You get it when you hit 2000.
Important Message About Cheating
Sort:
That's interesting!
mebelalalana wrote:
Ali-Momani-92 wrote:
...We have a zero-tolerance policy on cheating, and we have developed sophisticated (and very effective) cheat-detection methods.When we catch cheaters, we close their accounts immediately and ban them from future participation on Chess.com...
mebelalalana wrote:
which is exactly why Chess.com should not have "chickened out" the way they did after Yelena Dembo threatened them with a lolsuit
https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Internet_lawsuit
Chess.com put that "account closed for cheating" banner on Yelena Dembo's profile for a reason (because she did in fact cheat) and they should've left that banner there on her page so everyone can know what she did.
but Chess.com decided not to publicly label people as cheaters anymore, following the suggestion of this guy:
so, from one side of their mouth, Chess.com is saying their cheat-detection methods are very effective and they close the accounts of people they catch cheating.
but, from the other side of their mouth, Chess.com is saying that although they will close the account, they won't publicly accuse the person of cheating because they're afraid of lawsuits. but, they cannot get sued for saying something that is actually true (and in the case of Yelena Dembo, it is)!
so, which is it? either the person cheated or they didn't. can't have it both ways.
There is a difference between a method being effective and one being perfect. There is a difference between something being mathematically sound and one that will hold up in court. And even if they can prove their methods, going to trial costs a lot of money.
They simply chose the pragmatic option.
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
There is a difference between a method being effective and one being perfect. There is a difference between something being mathematically sound and one that will hold up in court. And even if they can prove their methods, going to trial costs a lot of money.
They simply chose the pragmatic option.
mebelalalana wrote:
which means Chess.com doesn't even believe in the accuracy of their cheat-detection system. because if they did, they'd have nothing to fear from a frivolous lawsuit. also keep in mind, there have been many court cases in the U.S. (where Chess.com's servers are located) where judges made the losing side pay all legal fees. so if they really believe in what they're saying, Chess.com should've put their money where their mouth is, instead of giving in to Yelena Dembo the way they did (by removing the "closed for cheating" banner from her profile).
Ummmm.... proving a frivolous lawsuit is very difficult. Most likely, chess.com would have had to pay for their own legal defense.
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
Ummmm.... proving a frivolous lawsuit is very difficult. Most likely, chess.com would have had to pay for their own legal defense.
mebelalalana wrote:
you're totally missing the point. if Chess.com was worried about having to pay legal fees, then they shouldn't have accused Yelena Dembo of cheating in the first place. my point is that, they cannot have it both ways. but somehow in your responses you keep missing (or dodging) that point.
I wish I could be 14 and know everything again.
They made a decision initially to try to shame cheaters.
They got a law suit and stepped back and realzied it wasn't worth the fight and backpeddled. chess.com is a very small company going through some learning curves... nothing more.
This is not the first time or last time such a series of decisions were made.
And as far as missing your point, you said
Chess.com put that "account closed for cheating" banner on Yelena Dembo's profile for a reason (because she did in fact cheat) and they should've left that banner there on her page so everyone can know what she did.
So, you are sending mixed messages on what your argument is.
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
Ummmm.... proving a frivolous lawsuit is very difficult. Most likely, chess.com would have had to pay for their own legal defense.
mebelalalana wrote:
you're totally missing the point. if Chess.com was worried about having to pay legal fees, then they shouldn't have accused Yelena Dembo of cheating in the first place. my point is that, they cannot have it both ways. but somehow in your responses you keep missing (or dodging) that point.
They made a decision initially to try to shame cheaters.
They got a law suit and stepped back and realzied it wasn't worth the fight and backpeddled.
This is not the first time or last time such a series of decisions were made.
mebelalalana wrote:
ha! i love how you "backpedalled" on your "i wish i could be 14 and know everything again" comment. guess you realized it was a mistake and decided against it, eh? i guess "this is not the first time or last time such a decision will be made"
Why are you now misquoting me?
EricFleet wrote:
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
Ummmm.... proving a frivolous lawsuit is very difficult. Most likely, chess.com would have had to pay for their own legal defense.
mebelalalana wrote:
you're totally missing the point. if Chess.com was worried about having to pay legal fees, then they shouldn't have accused Yelena Dembo of cheating in the first place. my point is that, they cannot have it both ways. but somehow in your responses you keep missing (or dodging) that point.
They made a decision initially to try to shame cheaters.
They got a law suit and stepped back and realzied it wasn't worth the fight and backpeddled.
This is not the first time or last time such a series of decisions were made.
mebelalalana wrote:
ha! i love how you "backpedalled" on your "i wish i could be 14 and know everything again" comment. guess you realized it was a mistake and decided against it, eh? i guess "this is not the first time or last time such a decision will be made"
Why are you now misquoting me?
Don't take it personally Eric. She is a chronic liar and troll.
kleelof wrote:
Don't take it personally Eric. She is a chronic liar and troll.
Yeah, I'm done.
clockblockerz wrote:
kleelof wrote:
Don't take it personally Eric. She is a chronic liar and troll.
I didn't know you were God. Interesting. Please tell us more.
You don't have to be god to know. You just have to experience her lies and trollism to know.
I hate cheaters, but more so, I hate people who use abusive language -especially for no reason...sorry for being off-topic!
