"An Open Letter to Cock de Gorter and the CSVN Board"

[kingliveson]

Here is PlayChess (Chessbase) sysops Harvey Williamson and Holger Lieske (Kibitzbot) harassing a fully paid member as he was hosting a tournament. See as Harvey is trying to provoke this individual to give good reason for the ban, but none was given so Lieske muted his account anyways, and subsequently banning the account. They harass paying customers who post on public forums outside of playchess server and disable their accounts. Let's forget the moral repugnancy of such abuse of position of authority for a second -- is this even a legal thing to do? Maybe Rob would like to respond...


Did I mention that this was a paying customer?

[Hood]

Hi,

what the hot discussion . You will not made HW ego that way.

The 'battle' shall be moved to the other field. Catch him at the corr. chess. games tournament.
There all shall have equal rights.

Rgds
Hood

[Harvey Williamson]

Hi,

what the hot discussion . You will not made HW ego that way.

The 'battle' shall be moved to the other field. Catch him at the corr. chess. games tournament.
There all shall have equal rights.

Rgds
Hood

Sure Hetman see you there currently winning my semi final of the ICCF World Correspondence Championship. Would love to play you in the next round if you also win a semi final this year. (Providing i stay in 1st place of course)

[BB+]

They harass paying customers who post on public forums outside of playchess server and disable their accounts. [...] is this even a legal thing to do?

I don't claim any expertise (legal or otherwise), but I think the whole system is based on a number of typical legal dodges. For instance, you pay for access to PlayChess.Com (meaning the human games), and extra things like chat and access to the Engine Room are "perks", which are thus revocable at any time for any reason. As a congruent example, some airlines used to have a similar attitude toward frequent flier miles (though by now the marketing angles from this are so numerous that they are willing to incur liability in making specific promises).

On top of this, unless you pay directly and specifically for X months of access, it is probably included as something like a "free gift" (as with a late-night TV offer -- you pay $49 for the latest DVD set by Shirov, and they include PlayChess.Com access for a few months as a "free gift"). However, as such "bonuses" can often be a deciding factor when making a purchase, I'm not sure how viable this argument really is. In any event, banning and/or disabling accounts is much more "actionable" from a legal standpoint than simply muting chat. Even if the agreement contained some leonine condition as "You agree that we can terminate your access at any time without cause", this would be nugatory, as it essentially invalidates the whole contractual concept.

Finally, publicly making categorical claims ("Person X was using an illegal engine" as opposed to "Account Y was banned for suspicion of using an illegal engine") could be grounds for slander if such an accusation were not retracted when requested.

[Chris Whittington]

They harass paying customers who post on public forums outside of playchess server and disable their accounts. [...] is this even a legal thing to do?

I don't claim any expertise (legal or otherwise), but I think the whole system is based on a number of typical legal dodges. For instance, you pay for access to PlayChess.Com (meaning the human games), and extra things like chat and access to the Engine Room are "perks", which are thus revocable at any time for any reason. As a congruent example, some airlines used to have a similar attitude toward frequent flier miles (though by now the marketing angles from this are so numerous that they are willing to incur liability in making specific promises).

On top of this, unless you pay directly and specifically for X months of access, it is probably included as something like a "free gift" (as with a late-night TV offer -- you pay $49 for the latest DVD set by Shirov, and they include PlayChess.Com access for a few months as a "free gift"). However, as such "bonuses" can often be a deciding factor when making a purchase, I'm not sure how viable this argument really is. In any event, banning and/or disabling accounts is much more "actionable" from a legal standpoint than simply muting chat. Even if the agreement contained some leonine condition as "You agree that we can terminate your access at any time without cause", this would be nugatory, as it essentially invalidates the whole contractual concept.

Finally, publicly making categorical claims ("Person X was using an illegal engine" as opposed to "Account Y was banned for suspicion of using an illegal engine") could be grounds for slander if such an accusation were not retracted when requested.

Many businesses fail to realise that they (the business) interfaces only in limited ways with its customers, ie, for the customer the business is not what goes on inside the business (what the employees and managers see) but simple and often ignored things; how the person who answers the phone sounds, the advert, the feel of the packaging and so on, but critically how the PERSON who represents the business, interfaces it with the outside, comes across. To that extent, Chessbase for the online chess players is HW and the other mod, whoever he is.

