Welp... I originally did feel as though my most-recent post within this thread (# 59) would in fact be my last, yet there was a recent development or two that has taken place within the last few days (some other, recently-cloaked/veiled public assertions of *alleged* engine use in said player's *chess* game(s) notwithstanding), which I personally felt might be worth sharing here with some fellow respectful, polite and discerning/sensible members of the public.
Specifically, it's to do with another, relatively-strong chess/crazyhouse player -- their exact same profile-"mark", received basically the exact same day (and time also, maybe?) as Atrophied's -- and their subsequent grant (mere days later...) received of what appears to be a fully-reinstated account. Essentially -- for all intents & purposes -- "littleplotkin", aka Mark Plotkin has now been given full-pardon.
Here's how a particular mod here on the site chose to go about "explaining" their respective position and reasoning/rationale behind *what exactly was done/not done*... along with the *how & why* behind some of the decisions made -- towards a fairly polite, respectful and sincere individual who just so happened to have possessed -- at that specific moment in time -- a little bit of an inquiring mind about all of this...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Crazyhouse Summer League (ZHSL) > Forum > "Extension of One Week"-forum thread:
[two days ago] okei:
@FischyVishy The discussions are going to continue on and off this website until there is some degree of clarity. Is it possible for the mods to bring some of this evidence to the lichess community and to the people involved in order for them to either own up or explain themselves? It seems countless hours were spent by the mods talking amongst themselves and discussing what to do but no one has actually discussed the issue with the people accused themselves so one can't blame them for these hours because they might own up or give an explanation on the spot which would have saved those hours. I understand the mods likely want to move on and frankly I trust the mods and understand for the most part they are dealing with computer cheats etc and it's a huge undertaking. Nevertheless, the accused must be incorporated in the process of making these judgments to give them a chance to defend themselves and conditions for leniency. Yes, it's only a chess website but it matters a lot to people so the systems of justice must be fair. Littleplotkin for example continues to say he still doesn't know why he was banned. It reminds of the Spanish Inquisition where the accused were not told what they were accused of. This is the best chess website period. Zero tolerance for cheats. And it deserves a justice system to match in cases where cheating is accused as well as leniency towards fooling around inherent in allowing people to beserk in the first place.
[two days ago] FischyVishy: I understand your point, but the team can't issue a public statement every time someone gets banned. It would be even more time-consuming, might teach semi-dumb cheaters how to avoid the methods used, and creates endless debates on topics most people are not 100% on.
[two days ago] okei:
@FischyVishy I see, good point about not revealing detection methods. This is a difficult issue. Now littleplotkin is back we still don't know if it was a pardon, or an error. But I guess you know so maybe we can tell which from whether you let him back in the league...difficult situation isn't it? I hope it was an error.
[two days ago] FischyVishy:
@okei There was no error. He was banned for a different reason, and his appeal was accepted.
The quality of their crazyhouse has nothing to do with the mark. That sounds like blackmail anyway - the mod team doesn't need to do anything; it's their own wrongdoing, and they should be able to handle their own mistakes.
And here... is where g'ma will go ahead and close-off the remainder of this particular shared-dialogue from any further re-hashing and so forth here within this specific thread. My sincerest apologies to all who may feel sharing this all is a bit overwhelming, irrelevant and not-all-that-pertinent to the overall-proceedings of this particular case regarding Atrophied's indefinite-ban (if, in fact, it is still actually an *open case* for that matter).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Without going into any sort of tirade or anything of the like regarding the subject-matter I've just shared here with the community, I just wanted to ask any of you who care, are interested and maybe have some light they may be able to to shed on all of this: how does one -- or a group of *law-abiding* individuals, *trying* to remain united as a greater, healthy community, moving forward -- supposed to, well... proceed from a particular exchange like that, which stemmed from a fairly-sensitive and significant matter -- while along the way also be able to somehow willingly trust those in position of authority *in spite* of how they themselves choose to operate, delegate and the rest... when there seems to be an evident/apparent lack of genuine courtesy, transparency and the like as it pertains to the members of the community they interact with?
I'm just asking, just curious... There is absolutely no harm, ill-will, malice or any of the like intended from my end of things here, as I myself am *fully-aware* of just how difficult, precarious and oft-times thankless a job moderating/administering *any* fairly-large, public website can be. From the bottom of my very heart, I, for one, am continually grateful, thankful and appreciative for *all* they do and contribute as a whole... for the greater community; this all cannot be overstated, and goes without saying.
All of that notwithstanding, when I personally happen to come across particular exchanges like the one I just shared mere moments ago (specifically FischyVischy's last response posted in that excerpt) -- as I sometimes frequent/browse some of the more relevant threads here within the site-forums -- one kinda sorta starts thinking, positing ideas, potential questions and so on... as to what exactly, if anything, could have caused or contributed to that particular moderator's rather-terse, condescending tone and manner in which they *chose* to "handle" a *resonable*, public inquiry being made (and again, an inquiry that was carried-out with utmost sincerity, respect and sensibility) from a well-intentioned, decent and respectful individual?
If you ask me, the way member okei (and it would appear... a few other decent, respectful members within that particular forum-thread) was dealt with during that exchange... strikes me as a tad bit needlessly-coy, disingenuous and ultimately all unnecessary... if you ask me. Why??? Well... that's kinda why I'm seeking some light shed, if any at all, on just what could be a cause for one in position of authority to proceed in this kind of manner.
Am I -- throughout the midst of this sort of spiel/tangent -- somehow suggesting or making the type of implication that there... maybe... possibly... is something *so damning, heinous and incriminating* it necessitates near-indefinite concealment -- for fear of compromising the status/position/efforts of everyone involved, including *they*, themselves -- on the part of the moderator here in question and their respective dealings towards public inquiries being made? That's merely subjective/interpretative, at best... and is *really* for any of you who even care at all about any of this... to truly decide for yourselves -- moving forward, if you so choose to.
Anyway, I'm finally closing this off and getting going here. Thanks in advance to any & all who kindly, respectfully has any insight(s) at all they'd be willingly to share on some of this stuff.
As I've stressed multiple times already here before: courtesy, good-will, impartiality, transparency and consistency -- maybe the latter-mentioned being chief among them all. That's really all one could ask for upon giving their trust and relative free-will on over to those who are *privileged -- not entitled* -- to be in positions of power (whether the web site in question legally/contractually binds you, or not... and vice-versa), in the midst of situations such as this very one.
Regards
