptable,

even though Swami doesn't like it,

rule of majority , 2 out 3 , means

Jeremy & Graham's interpretation over rules Swami.

Am I wrong????

Now, what happens if Swami still insists he is right.?

are the other 2 mods obligated/required to follow him???

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

Would you mind posting his report here? Graham is clueless.