@AlexiHarvey said in #60:
> The video had already been referred too twice in the thread, and I certainly wouldn't have looked at it otherwise. I made the comment as I considered it 'in context' and could save some people time.
Agreed, I meant that more about what my comments were going to be.
>Regards 'false positives' - of which there will always be if only statistics is deployed - you have to look at the penalty - do it twice and you are kicked off a website. I would say this is reasonable commercial usage if persons are not named.
Chirila corrected Kramnik when he was wrong on the name and shame aspect of cheat deterrence, because he perhaps hadn't been briefed that Wench was going to announce about hiring strong legal representation for cases when him falsely accusing innocent people is illegal.
>Whether such usage is being executed correctly is basically a matter of trust in the website.
When people are power hungry to the extent they disregard their conscience and ethics, they argue against how a typical person would address a problem. For example, if there is some concern, it wouldn't be too tough to arrange a local club member or official to be present in person for the next tournament, for the 6 or so more high performance differential players. This would have a positive impact. There are hundreds of ways of dealing with player paranoia ethically, but there are only a few which maximise Wench's personal power or money, which is why they are never spoken about. Wrench is trying to influence, through a series of framed arguments around specific topics in a specific order, blocking typical rational points that would lead to a more positive response, that which does not bring him power: he wants to be immune to societal scrutiny when falsely accusing and then condemning innocent people.
I am surprised that Wench and all beasts are doing this to the chess community, as I would have thought that most people playing chess had higher than average intelligence, and this is the kind of method the unscrupulous would use against ignorant people. I have seen the effects of bowing down to or playing along with these kinds of people. I don't use chess.corn, he hasn't won, Wench 's evil has no effect on me. It's really down to GMs, IMs, NMs, CMs etc, if they don't take issue with it, they will be the innocent ones falsely accused, not me! So either they try get their tongue further up Wench's agenda to make sure they get the exception offered to chess.corn promoters (who incidentally play what would be considered suspiciously well above their FIDE ratings online) or say something unbiased and honest about the methods Wrench is looking to exact upon them!
PS: did anyone notice Wench admit to releasing the emails he previously said were leaked (@33:33)?
> The video had already been referred too twice in the thread, and I certainly wouldn't have looked at it otherwise. I made the comment as I considered it 'in context' and could save some people time.
Agreed, I meant that more about what my comments were going to be.
>Regards 'false positives' - of which there will always be if only statistics is deployed - you have to look at the penalty - do it twice and you are kicked off a website. I would say this is reasonable commercial usage if persons are not named.
Chirila corrected Kramnik when he was wrong on the name and shame aspect of cheat deterrence, because he perhaps hadn't been briefed that Wench was going to announce about hiring strong legal representation for cases when him falsely accusing innocent people is illegal.
>Whether such usage is being executed correctly is basically a matter of trust in the website.
When people are power hungry to the extent they disregard their conscience and ethics, they argue against how a typical person would address a problem. For example, if there is some concern, it wouldn't be too tough to arrange a local club member or official to be present in person for the next tournament, for the 6 or so more high performance differential players. This would have a positive impact. There are hundreds of ways of dealing with player paranoia ethically, but there are only a few which maximise Wench's personal power or money, which is why they are never spoken about. Wrench is trying to influence, through a series of framed arguments around specific topics in a specific order, blocking typical rational points that would lead to a more positive response, that which does not bring him power: he wants to be immune to societal scrutiny when falsely accusing and then condemning innocent people.
I am surprised that Wench and all beasts are doing this to the chess community, as I would have thought that most people playing chess had higher than average intelligence, and this is the kind of method the unscrupulous would use against ignorant people. I have seen the effects of bowing down to or playing along with these kinds of people. I don't use chess.corn, he hasn't won, Wench 's evil has no effect on me. It's really down to GMs, IMs, NMs, CMs etc, if they don't take issue with it, they will be the innocent ones falsely accused, not me! So either they try get their tongue further up Wench's agenda to make sure they get the exception offered to chess.corn promoters (who incidentally play what would be considered suspiciously well above their FIDE ratings online) or say something unbiased and honest about the methods Wrench is looking to exact upon them!
PS: did anyone notice Wench admit to releasing the emails he previously said were leaked (@33:33)?
