Author |
Topic: calculation puzzle (Read 3873 times) |
|
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
|
|
|
|