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
you are sending mixed messages on what your argument is.
mebelalalana wrote:
nope. i'm not sending any "mixed messages." you just don't understand the point: Chess.com cannot have it both ways. if they want to tout their cheat-detection system as being "very effective" and say they will close the accounts of cheaters, then they should be prepared to call out any person for cheating, regardless of who that cheater is (like Woman Grandmaster Yelena Dembo). and if the cheater is dumb enough to threaten Chess.com with a lawsuit, Chess.com should put their money where their mouth is and stand by their decision (their decision to close the cheater's account). but if Chess.com is not prepared to defend their cheat-detection system, then they shouldn't be calling it "very effective" if they don't even believe in its effectiveness enough to defend it in court.
Think like a pragmatist rather than an idealist for a minute.
Would you be willing to spend a years salary (in theory if you had a job) proving that something you said was true? It's just not a smart business decision, even if ideally you'd like to see them back up their cheat detection.
What players are watched for cheating? All of them, or just players above a certain rating? If it was the latter, it would explain a lot...
Regardless of the threatened law-suit and subsequent "watering down" of the cheat detection statement, her account is closed and reputation tarnished. I agree though, it would be nice if an account is closed, for cheating chess.com to make us aware of it via a "we reasonably suspect (but cannot for legal reasons be 100% sure) that x person was cheating" kind of statement hehe
mebelalalana wrote:
EricFleet wrote:
you are sending mixed messages on what your argument is.
mebelalalana wrote:
nope. i'm not sending any "mixed messages." you just don't understand the point: Chess.com cannot have it both ways. if they want to tout their cheat-detection system as being "very effective" and say they will close the accounts of cheaters, then they should be prepared to call out any person for cheating, regardless of who that cheater is (like Woman Grandmaster Yelena Dembo). and if the cheater is dumb enough to threaten Chess.com with a lawsuit, Chess.com should put their money where their mouth is and stand by their decision (their decision to close the cheater's account). but if Chess.com is not prepared to defend their cheat-detection system, then they shouldn't be calling it "very effective" if they don't even believe in its effectiveness enough to defend it in court.
Ah! The idealism of youth. No regard for the bottom line.
Which is less expensive to chess.com, a corporation with a limited liability budget as opposed to an unlimited warchest. In other words, which is less espensive to chess.com? To simply terminate a player and make no comment, or terminate a player for cheating and post it on their profile thereby risking slander suits which if filed in civil courts entails chess.com having to pay for defending those lawsuits even if chess.com countersues for court costs and wins. If chess.com brings suit for damage to their corporate "good will image", assuming the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile, it is a losing battle.
It is better to avoid this slippery slope into the abyss.
Principles aren't more important than money in business.
mebelalalana wrote:
Yaroslavl wrote:
Ah! The idealism of youth. No regard for the bottom line. Which is less expensive to chess.com, a corporation with a limited liability budget as opposed to an unlimited warchest. In other words, which is less espensive to chess.com? To simply terminate a player and make no comment, or terminate a player for cheating and post it on their profile thereby risking slander suits which if filed in civil courts entails chess.com having to pay for defending those lawsuits even if chess.com countersues for court costs and wins. If chess.com brings suit for damage to their corporate "good will image", assuming the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile, it is a losing battle. It is better to avoid this slippery slope into the abyss.
mebelalalana wrote:
but, the bottom line (money) is not and should not be everything. that's the point people seem to be missing here.
Principles are (and should always be) more important than money.
Yaroslavl wrote:
"assuming the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile"
again, it's not about money, it's about principles. if someone is going to be too afraid to defend their principles, then why have principles at all?
in the Constitution, it says "Justice for ALL" not "justice for those who have more money."
Try convincing th owners of Chess.com and their accountants of all this above.
One more consideration is that in some slander suits truth is not a defense. In other words, even if cess.com can prove in court by a preponderance of the evidence the the cheating is true it will not make the slander suit go away.
mebelalalana wrote:
Yaroslavl wrote:
Ah! The idealism of youth. No regard for the bottom line. Which is less expensive to chess.com, a corporation with a limited liability budget as opposed to an unlimited warchest. In other words, which is less espensive to chess.com? To simply terminate a player and make no comment, or terminate a player for cheating and post it on their profile thereby risking slander suits which if filed in civil courts entails chess.com having to pay for defending those lawsuits even if chess.com countersues for court costs and wins. If chess.com brings suit for damage to their corporate "good will image", assuming the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile, it is a losing battle. It is better to avoid this slippery slope into the abyss.
mebelalalana wrote:
but, the bottom line (money) is not and should not be everything. that's the point people seem to be missing here.
Principles are (and should always be) more important than money.
Yaroslavl wrote:
"assuming the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile"
again, it's not about money, it's about principles. if someone is going to be too afraid to defend their principles, then why have principles at all?
in the Constitution, it says "Justice for ALL" not "justice for those who have more money."
That's just paper, the actual law doesn't care about justice for all unfortunately. I don't care what the law says because most people in jail don't belong there since it's only certain drug charges and since rich people can get away with drunk driving and murder the law isn't a credible basis for one's moral compass.
And link for your statement that truth is not a defence yaroslavl? I'm pretty sure it use. Slander is for false statements.
Not sure what this exchange has to do with the OP :S