Site Ideas
20 Jan 05
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by KraniumWe've been all through this: you have an opinion and it is held by a tiny minority on this site. There is no current "Game Mod" system in place so your conclusion that it cannot be fair and unbiased is not based on any evidence at all. Once at least some of the Game Mods are named, Dave Tebb has indicated their first job will be determining what procedures and criteria will be used. Maybe you should wait until you see what they come up with before prejudging.
No1-
As I made clear in the threads, yes, I have serious concerns about the cheat police...and I believe these concerns are reasonable, and clearly articulated. I'm also concerned about the way it was done. That's why the 2nd thread is named
"The Cheat Police vote was fundamentally flawed", but I repeat:
It should be fair, unbiased, using credi ...[text shortened]... yet seen any evidence that the current 'game mod' system will meet these requirements.
Norm
20 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI have never concluded "that it cannot [possibly] be fair and unbiased".
We've been all through this: you have an opinion and it is held by a tiny minority on this site. There is no current "Game Mod" system in place so your conclusion that it cannot be fair and unbiased is not based on any evidence a ...[text shortened]... hould wait until you see what they come up with before prejudging.
What I did do was to express my concerns on what I've seen so far.
I do remain hopeful, (albeit somewhat skeptical), that a fair and effective system can be put in place.
I don't know if I'm part of a tiny minority or not, (hard to tell considering so few voted) but I don't really care about that...I feel that the concerns I raised are valid and important.
You do have a good point - the system is not yet in place (as far as we know). You also said:
"Maybe you should wait until you see what they come up with before prejudging". Well, yes, I agree really. I expressed myself based on the limited info we all had at the time.
Hopefully, in the near future, the working system, actual criteria and methods will be made public so that people can come to a fair conclusion, but I am rather doubtful on this, there's been too much secrecy already.
20 Jan 05
I agree with the cunning Contumelious Counselor (say that quickly 3 times). It's time to make our move. Yes there will be problems, no system is perfect, but they'll clear those hurdles when they come to them. I also DO NOT want the methods used by the CP to be made public. How they conduct an investigation should be between themselves and the site's management.
I think it's time to get the CP show moving and let them work the bugs out of their system. Maybe have a few trial runs, nothing official, and then see what needs to be corrected in their process. Perhaps they're doing this already?
20 Jan 05
I am also doubtful and I know many others who are too but don't post their views in the forums. The bottom line is that all cheating accusations and insinuations should now stop, especially by those who put themselves forward as potential Mods, if they can't set a good example as to how this issue should be conducted then they are not suitable, no matter how well they did in the popular vote.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWell since russ has not yet started the game mods I think we can assume he needs more time to figure everything out.
More nonsense. Russ will be the one to name the members of the Game Mods in either event; I'm merely saying after more than a month and a half it's time to do so (I'll ignore your "obvious cheats" comment as I seriously doubt Russ will name "obvious cheats" to the Game Mods).
I would rather have everything go slow and perfect instead of quick and sloppy.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by KraniumWho said anything about using an engine? Just said that you are only bringing attention to yourself with all your anti-cheat mod threads and posts. When you have your own chess site feel free to pick your cheat moderators, if you'd have any, the way you like. Russ decided to get the community opinion with a vote which he said would have influence on his selections. You speak about the vote as if it's results are set in stone. The voting doesn't pick the cheat moderators, Russ does, and I'm sure when he does finally pick the people you'll have a problem with his picking methods as well.
Trackhead21 -
I'm Norman Schmidt - USCF ID is: 12408114, (have been an active member for almost 40 years). I am a member of at least 8 other Internet chess sites, including playchess.com, and my favorite - the ICC (at all sites my rating is comparable to here). I do not use an engine (or database) here in any way shape or form.
Why, if someone disag ...[text shortened]... opinions? You've spoken in the past of 'clamping' people's mouths....
what's the problem?
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed and yes seems a few people don't agree but the heck with them, think we all have come to disregard others idiocracy(wonders if thats even a word lol)
I agree that all cheating accusations and insinuations should stop (under the assumption that Russ will very soon name some Game Mods) but apparently some people in this thread don't agree with us.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightthey probably shouldn't be announced to the public but Russ should announce when he has made his selections. Announcing the names would be a bad idea as bad of an idea as posting the system they will use to please a small minority of people. Interesting how some think they have some type of right to know everything about how Russ runs "his" site, including its inner workings.
I wonder this as well.
21 Jan 05
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21I think naming who the mods are is important, it's important for ppl to find out, say, if most of the mods are rivals or enemies of them.
they probably shouldn't be announced to the public but Russ should announce when he has made his selections. Announcing the names would be a bad idea as bad of an idea as posting the system they will use to please a small minority of people. Interesting how some think they have some type of right to know everything about how Russ runs "his" site, including its inner workings.
21 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseThats exactly why they shouldnt be named because some people on the site are childish enough to have people they consider rivals or enemies. Its an online site and a game, come on. :-)
I think naming who the mods are is important, it's important for ppl to find out, say, if most of the mods are rivals or enemies of them.
21 Jan 05
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21Well, everyone here considers me like some "enemy of the state", so why don't you bother them about this? LOL.
Thats exactly why they shouldnt be named because some people on the site are childish enough to have people they consider rivals or enemies. Its an online site and a game, come on. :-)