FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Chris Whittington]

In practice we interpret carte blanche to mean that Ed and I brainstorm possible actions and make forum posts as we think fit. Before going beyond an idea for a plan and taking any action we consult Vas as to whether he agrees or not.

From this I infer that the breaching of the Panel privacy requirements was thus OK'd by Rajlich (cf. March 2015 publication on Rybka forum). Good to know, and indeed yet another reason why the ICGA should deny any appeal. [The purloining of said Panel discussions, and particularly subsequent "blackmail" attempts by Schröder therein, was a subject in Yokohama, and generally it seems that this type of behaviour is bound to ensure that the "Panel" is not going to be used in subsequent cases, at least not in the same form]. Should I also assume that various defamatory forum posts and/or web hostings by Schröder are also actionable as deriving from Rajlich?

Wrong on several counts.

No you can't infer anything other than a signed document or a formal appeal/approach/complaint to an external body is agreed by Vas Rajlich. Forum posts don't require Rajlich approval, those are independent postings as I and Ed have been making on forums since 1995 on and off.

Secondly you have no idea at all as to the source of the panel discussion leak. User Trotsky stated that he was sent a PM with a link into the sky from an unknown account which has never posted before or since. Could have been any disgruntled panel member. Accusations against Ed merely show your bias. Each shown piece of your bias detracts from the alleged impartiality status of COMP EVAL, a document involving weird metrications to incrimate Rajlich and depending on a curious choice of six comparison programs, chosen by you, some very weird and often incorrect categorisations of program elements, chosen by you, and some highly subjective little numbers, also chosen by you. But please feel free to continue showing dislike of Vas and anyone associated with him and cherry pickign internet quotes to justify actions against him and reason for not putting those right .... we will use the sample examples you have provided.

This is poppycock. Ed stated on more than one occasion that he had made "a complete backup of the Wiki" even though he had formally left and stopped participating. He's published bits and pieces multiple times. So this "anonymous person" is pure bullshit.

BTW was your last statement made to Ed or to Mark? Because Ed has made a statement and then attributed it to mark, and then tried to use that statement (which Mark did not make as given) to suggest Mark had then changed his mind about loop. Mark just pieced together the conversation to show how it was distorted by leaving out context.

I'm having problems parsing your last paragraph. Too convoluted.

First para. Whether Ed made back ups or not is not relevent. User Trotsky stated he received a link to a site in the sky via an anonymous PM from a poster who had never posted before or afterwards. That anonymous source could have been anybody on the panel, or even someone who received the data from some one on the panel. Nobody has any idea. Yet, Mark Watkins states firmly it was Ed, as does biased Hyatt (no surprise there) when there is insufficient EVIDENCE to make that assertion. This demonstrates a BIASED view. We know in Hyatt case that bias entes into all his comments, and his comments and work on the case have to be suspect. In Watkins case, demonstrations of bias become problematical for the integrity of the EVAL COMP document into which he was able to put much influencial subjective input. The comparator programs. The defined program components to be compared. The little numbers that supposedly defined the "similarities".

User "trotsky" is pretty stupid if he believes that anyone is going to buy that crap sandwich, much less actually eat it.

It doesn't demonstrate a biased view by either Mark or myself. It shows a reasonable degree of common sense and logical deduction skills. I mean you guys have not exactly taken the "high road" to this point, so there is no reasonable expectation that will suddenly change. You like to twist, distort, take out of context and even make up fictitious stuff as you go along...

on this forum there are standards of speech, I'll try and maintain them, if I've erred so far, apologies to the forum. I don't find terms like "stupid" or "eating crap sandwiches" and general accusations of "twisting, distorting, etc etc" very useful. The usual result is degeneration into a slanging match, and open-chess is possibly the one forum where sides of very different views can meet and discuss in a better atmosphere. Please don't try and ruin it, Bob.

[Chris Whittington]

Ditto for you guys and Vas. HE can do whatever he wants. You can do nothing. Until HE makes the decision to approach the ICGA nothing is going to change. You guys can whine and complain all you want. You just produce noise however. And it reminds me of the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present, does it make any noise?" You guys are NOT the ones that are going to get any attention from the ICGA. YOU guys are not going to get any attention from a court. YOU guys are not going to get any attention from anybody other than your "self-whiner" group on the RF.

If you want to do something constructive, talk to Vas and get HIM to do something.

Otherwise the whole damned forest can fall down and it won't make a single sound.

