Author |
Topic: calculation puzzle (Read 3874 times) |
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
 
Posts: 1348
|
 |
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #21 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 09:04am » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 01:10am, Chris Iverson wrote:| Forgive me, but I fail to see how July is earlier than May. |
|
Read Alyce's comment and my reply. What she said was untrue.
Quote:| It prevents you from creating a new account at the LB Conforums |
|
It does no such thing. I can easily create a new account by connecting from an internet café, a WiFi hotspot, a cellular radio or an anonymising proxy server as I said before. Since doing so is a once-off exercise that is not a significant inconvenience.
Quote:| to continue to violate our rules, as you have done so in the past. |
|
The rules have retrospectively been changed to allow you to claim that. For example the rules used to state that promoting a language other than Liberty BASIC is not permitted, but LB Booster is Liberty BASIC so promoting it was not contrary to the rules. But now the rules have been changed to specifically refer to Carl's implementation of the Liberty BASIC language.
I have never, and would never, break the rules as they were stated at the time.
Quote:| Administrators of any forum, not just the LB Conforums, rather frown on someone creating a new account when their first one is banned for breaking the rules, only to turn around and continue to do so! |
|
I created new accounts because I had not broken the rules and because I was being prevented from doing exactly what the rules (at the time) encouraged, which was to use Private Messaging instead of posting on 'sensitive' subjects. No attempt was ever made to communicate directly with me, to request that I stop sending PMs, or to explain why my account had been deleted. The forum was, and is still, run in an autocratic way without any attempt to act fairly.
Quote:| You were IP banned after you repeatedly continued to use the PM system to break our rules, even after bans. |
|
On the contrary I was using the PM system in accordance with, and as encouraged by, the rules. If you have the old rules archived you will see that they specifically stated that if a particular subject is not allowed to be posted one should use the PM system instead.
Quote:| The administrators of a website have the right to dictate policy on that website. Am I wrong? |
|
They can dictate policy, but they should act in a way that benefits the members of the forum. They should also not retrospectively change rules so as to falsely claim they have been broken.
Quote:| We are a support community for those using Liberty BASIC. That is, the trademarked, official IDE developed by Shoptalk Systems, found at libertybasic.com. |
|
So it now seems. It would be of much greater benefit to the community if the forum were to support the Liberty BASIC programming language, not just a particular, rather unsatisfactory, implementation.
Quote:| What Alyce said is true: Carl and Richard have differences of opinions that have, so far, been unable to be resolved. |
|
Carl himself has never complained about LBB, indeed as you know he has publicly stated that "it is a legitimate artefact" that people should "feel free to use" if it suits their needs.
Richard.
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #22 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 09:50am » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 02:21am, Chris Iverson wrote:| I'm sorry, but, Richard's actions have made it clear that he refuses to be bound by the rules stated on our forum. |
|
Please stop repeating the claim that I have broken rules (as constituted at the time); I have not and would not knowingly break forum rules.
Of course, however carefully the rules are framed there can be room for 'interpretation', and it may be that the forum administrators felt that the rules did not accurately reflect what had been intended. But in that event there is a responsible and fair way to proceed: the member who has inadvertently broken the intended 'spirit' of the rules should be contacted and the situation explained. The rules can then be changed, in consultation with the forum membership as a whole since they need to be aware of the proposed changes and how they might be affected.
But that is not how the LB forum administrators reacted. Instead I was banned with no explanation and no attempt having been made to contact me directly. The rules were then changed without the membership being consulted or informed.
The 'issue' has never had anything to do with rules. It is simply that I have created an implementation of the Liberty BASIC language which in most respects is better than Carl's original, something which I would remind you I was entirely entitled to do under the laws governing Intellectual Property Rights (the syntax of a language is not protected, but a particular implementation is).
This has created a perceived conflict between Carl's commercial interests and the best interests of Liberty BASIC users, and to the extent that the LB forum is trying to serve both those interests this is proving difficult to resolve in a way that is fair to all parties.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AAW
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #23 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 10:51am » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 12:35am, Richard Russell wrote:AAW wrote: "I could respond to your other questions and comments, but will not do so"
In that case I formally request that the IP-address ban against me be lifted.
Richard.
|
|
When one uses part of a quote, it can be taken out of context. Your quoted version of my words makes it appear that I am stubbornly refusing to answer.
