The Death of cheater_1

It's what he'd of wanted.

tyouy didnt you evero sotp too think, maybe heis new years resoliution was to quir chess,com.  its certainly paUSIBLE.  happu new yearsd people ghet smashed

The CORRECT grammar would be "It's what he'd HAVE wanted". Learn to speak PROPER English.

Happy 2009.

I don't have any idea what you mean.

Is there some secret societal code that I'm unaware of for websites? In my opinion, websites are private entities that I am a guest at. It's not like chess.com or yahoo or whatever is some country, so why this insistence on these freedom of speech type ideas? I think we get it stuck in our heads on these community sites that it is a real community. If someone came on a website that I made and consistantly tried to rile people up and consistantly attacked my character by calling me a liar and such, I'd delete them too. I think we forget sometimes that not everything is our right, some things are our priveledge to use. Perhaps we shouldn't take things for granted so much. 

Chessroshi, you are correct. However, this is a debate of ethics, not law. Erik had every legal right to ban cheater_1. However, I believe that it goes against society's code of ethics.

that's kinda my point, this is a gathering of people on a privately owned website, not a society. to me, it's not unethical to remove someone who is being unruly. I think Erik was very tolerant of Cheater_1. Most of the posts Cheater_1 were just semi-interesting rants, but I noticed more and more he would just insult Erik and try to bash chess.com. Honestly, under the harrassment guidelines of this site, it could only be expected. Say for instance I hop on the forums and accuse my opponents of cheating and start bad mouthing them. I'd probably get a polite warning to curb my behavior, and if I continued to ramble on like an idiot, I'd probably be sitebanned. I think Cheater_1 just put too much on the Con side of the scale and put fewer and fewer interesting posts on the Pro side. And again, I stress, this is a private entity that we are guests at, not a real society that we have entitled rights in. There may be an ethics issue for a paid account, but still in that instance they could just issue a refund.

Well put Chessroshi, totally agree on your last 2 posts.

Good points Chessroshi. Let us all celebrate this momentous occasion with a tournament!

http://www.chess.com/tournament/good-riddance-cheater1

we must look at all sides too, if we are going to make an ethics arguement out of Cheater_1. Is it ethical for Cheater_1 to be able to perpetrate libel all over Eriks site? I don't think I could spend much time in any place of business, which is what chess.com is, and just start running my mouth at customers and employees about how terrible it is or how much I dislike the store or people. Likely they would ask me to leave, and if I refused they would probably call the cops to have me removed for public disturbence. Is it ethical for Cheater_1 to be able to do the same thing on a virtual platform? I think not.

 wow, before i read your post i couldn't decide who to side with. but now i realise, Erik DID THE RIGHT THING

I surely hope this person is drunk or on drugs..........otherwise he needs a lot of remedial assistance.

I see the point that you are making, and I believe it to be very valid. However, I believe that, although erik owns this site to the fullest extent, that he should not ban someone with whom he disagrees for that sole purpose. It makes the environment less friendly. Cheater_1 may have gone a bit too far, but I believe that he should have been given more leeway. Erik does have complete control over chess.com, but he made it into something less pleasant the day he banned cheater_1.

Anyone who thinks he should be brought back deserves to follow him

I have now seen the light! As the ying and yang, Erik needs Cheater1 to complete him so must Cheater1 have Erik to complete him! So... we will see this imortal duel of the ages surface once again, as a Phoenix. The mouth shall rise again.

Well put. Very well put. Chess.com feels empty without a ranting voice to make us laugh, and the ranting voice needs a home. Quite a profound statement.

For someone who read 1984 many times, you should realize you're now playing the part of the Ministry of Truth.  Pulling a quote out of context from over a year ago while ignoring every other aspect of the issue renders the author either remarkably ignorant or consciously disingenuous.  So, liar or fool?

This is not from over a year ago. It is from three months ago. Cheater_1 really hadn't changed his ways since then, except for the vote chess game which ultamitely got him expelled, considering all evidence. However, even if that post were completely outdated and out of context, I would not be playing the part of the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth fabricates values, events, and expectations. It does not rely upon any evidence to make its claims. I have not ignored every other aspect of the issue. The quote, while not posted in relation to cheater_1's expulsion, still holds water. In addition to this, I am not exercising doublethink. I am equivocating when necessary, looking at the opposition's point of view, and drawing a conclusion. I am not taking the facts that support my opinion and discarding all others. I believe that erik did have some reason to ban cheater_1, and had every legal right to do so. However, I believe that it would have been a better decision to allow cheater_1 to stay. But under what parameters? That is exactly what provides this joyous debate. Last, and definitely least, I unnewspeak.

Don't make me call the Ministry of Bitch Slapping!

If the Minibitchslap, as it would be called in Newspeak, goes along with the principles of doublethink, as the rest of the ministries do, it would do everything except bitch slapping.