At this stage there is no point in Vas representatives (or Vas for that matter) "approaching" the icga. the icga doesn't really exist, what you mean is approach Levy. Levy is a brick wall. He knows that the RIGHT THING to do is to remove all sanctions beyond "program invalidation" for the one tournament in question. Whether he will or not remains to be seen. Beyond that our demand is an overturning of an unjust verdict against an innocent programmer. Whether that overturn, or opportunity to overturn, comes from an independent panel, Levy himself, or a court or someplace else also remains to be seen.

[Chris Whittington]

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

Ah, it's you again with your selective memory.

History check -

I have dwelled over a 20 year period in several (7-9) ICGA tournaments. I have heard things not meant for my ears, saw things I was not supposed to see. And then came the Panel validation and I knew what kind of justice was coming my way. And I don't buy it for a moment you can not remember the simple question I asked you. Did you (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not? Then came the idiotic verdict. And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first before any definite measures were taken and rushed to the keyboard.

You guys hurt people.

The case is closed. Get a life.

You (or Bob, or Lefler) did consult David about Chris subscription to the Panel. Yes or No?

You (Bob and Lefler) were too much involved not to remember this crucial question.

So you or Bob simply can tell.

This, "I don't remember tactic" only works in Hollywod productions.

I certainly was asked about Chris. I spent a good bit of time trying to track down the emails from when we corresponded in the 90's. I could find nothing that matched the email in question. By the time I got that far, he had left in a huff. This was in 2011. Our emails dated back to the early 90's. That is a BUNCH of dvds to go through, and it takes time since they are not exactly speedy devices. I did not give this a 24/7 priority, we were involved in setting up the panel, I was teaching classes, and whatever else goes on around here that I have to deal with. Some took over a week to track down. He was not willing to wait. So yes I was involved. I can't speak directly for Mark/Harvey without going back through old emails again, which I don't intend to do. But at least one if not both were actively asking questions about the email address. Chris has not exactly had a clean past regarding emails so we could not be sure whether that was really him or not. At least until he stormed off with his little hitlers comment which convinced me, although a bit too late...

For me, I am old enough to set my own priorities, which I do. And while we were doing our best to get panel members accepted and included, it was not the #1 priority for anybody I don't think. We tried to do it in a timely way, but we did not go non-stop on this stuff to the detriment of our primary jobs...

Needless to say, this account, apart from including the usual untrue personal attacks - "not had a clean past regarding emails"(!!), "stormed off" "not willing to wait" "left in a huff" is disputed by our side. Readers are invited to read the numerous pages of output left over the web in the past few years where the real reasons can be quite easily deduced.

[Chris Whittington]

If you were him would you want to refer to YOURSELF in 1st person?

Or even at all?

There's an inappropriate level of rudeness here.

Moderators: it's an oft used tactic to raise rudeness levels such that the resulting retaliation reduces the thread to a kind of chaos. I'ld like to avoid that if possible.

[Chris Whittington]

From this I infer that the breaching of the Panel privacy requirements was thus OK'd by Rajlich (cf. March 2015 publication on Rybka forum). ... [The purloining of said Panel discussions, and particularly subsequent "blackmail" attempts by Schröder therein, was a subject in Yokohama, and generally it seems that this type of behaviour is bound to ensure that the "Panel" is not going to be used in subsequent cases, at least not in the same form].

Secondly you have no idea at all as to the source of the panel discussion leak. ... Accusations against Ed merely show your bias.

Yet, Mark Watkins states firmly it was Ed ...

Your reading comprehension underwhelms me. I never accused (nor "stated firmly") Mr. Schröder of being the "source" of the Mar 2015 Rybka forum panel discussion leak (done by Trotsky/Whittington). I merely stated that Schröder had "blackmailed" various persons back in 2012/3 regarding this, and that the topic was brought up in Yokohama, particularly as to how this might affect the Panel in working with LOOP.

BTW, now that you spoken out, I have removed the text you took offense.

I don't see why you did After all, it was part of your email (as Rajlich's representative) to Levy, and thus part of the procedural history. A better option would have been to put a sidenote/footnote somewhere on the page saying "MarkW disputes the veracity of this account"...

If ICGA wish to negotiate with Vas Rajlich they should approach his negotiators, myself and Ed.

