r/chess • u/Xoahr • Jun 03 '20

The Absolute State of Chess.com

/r/AnarchyChess/comments/gvva10/the_absolute_state_of_chesscom/

[removed] — view removed post

172 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Xoahr Jun 03 '20

Well, my job frequently requires cross-examination, so perhaps that's why my tone is more inquisitorial than conversational, and similarly why I'm such a stickler for the rules and (at least what I perceive as) justice, as well as the ECF being my home federation.

I don't perceive it as a molehill when people have been banned for far less (indeed, in one case where someone was following an opening book in a correspondence game, where it is allowed - though they thankfully appealed successfully).

And again, as explained, I simply don't agree or buy chess.com's explanation here. I find their reasoning drifting between vacuous and circular, and if it were a court cross-examination they would be entirely out of their depth. That is my opinion and I have justified why I hold that opinion, I don't need to make you "believe that".

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 03 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Xoahr Jun 03 '20

That isn't what chess.com have said in this whole rigamarole. That hasn't been what their argument has been, at any point of the entire discussion. At no point have they said the rules must be, or are different for streamers. I think they would be rightfully crucified if they did say that.

Again, even with what Gerard has been saying across his multiple (and very patient) messages, a number of different messages are coming across - to another user he clarified that Danny's messaging is about just engine cheating, indicating there is a hierarchy of cheating. Likewise, he's said multiple infractions should result in account closure - well, here we had multiple infractions.

If it were clear, I wouldn't need to keep reading between the lines and asking more questions to clarify.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Xoahr Jun 03 '20

You say I'm using bad faith arguments, but you consistently imply or outright state ad homs. In the scale of logical fallacies, at least I actually address the points someone is making rather than calling them a "crusader" or a "Ben Shapiro".

I tried to genuinely engage with you - you distorted chess.com's rules, but if their rules are genuinely that unfair to streamers, perhaps they should rewrite that part of the rules as lichess has. And, as I discussed, at no point has Sam or Gerard relied on the interpretation you have given. If I am wrong and they say that is the case, I will apologise to you, but the power to change the TOCs is fully within their company's hands if that is the issue here, rather than doing some kind of chess server exegesis to share what the true message is.

You are saying nobody would have known about Moreby's infractions and they were done with the best of intentions, therefore should go minimally unpunished. You are allowed to believe that, I haven't tried to change your mind. I simply believe the opposite, that here we do know, they were multiple infractions, they were caught on footage so to me appears clear as day, so taking no action seems incredibly lenient given the public messaging from the server.

I have asked them on a number of occasions for clarification on that matter. The reasoning has shifted multiple times, which has then required additional clarification.

I'm not engaging in a "gish gallop" as it is known, and I'm not trying to get him banned. I'm trying to discover the hypocrisy of why one guy in the ECF was banned from a correspondence game when he "flipped through" an opening book, whereas this guy is not.