The full quote is:
Quote:| I could respond to your other questions and comments, but will not do so, since it might be seen as an attempt to use your forum to "abuse the privilege of being allowed to post in this forum by using it as a platform to suggest that I am in the wrong and you are in the right" |
|
I interpreted this to mean that I was not to post anything that disagreed with you. A conundrum: how could I answer a question you asked when the answer disagreed with you? I was attempting to do as you requested on your forum, and so I felt I should not respond.
----
Last winter forum staff received messages and emails from members who had received an email or who had been contacted via the PM system. These messages promoted LBB. The existing forum rules in March, 2015 stated, "This forum exists for the promotion and discussion of the Liberty BASIC language by Carl Gundel. Other programming languages and competing products may not be promoted here."
Our interpretation of "promoted here" included both public and private messages, so we believed that Richard's PMs were in violation of the rules.
As we received these reports, we added Richard's usernames to a forum script that blocked him from sending PMs. At no time did Richard contact any staff members regarding this blockage. Instead, he rejoined with new usernames to get around the block. He admitted this in a public thread later and claimed he was within his rights to do so.
In March, 2015, waybackman started a thread on the community forum. He had received (out of nowhere) an email promoting LBB. Others replied to the thread to say they had also received such an email. For those interested, the thread is "Wondering if email is a scam?" from March, 2015 on the General Board.
Forum staff never envisioned that a competitor would join the forum to use the PM system to promote competing software, so a rule prohibiting that did not exist. In March, we changed the rules to read:
Quote:| No unsolicited emails or mass private messages will ever be sent by the staff. Members should not send unsolicited emails to other members, nor use the private messaging system to circumvent the forum's rules. |
|
There are threads in both forums dated March, 2015. I will not repeat them here, but the result was a banning of several of Richard's usernames at that time, and a wildcard ban of new usernames with email addresses from Richard's domain.
On September 9, 2015, I received this message from a member whose name will remain private.
Quote:Hello Alyce
I have received a PM from a new member "rtr" following my recent post on the forum,as follows
Quote:
<identifying information about the post redacted> in LB Booster (LBB):
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/lbb/
Richard.
I did not respond via the forum as I'm unwilling to promote LBB, you may wish to restrict the ability of "rtr" to send PM's.
Richard may have a product that offers advantages that LB does not however I believe LBB should find success on it own merits not using underhanded tactics to attract LB users
regards
<member name redacted>
|
|
The new rule barring members from using PMs to subvert the forum's rules had been in place for 6 months, yet Richard used PMs to promote LBB. At this time, the IP ban was enacted.
Regarding the date of LBB's inception, I should have said that the staff had not yet heard of LBB when Richard was banned in May, 2011, not that he hadn't written it yet. I apologize. The point was that the earlier ban had nothing to do with LBB.
And now, since I have disagreed with Richard on his forum and against his wishes, I assume I am no longer welcome here. Richard may continue to communicate with staff who are still welcome here. Chris is an admin and can address the petition to remove the IP ban. If Richard would like to communicate directly with me, he may do so. I will always read his emails and respond politely.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AAW
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #24 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 11:07am » |
|
This message did not exist when I posted my reply above.
on Dec 31st, 2015, 09:50am, Richard Russell wrote:| Please stop repeating the claim that I have broken rules (as constituted at the time); I have not and would not knowingly break forum rules. |
|
In this case, you did. (Perhaps not "knowingly.) The rules were changed on March 14 and a new message stating so was posted to the rules thread to bring attention to that fact. You sent the PM promoting LBB six months later.
Quote:This has created a perceived conflict between Carl's commercial interests and the best interests of Liberty BASIC users, and to the extent that the LB forum is trying to serve both those interests this is proving difficult to resolve in a way that is fair to all parties.
Richard. |
|
Indeed.
I apologize for posting again after I wrote that I would not, but it appears we were writing replies at the same time.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 31st, 2015, 11:19am by AAW » |
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #25 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 11:50am » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 10:51am, AAW wrote:| I interpreted this to mean that I was not to post anything that disagreed with you. |
|
Ridiculous. I am always happy for the truth to be stated, since I have nothing to fear from that.
Quote:| The existing forum rules in March, 2015 stated, "This forum exists for the promotion and discussion of the Liberty BASIC language by Carl Gundel. Other programming languages and competing products may not be promoted here." |
|
If it is indeed the case that the rules were changed earlier than I thought I certainly was not aware of that change. I didn't see any announcement to that effect - are you sure I was allowed to view that section of the forum at the time? If it was at a time of high activity at the forum I may well not have bothered to read, or indeed even seen, every message.