The key to running a successful and competitive service company that deals with the public (whether a supermarket, a gas supply/repair facility or a chess game server is to employ nice people and empower them. Chessbase appear to have met the first requirement in its opposite and the second is distinguished by emphasis of the negative (bannings and rudeness, rather than facilitation and pleasantness). I doubt Freidel cares too much since he runs an effective monopoly at the moment but the employment of nasty people will long-term backfire as and when an alternative arises. I should add that the legally dangerous statements used (as above) are a sign of a department which is unmanaged, fallen out of the control of the senior managers and appear to demonstrate it to be run by, for and on behalf of its staff - usually also fatal to any company.

[thorstenczub]

is chess base still alive, or friedel ?

i doubt that.

whatever. the reason we see no cock de gorter defending himself in forums is, that cock de gorter is a gentleman, while harvey williamson is a proles, i think the right word for it is parvenu.

he has no class.

[Chris Whittington]

As a side-note, all this thread is missing is Nelson Hernandez to quote some obscure military general of yore, and query why Cock didn't propose to settle any disagreement with pistols at 20 paces.

I still dont get how HW stuffed his way through five courses with new glass of wine each course, cost approx 300 euros, while Cock and his wife spent 130 euros total, 65 euros each. Presumably they sat and stared with nothing in front of them, no wine, maybe one main course, while HW did the Mr Creosote impression?

This does not add up. What is the point of Cock visit with wife to a Michelin and then not participating, while Creosote stuffs himself? First thought is that something was already wrong, with Cock going through the motions of attending the dinner, while an oblivious HW gorges himself and then insults Cock and wife. Weird.

Or maybe the accounting problem is resolved by Cock storming out early, flinging a 50 euro note onto the table, while Creosote, not prepared to give up on the nosh, imbibes the evening away alone?

I blame that Shirley Williams.

How the hell do you come up with those figures total bill was about 180 i paid 120. no one stormed out Cock gave me a lift back to my hotel.

Not much of a Michelin at 120 euros for five courses plus wine, but beggars can't be choosers I suppose. However, the key is not the exact cost, but what the proportions ordered tell us about HW and the evening in question. HW consumed four times each of his companions, perhaps no big deal, but in the context of a social meal in a small group at a restaurant one would expect to remain in for a few hours, common etiquette and manners seem to have flown out of the window. It is the height of rudeness not to consider your dinner companions when ordering food. The fact the C de G and his wife, at 30 euros each would barely be able to order one main course, probably without wine, while HW orders five courses and a wine for each course, leaves C de G and his wife twiddling their thumbs looking at empty space while HW gorges his way through a long menu. Anyone with manners, or just some basic niceness, would have established the general level of "how many courses" and adjusted the ordering in consequence.

Just another piece of evidence to show HW's lack of class, or as Thorsten put it: "you can buy a Michelin table but you can't buy class", coupled with the rude personal attack, repeated accusations of theft in front of C de G's wife, the comments on the chessbase server "because I can" in response to why someone is banned. How Chessbase allow themselves to be represented by such a boor is beyond belief.

Compare and contrast the well-mannered and human style of C de G; even when insulted repeatedly in front of his wife, his evening out ruined, he still gave the miscreant a lift back to his hotel. Most people would have dumped such a character into the nighttime street and left him there. C de G a gentlemen, HW an oik.

[Harvey Williamson]

You should write a novel. Your version of events are a pure work of fiction. But heyho carry on it is fun to read. Maybe you can all write a version of the events and we can get Jeremy to pick the best one which will be made into a Home Box Office Movie.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

You should write a novel. Your version of events are a pure work of fiction. But heyho carry on it is fun to read. Maybe you can all write a version of the events and we can get Jeremy to pick the best one which will be made into a Home Box Office Movie.

"The Bitter Tears of Cock de Gorter"?

[thorstenczub]

chris forgot the blackmail issue.

so far i have seen 2 people behave similar like you:

peter skinner blackmailing to ban somebody if the guy is not doing what he wishes,
christopher conkie blackmailing to publish private email if the moderators are not doing what he wishes them to do.

your behaviour of threatening to publish data about the person if your ban is not lifted
falls exactly into this category.

parvenues who blackmail other people in a hobby computerchess scene !!

how do we call people who misbehave this way in an hobby computerchess area ?!

i guess you know the best how we call those people.