I don't think the ICGA has any reason to accept Schröder and Whittington as representatives of Rajlich. If you want to drum up the "court" analogy again, leaking private documents (a la Trotsky/Whittington) would likely lead to disbarment, though admittedly the activities of Schröder [purloining these and then haranguing others about them] might only be seen as "contempt". Given these prior actions (among others), it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the ICGA would not accept either to act as Rajlich's representative.

Did you [Harvey] (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not?

Yes, they did. If you recall the history, ChrisW contacted me regarding his temporary ban from the Panel, and I was then involved in some circular emails with the above four. In particular, Levy was consulted by the Secretariat regarding the application of ChrisW, particularly the subsequent difficulties therein.

And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first

This is not my recollection. My opinion was that the ICGA should "move forward" (end the Panel Investigation) regarding the 2006-7 entries, and then if Rajlich had not sufficiently addressed the situation by (say) the next WCCC, then actions regarding later entries should be contemplated. I don't think I was ever eager to have the Panel "investigate R3" (even if I had already done lots of work vis-a-vis the R3/IPPOLIT), one reason being that it was not freely available to all Panel members.

Good. I'll take that as your acceptance of the obvious. The data was sent anonymously. There are about 50 panel members. The only valid deduction is that there's a 2% chance that Ed was the anonymous sender. Any increase on that 2% has to be down to personal bias.

Nevertheless, the terms: purloining, haranguing and blackmail, do indicate some form of biased thinking about Ed
Ed Schroeder has a reputation for being calm, cautious and conciliatory, it takes quite a lot to get him angry. I for one do not accept your characterisations, and, anyway, this is about an unjust verdict against an innocent programmer as more and more readers agree. Decoys and diversions into character assessments of those arguing are probably just chaos-makers and the process would be quicker and less unpleasant if we ALL refrained. At least here, on the one forum with a reputation for the possibility of reasoned and constructive argument between those of different views.

[Rebel]

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

Ah, it's you again with your selective memory.

History check -

I have dwelled over a 20 year period in several (7-9) ICGA tournaments. I have heard things not meant for my ears, saw things I was not supposed to see. And then came the Panel validation and I knew what kind of justice was coming my way. And I don't buy it for a moment you can not remember the simple question I asked you. Did you (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not? Then came the idiotic verdict. And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first before any definite measures were taken and rushed to the keyboard.

You guys hurt people.

The case is closed. Get a life.

You (or Bob, or Lefler) did consult David about Chris subscription to the Panel. Yes or No?

You (Bob and Lefler) were too much involved not to remember this crucial question.

So you or Bob simply can tell.

This, "I don't remember tactic" only works in Hollywod productions.

I certainly was asked about Chris. I spent a good bit of time trying to track down the emails from when we corresponded in the 90's. I could find nothing that matched the email in question. By the time I got that far, he had left in a huff. This was in 2011. Our emails dated back to the early 90's. That is a BUNCH of dvds to go through, and it takes time since they are not exactly speedy devices. I did not give this a 24/7 priority, we were involved in setting up the panel, I was teaching classes, and whatever else goes on around here that I have to deal with. Some took over a week to track down. He was not willing to wait. So yes I was involved. I can't speak directly for Mark/Harvey without going back through old emails again, which I don't intend to do. But at least one if not both were actively asking questions about the email address. Chris has not exactly had a clean past regarding emails so we could not be sure whether that was really him or not. At least until he stormed off with his little hitlers comment which convinced me, although a bit too late...

For me, I am old enough to set my own priorities, which I do. And while we were doing our best to get panel members accepted and included, it was not the #1 priority for anybody I don't think. We tried to do it in a timely way, but we did not go non-stop on this stuff to the detriment of our primary jobs...

That's a lot of text for a simple yes or no question and yet I can't find a yes or no.

But I notice Mark already gave the answer the 2 of you are not willing to answer. It's one of those things I still wanted to know after all these years. So my instincts were right, the cancelation of a critic (who could have made a difference) because of historic conflicts and personal dislike. How objective. And childish. I know you guys inside out. I am glad I resigned.

[Rebel]

BTW, now that you spoken out, I have removed the text you took offense.

I don't see why you did After all, it was part of your email (as Rajlich's representative) to Levy, and thus part of the procedural history. A better option would have been to put a sidenote/footnote somewhere on the page saying "MarkW disputes the veracity of this account"...

I am okay with that.

Did you [Harvey] (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not?

Yes, they did. If you recall the history, ChrisW contacted me regarding his temporary ban from the Panel, and I was then involved in some circular emails with the above four. In particular, Levy was consulted by the Secretariat regarding the application of ChrisW, particularly the subsequent difficulties therein.