Quote:| At no time did Richard contact any staff members regarding this blockage. |
|
You are trying to transfer the onus for making contact onto me; that is totally unreasonable. If you were planning to take some action based on a perception that I had broken the rules you should have contacted me.
I would remind you that the 'old' rules (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that they may have already changed without my knowledge) specifically encouraged the use of PMs for discussing topics that were prohibited from being mentioned in forum posts.
Quote:| Forum staff never envisioned that a competitor would join the forum to use the PM system to promote competing software |
|
The forum's declared aim is (or was) to support users of the Liberty BASIC Programming Language. LB Booster is not 'competing' software, in fact it is the exact opposite: it was developed to enhance and promote the language by providing an alternative implementation free from many of the bugs and shortcomings of Carl's original.
Quote:| The new rule barring members from using PMs to subvert the forum's rules had been in place for 6 months, yet Richard used PMs to promote LBB. At this time, the IP ban was enacted. |
|
So did you contact me to point out the rule change? Did you contact me to ask me to stop sending PMs? Did you contact me to warn me that I might be banned? Did you contact me to ask about the emails I had sent?
No. Not a word. If you assumed that I would knowingly break the rules that is a disgraceful slur on my character. I am a decent, honest and law-abiding individual.
Quote:| The point was that the earlier ban had nothing to do with LBB. |
|
So what precisely was it to do with? The only recollection I have of any earlier 'dispute' was as a result of me publishing - and promoting on the LB forum - a utility to create a CHM version of the LB Help files (an invaluable utility that many people use to this day, and one that you subsequently 'copied').
I would make the following proposal to resolve the 'difficulty' once and for all:
Change the focus of the LB 'community' forum to be exactly that, i.e. to support the Liberty BASIC language and its community of users.
Because that is incompatible with having an allegiance to a particular implementation of the language, invite Carl to give up his co-ownership and admin roles at the forum.
Encourage and support open discussion of all implementations of Liberty BASIC, so that users may be aware of the alternatives and what solutions best meet their programming challenges.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
net2014
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 37
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #26 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 1:32pm » |
|
Having been a LB user since version 1.? I can confirm that bugs and anomalies have been allowed to exist for eons, in some cases passing through different versions. And then we have the 10 (?) year saga of LB5. I have grown old waiting for the promised LB5, such that I will not be buying it even if it ever does get released. Similarly with RunBASIC which seems to have been abandoned, despite claims that it is only on hold.
As for providing sound coding solutions rather than workarounds, no one has done more (IMHO) for LB than Richard, the latest one being for sending of UDP messages, as a result of a LB forum request. As far as I can tell, the solution has not been passed on to the OP, unless someone has done it clandestinely.
It is a great sadness that Carl can not accept the user value that Richard adds to LB but I would like to make a suggestion for consideration by both communities. (FWIW)
Carl has a financial interest in LB and Richard states he has no financial interest in LBB, so could Richard if it is possible, arrange for LBB to only be used by registered LB users. That then becomes an added incentive for unregistered users to 'pay up' and make a financial contribution to LB.
Hopefully this long running saga can soon be put to bed and we can continue to benefit from Richards extensive experience. 
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #27 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 2:02pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 1:32pm, net2014 wrote:| could Richard if it is possible, arrange for LBB to only be used by registered LB users. |
|
The suggestion has been made before, and my reaction is the same. The only reasonably secure way that LBB could test whether a user is registered for LB4 is for Carl to reveal to me the 'secret' of how registration keys are verified. Unless some clever 'public key' style encryption is used, which seems unlikely, revealing that would almost certainly mean I could create my own valid LB registration keys independently of Carl!
I could try promising that I wouldn't abuse the privilege, but I very much doubt that such an assurance would cut it with Carl (and I wouldn't expect it to, especially with Alyce and Chris telling him what an untrustworthy person I am)! So it seems highly probable that he would not be prepared to release information allowing me to verify an LB registration.
Incidentally, since both the LB User Name and Registration Key are encoded within every TKN file a user creates (using a very weak encryption), anybody so inclined can 'harvest' valid name/key pairs from publicly-accessible TKN files which they could then use to 'register' copies of LB.
So the security is pretty comprehensively broken anyway and if LBB shared the same scheme it would be just as vulnerable.
