Progess (often) is ugly, a summary try

[hyatt]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

(a) you can not _force_ anyone to defend themselves against any sort of sanction or punishment;

(b) if the accused refuses, you certainly should not let every nutcase in the world automatically step in for him and offer a defense. One only has to read the ridiculous number of outlandish "possibilities" CW offered to explain how Vas might have identical code as contained in Fruit, without actually having copied said code.

This is simply more of the same. The verdict is in, the proof was overwhelming, so lets bash the process since we can't attack the reasoning or evidence successfully...

[hyatt]

I share your critique concerning the life-time ban, the media coverage, and that Chris W. was banned from the panel.

Gerd

Just for the record, Chris applied, there was a 1-2 day lag as each applicant was screened, we did not want anonymous people, nor people with no technical background. During that lag in admission, Chris did his usual and started his complaining. The group generally decided that they could do without his noise. I did not vote to deny him admission, but then I did not object due to the usual flare-up while he was waiting. And in retrospect, it was a + for the panel, Chris had already made a zillion bogus arguments about why vas "might not have actually copied" fruit code, even though they are identical. Those discussions are still available. Might have been here, am not sure, or at CCC perhaps...

It would have been about as productive to include Rolf. Wonder if some of you guys would have criticized us had he applied and been turned down???

How nice to notice this tribunal gave the word "independent" a new meaning.

I won't comment on the pre-ban of Chris. I have my own data. I leave the favor to Chris, that is, if he would wish so.

There was no "pre-ban." If Chris wants, I have a copy of every email I sent regarding the discussion. The email issue Mark W. mentioned was an issue. Someone asked me if I could verify it since I had had past discussions with Chris. I could not find _that_ email address in my old mail. When Mark L contacted Chris for confirmation, as he did with several panel members and even more applicants, we started down the same old road again.

Chris jumped on me for something completely unrelated. We had just formed a new "school" at UAB, combining my old natural sciences and math school with several others. Several of us at UAB had discussed potential issues that would come up and one I had mentioned was a "common promotion and tenure policy issue." And then we received an email from the new dean asking for exactly that to be formalized. I clicked on the email and simply replied "here we go" as everyone would know exactly what I meant. Finding a uniform promotion and tenure process for departments that are so different (how does the English department do funded research? How does writing a screenplay compare to writing a refereed journal article, vs writing a musical arrangement vs. ... you get the idea.)

However, when I clicked on the "reply" I later discovered I clicked one email too low on the screen and replied to the email where Chris applied to the panel. Not the first time I have replied to the wrong email, almost certainly won't be the last. But it started a long diatribe of accusations. As almost any discussion I have had with him usually does.

But that was not the "little hitlers" part of the story that Mark referenced, this was mostly offline from the secretariat discussions. One does get tired of that...


My actual email looked like this:

"here we go..."




two lines long.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

(a) you can not _force_ anyone to defend themselves against any sort of sanction or punishment;

(b) if the accused refuses, you certainly should not let every nutcase in the world automatically step in for him and offer a defense. One only has to read the ridiculous number of outlandish "possibilities" CW offered to explain how Vas might have identical code as contained in Fruit, without actually having copied said code.

This is simply more of the same. The verdict is in, the proof was overwhelming, so lets bash the process since we can't attack the reasoning or evidence successfully...

Aren't you being a bit oversensitive? First off, I agree with the verdict on the basis of the overwhelming evidence, and find the process ultimately fair. Second, whether or not that's the case, critically questioning aspects of the process isn't "bashing". Third, calling Chris Whittington a nutcase doesn't make it so, whether you agree with his point of view or not. The fact that bloviating corporate shills like Albert Silver got on the panel, while well-known programmers like Chris were given a hard time is simply hard to explain.

These are more questions for the next time around than for this run, though. Sorry that you consider that "bashing".

Jeremy

[JcMaTe]

I think that people who defend thieves is because they have somthing hidden and can be descovered.
thief is a thief not matter what he steal

[hyatt]

Secondly, I received some assurance from Levy and the Secretariat that if Rajlich was going to join in the discussions of the Investigation Panel, then everyone (in particular CW) who was "known" to be favouring his side of things would be admitted. OTOH, if the Panel was going to proceed without input from VR [and so, he would speak directly Board, if at all], then I had to agree that there didn't seem any specific reason to admit CW under the immediate circumstances.

Seems sort of short-sighted to say "if he won't defend himself, he deserves no defense whatsoever", though. Again, I doubt it would have changed anything, but it conveys an impression that the ICGA would probably prefer to avoid.

jb

(a) you can not _force_ anyone to defend themselves against any sort of sanction or punishment;

(b) if the accused refuses, you certainly should not let every nutcase in the world automatically step in for him and offer a defense. One only has to read the ridiculous number of outlandish "possibilities" CW offered to explain how Vas might have identical code as contained in Fruit, without actually having copied said code.

This is simply more of the same. The verdict is in, the proof was overwhelming, so lets bash the process since we can't attack the reasoning or evidence successfully...

Aren't you being a bit oversensitive? First off, I agree with the verdict on the basis of the overwhelming evidence, and find the process ultimately fair. Second, whether or not that's the case, critically questioning aspects of the process isn't "bashing". Third, calling Chris Whittington a nutcase doesn't make it so, whether you agree with his point of view or not. The fact that bloviating corporate shills like Albert Silver got on the panel, while well-known programmers like Chris were given a hard time is simply hard to explain.

These are more questions for the next time around than for this run, though. Sorry that you consider that "bashing".

Jeremy

You did see the explanation for "why"? While trying to confirm his email, he went off on the usual "little hitlers" tantrum and the majority said "no", we don't need that in the discussion.

Everyone was validated by someone, and we had a few with legitimate names but which turned out to be bogus. Just like we see on CCC from time to time. "George Bush" could register if he wanted, but who is it really? Chris didn't like the authentication process and thought it was too slow, even though at the beginning, I probably got 30-40 emails from the Wiki about requests to join. It took time to work our way through them.

[oudheusa]

... he used the phrase "little Hitlers" ...

I am starting to like this guy.

[BB+]

I am starting to like this guy.

For examples of what one might have expected with CW, one can whinge through the current "Carol Rodanu" postings at TalkChess [there were also some back in early March, which is about when the "Panel ban" occurred]. A related event seems to be: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1274

[thorstenczub]

CW speaks perfect english and his statemens have a logic and he is often true with his
thesis. so i don't see how you can relate this with each other.

what is true is, that i would not call chris w. a friend of the ICCA/ICGA.
if you want to read an example how he argues and how he talks you can read the following texts as example:

http://www.thorstenczub.de/complcss2.html
http://www.thorstenczub.de/ihatematerialists.html

now tell me those texts are not logical or weak or whatever ...
IMO chris is very good in writing texts.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

I am starting to like this guy.

For examples of what one might have expected with CW, one can whinge through the current "Carol Rodanu" postings at TalkChess [there were also some back in early March, which is about when the "Panel ban" occurred]. A related event seems to be: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1274

Chris claims to have not posted anything on CCC in more than 3 years (according to the email of objection he just sent me about this). Where do you get the idea that he's behind this?

jb

[BB+]

Chris claims to have not posted anything on CCC in more than 3 years (according to the email of objection he just sent me about this). Where do you get the idea that he's behind this?

Maybe I was overly influenced by the TalkChess speculations concerning this (my recollection was that some of the ones back in March seemed to speak of actual evidence regarding the "Carol Rodanu" identity). If I am wrong, I apologise.