Thank you. While we sometimes endup in nastiness towards each other, basically because (I think) we have a different debating style and way of arguing I never saw you sink into their level. For a moment skip the differences in opinion regarding the technical evidence and I think you don't belong to them.

[hyatt]

This is poppycock. Ed stated on more than one occasion that he had made "a complete backup of the Wiki" even though he had formally left and stopped participating. He's published bits and pieces multiple times. So this "anonymous person" is pure bullshit.

Yes, I published bits and pieces. See thread Wiki leaks at RF.

Are you implying more than that?

Can you read? Chris wants to use this "some anonymous person". Not very many "anonymous people" had access to the Wiki. You seemed to have copied it in violation of the AUP of the Wiki. I can add 2 + 2 pretty easily.

"anonymous" means unsigned PM from unknown source.

it is not logical to stretch that simple description to the source being generally anonymous. obviously he/she isn't, else wouldn't have panel access.

Sent anonymously. It's quite a simple concept

And a not particularly believable concept at that...

[hyatt]

You want to maintain you didn't quote Mark "out of context"?

sheesh...

You have CONTINUALLY repeated this kind of behavior, over and over and over.. You take something out of context, then try to imply some different context to distort the meaning. the "clone" comment is just one example. Most of us use that term quite carefully, and never did in the case of loop/list/Rybka and Fruit, because it didn't apply, period. And when Mark says something to the effect of "I don't believe it is a clone" you turn that into "he changed his mind."

That is most definitely "a distortion of the meaning of words taken out of context."

[hyatt]

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

Ah, it's you again with your selective memory.

History check -

I have dwelled over a 20 year period in several (7-9) ICGA tournaments. I have heard things not meant for my ears, saw things I was not supposed to see. And then came the Panel validation and I knew what kind of justice was coming my way. And I don't buy it for a moment you can not remember the simple question I asked you. Did you (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not? Then came the idiotic verdict. And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first before any definite measures were taken and rushed to the keyboard.

You guys hurt people.

The case is closed. Get a life.

You (or Bob, or Lefler) did consult David about Chris subscription to the Panel. Yes or No?

You (Bob and Lefler) were too much involved not to remember this crucial question.

So you or Bob simply can tell.

This, "I don't remember tactic" only works in Hollywod productions.

I certainly was asked about Chris. I spent a good bit of time trying to track down the emails from when we corresponded in the 90's. I could find nothing that matched the email in question. By the time I got that far, he had left in a huff. This was in 2011. Our emails dated back to the early 90's. That is a BUNCH of dvds to go through, and it takes time since they are not exactly speedy devices. I did not give this a 24/7 priority, we were involved in setting up the panel, I was teaching classes, and whatever else goes on around here that I have to deal with. Some took over a week to track down. He was not willing to wait. So yes I was involved. I can't speak directly for Mark/Harvey without going back through old emails again, which I don't intend to do. But at least one if not both were actively asking questions about the email address. Chris has not exactly had a clean past regarding emails so we could not be sure whether that was really him or not. At least until he stormed off with his little hitlers comment which convinced me, although a bit too late...

For me, I am old enough to set my own priorities, which I do. And while we were doing our best to get panel members accepted and included, it was not the #1 priority for anybody I don't think. We tried to do it in a timely way, but we did not go non-stop on this stuff to the detriment of our primary jobs...

Needless to say, this account, apart from including the usual untrue personal attacks - "not had a clean past regarding emails"(!!), "stormed off" "not willing to wait" "left in a huff" is disputed by our side. Readers are invited to read the numerous pages of output left over the web in the past few years where the real reasons can be quite easily deduced.

A simple question: "How many FAKE usernames did you create and use on CCC over the years?"

Another: "How many times have you stormed off when not getting your way, using the term 'little hitlers' directed toward those that did not follow your wishes?"

In fact, we had decided to accept that email but by the time everyone concurred you had left. And you DID "leave in a huff." And Ed left right behind you. It is always "in your way, on your time-frame, etc." I have to wait on others all the time. I have joined message boards where it took 2-3 weeks for approval. I don't expect everyone to work according to MY time frame. You should do the same. Then you would have been on the panel and at least THAT point would not be up for discussion. But we weren't fast enough for you, even though we had 30-40 applications to deal with. Not to mention other responsibilities. That seems to be more an issue of your lack of patience rather than our lack of interest.