Richard.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AAW
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #28 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 2:33pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 11:50am, Richard Russell wrote:| Ridiculous. I am always happy for the truth to be stated, since I have nothing to fear from that. |
|
I don't respond well to implications that I am lying, or to descriptions like "ridiculous."
You write that I should not suggest that you are wrong when I know very well that is not true. I never knowingly post untruths and when I find that I've made an error, or even that my words were misinterpreted, I apologize.
Quote:| LB Booster is not 'competing' software, in fact it is the exact opposite: it was developed to enhance and promote the language by providing an alternative implementation free from many of the bugs and shortcomings of Carl's original. |
|
That statement is at odds with a message I copied for reference from your forum.
Quote:on April 23, 2015 at 10:15pm, RNBW wrote:
It's a pity that LB can't do this.
Why? From my perspective the more things that LB4 can't do - which LBB can - the better!
Not that LBB needs such differences to justify its existence: the other benefits are more than sufficient reason to abandon LB4. But the additional features are the icing on the cake. cheesy
Richard. |
|
----
Quote:| No. Not a word. If you assumed that I would knowingly break the rules that is a disgraceful slur on my character. I am a decent, honest and law-abiding individual. |
|
I did not assume that. My earlier message in this thread stated that you broke the rule, "perhaps not knowingly."
Quote:I would make the following proposal to resolve the 'difficulty' once and for all:
Change the focus of the LB 'community' forum to be exactly that, i.e. to support the Liberty BASIC language and its community of users.
Because that is incompatible with having an allegiance to a particular implementation of the language, invite Carl to give up his co-ownership and admin roles at the forum.
Encourage and support open discussion of all implementations of Liberty BASIC, so that users may be aware of the alternatives and what solutions best meet their programming challenges.
Richard.
|
|
I will not ask Carl to give up a forum he has co-owned since its inception. You, Richard, should email him yourself with your proposal. Or, if you prefer to discuss it on your forum, invite him to such a discussion.
Quote:| I could try promising that I wouldn't abuse the privilege, but I very much doubt that such an assurance would cut it with Carl (and I wouldn't expect it to, especially with Alyce and Chris telling him what an untrustworthy person I am)! |
|
I have never told anybody that you are untrustworthy.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #29 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 3:33pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 2:33pm, AAW wrote:| That statement is at odds with a message I copied for reference from your forum. |
|
Of course different implementations of a programming language (unless it is a formally specified language which permits no variation) differ in terms of features and performance. If they didn't why would they exist?
If you are using such a narrow definition of "compete" that you consider it to apply to LBB and LB4 then you are right, but that is not a helpful definition in the context of this discussion because it makes no distinction with, say, Liberty BASIC and BBC BASIC being "competitors".
Quote:
So, I ask yet again: why did you not contact me to inform me of the rule change, to ask me not to send PMs and to warn me that I was in danger of being banned? Yours is the only forum I know of at which somebody can be banned without first receiving a warning.
Quote:| I have never told anybody that you are untrustworthy. |
|
I am pleased to hear it. My comment was more in reference to Chris's remark that "Richard's actions have made it clear that he refuses to be bound by the rules stated on our forum" which can be paraphrased as "Richard cannot be trusted to obey the forum rules".
Richard.
|
|
|
|
Chris Iverson
New Member
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 4
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #30 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 5:47pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 3:33pm, Richard Russell wrote:| I am pleased to hear it. My comment was more in reference to Chris's remark that "Richard's actions have made it clear that he refuses to be bound by the rules stated on our forum" which can be paraphrased as "Richard cannot be trusted to obey the forum rules". |
|
If you truly weren't informed of why you were banned, then I apologize for my statement.
I made it following this logic:
1) Discussion of products that can allow LB programs to be compiled and distributed without obtaining a license to LB is no longer allowed.
2) Richard continues to discuss such a product.
3) Richard's account is banned.
4) Richard makes a new account, and follows the new rule(although it seems this was unintentional).
5) Richard starts using PMs to contact people about LBB. We receive complaints from some members about what seemed to be unsolicited advertising. (Richard explained above that he extrapolated from the rule that only explicitly allows registry discussion to be discussed in PMs to mean that any discussion that is not allowed under the public forum's rules can be taken to PMs.) At this point, I honestly thought you were contacted about using PMs to advertise LBB. If you weren't, again, I apologize.
6) Rules are clarified to explicitly say that the PM system cannot be used to subvert the public forum rules.
7) Richard's new account is banned for the unsolicited PMs.
