Russ, do you protect people from banning?

Russ, do you protect people from banning?

Only Chess

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

FL

Joined
21 Feb 06
Moves
6830
06 Mar 08

The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/

N

The sky

Joined
05 Apr 05
Moves
10385
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Fat Lady
The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/
I guess that'll get deleted again though...

FL

Joined
21 Feb 06
Moves
6830
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Nordlys
I guess that'll get deleted again though...
I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.

N

The sky

Joined
05 Apr 05
Moves
10385
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.
I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.

M

Joined
31 Jan 07
Moves
93899
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.
The wording of the earlier post was unacceptable, this wording is OK.

A

Amsterdam

Joined
04 Feb 06
Moves
48636
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by wittywonka
Would it be alright to explain what the (most recent) moderated post explained, substituting names?
My last 2 posts were removed.. in short these posts said:

The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..

That was removed removed because I quoted the source of that..
And because I mentioned the name of the accused (although 'accused' approved to mention his name)

Second post that was removed contained the website / weblog of the 'accused'..

aw
Baby Gauss

Ceres

Joined
14 Oct 06
Moves
18375
06 Mar 08

Mods honestly you are exagerating. Sheesh!

s

Joined
03 Feb 04
Moves
77968
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Forum Moderator
Users are reminded again NOT to name users when discussing cheating allegations in the forums.
Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....

a

THORNINYOURSIDE

Joined
04 Sep 04
Moves
245624
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by saffa73
Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....
Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!

s

Joined
03 Feb 04
Moves
77968
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by adramforall
Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!
Prob this then...

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

I guess it might be seen as libelous or defamatory...

G
Whale watching

33°36'S 26°53'E

Joined
05 Feb 04
Moves
41150
06 Mar 08
1 edit

Originally posted by Amsterdamn
The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..
That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.

v

Joined
04 Jul 06
Moves
7174
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY

Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY
If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

G
Whale watching

33°36'S 26°53'E

Joined
05 Feb 04
Moves
41150
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY
Well, of course, there is always a presumption of innocence. That goes without saying. But that is very, very different to "reaching a verdict of not guilty." Surely, you can see the huge difference.

Joined
02 Sep 04
Moves
188665
06 Mar 08

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.
...and I guess if the chair the defendant is sitting on is set ablaze that is telling something too...