8) Richard makes another new account, and continues sending unsolicited PMs.
9) The decision is made to IP-ban Richard as, from the behavior described above, it appears that Richard has made a deliberate choice not to follow the rule about using PMs to sidestep the public forum rules.
And while I can accept that it's simply you pointing out workarounds, quotes like this:
on Dec 31st, 2015, 09:04am, Richard Russell wrote:| It does no such thing. I can easily create a new account by connecting from an internet café, a WiFi hotspot, a cellular radio or an anonymising proxy server as I said before. Since doing so is a once-off exercise that is not a significant inconvenience. |
|
Make it seem like you have decided to ignore the decision of the forums' administrators, and continue recreating accounts and violating the forum's rules.
The very fact that we resorted to an IP ban should be an indication that your actions had deemed you unwelcome, and yet you explicitly bring up ways to get around that decision!
Now, as I've said before, if you were truly never contacted about any of this, then I do apologize for what I've said.
|
|
|
|
Richard Russell
Administrator
member is offline
Posts: 1348
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #31 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 7:14pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 5:47pm, Chris Iverson wrote:| If you truly weren't informed of why you were banned, then I apologize for my statement. |
|
I never received any direct communication. Unexpectedly I found I was unable to send PMs. Unexpectedly I found that I had been banned by IP address. There was no warning or explanation on either occasion.
Quote:| I made it following this logic.... Make it seem like you have decided to ignore the decision.... |
|
In my opinion there has been far too much 'deducing' of my motives. It would have been much fairer to ask me. You could have still chosen to disbelieve me, but at least I would have had an opportunity to put my case.
Quote:| you explicitly bring up ways to get around that decision! |
|
You said that the reason for banning me by IP address was to prevent me from opening new accounts. I pointed out that it achieved no such thing because it was so easily bypassed using any of those methods. So now you conclude that it was actually my intention to do so (despite not actually having done it in the intervening months)! An entirely unjustified conclusion based, I can only assume, on a belief that I am dishonest and untrustworthy.
Richard.
|
|
|
|
Chris Iverson
New Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 4
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #32 on: Dec 31st, 2015, 8:19pm » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 7:14pm, Richard Russell wrote:| You said that the reason for banning me by IP address was to prevent me from opening new accounts. I pointed out that it achieved no such thing because it was so easily bypassed using any of those methods. So now you conclude that it was actually my intention to do so (despite not actually having done it in the intervening months)! An entirely unjustified conclusion based, I can only assume, on a belief that I am dishonest and untrustworthy. |
|
I did not say that was your intention. I said it made it seem that way.
What you said about the IP ban is perfectly, and technically true.
The thing is, you are using a purely technical, factual argument against a statement that explains why an action was taken. (Or, at least, my statement wasn't intended to be separated from the "why", even if it was unwritten. I thought the "why" was understood by the rest of the post. I apologize if I was unclear.)
The "why" is "because you continued to make new accounts after being banned, and continued breaking the rules in those new accounts".
In other words, my full statement, with that 'why' meaning appended, is "you were IP banned to prevent you from making new accounts, because you continued to make new accounts after being banned, and continued breaking the rules in those new accounts".
Your response to this, I believe, was intended to be something like "but that does not actually restrict me from making new accounts. What you said is false, because the limitation you mention is not true."
Your response is true, but it doesn't invalidation the reason we took the action, the "why", and it's possible to interpret your comment in that context.
In the context of using it to reply to the "why", it comes across as "You used an IP ban to prevent me from making more accounts and breaking your rules, but I can still make new accounts anyway, and continue to break your rules."
My comment was made in the context of the discussion of the rules, and while I didn't assume yours had been, as well, what I state above is the meaning I would end up at if it is taken in context.
It was already clear that that was not what you meant, but that's how it can come across.
|
|
|
|
AAW
New Member
member is offline
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #33 on: Jan 4th, 2016, 09:53am » |
|
on Dec 31st, 2015, 12:35am, Richard Russell wrote:In that case I formally request that the IP-address ban against me be lifted.
Richard.
|
|
The IP ban has been lifted.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mystic
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 53
|
|
Re: calculation puzzle
« Reply #34 on: Jan 4th, 2016, 3:25pm » |
|
on Jan 4th, 2016, 09:53am, AAW wrote:| The IP ban has been lifted. |
|
A step in the right direction?
|
|
Logged
|
- Rick
|
|
|
|
