Go Sabotage Tricks?
mabhei
filling in dead space. So I've taken advantage of this weakness,
purposefully make bad moves, then repetitively filling in the dead space,
and redo over and over until he loses his temper and resigns. This way,
I've acquired 1k ratings on servers, without knowing anything about the
game.
The purpose of Go is winning. Go is war. Wars are won by destroying the
opponent's will to fight.
Anyone know any other off-the-wall ways to win?
Jeff Nowakowski
> I've acquired 1k ratings on servers, without knowing anything about the
> game.
Is your score in pinball equally amazing? Maybe you can also eat tons
of food, to see how fat you can get. I hear Homer did this once to get
disability pay.
-Jeff
-
GMT, "mabhei" <mab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The more advanced the player, the less patience he has for
> repetitively filling in dead space. So I've taken advantage of
> this weakness, purposefully make bad moves, then repetitively
> filling in the dead space, and redo over and over until he loses
> his temper and resigns. This way, I've acquired 1k ratings on
> servers, without knowing anything about the game.
Bill Saltman tried this and was rebuked during Spring-Summer
of 2000. That sort of behavior can get you banned from Go Servers.
In smaller Go Clubs other players would refuse to play you again.
> The purpose of Go is winning. Go is war. Wars are won by
> destroying the opponent's will to fight.
It's not much help to "win at Go" when you're a dismal failure
in every other area important for life.
> Anyone know any other off-the-wall ways to win?
Yes, I can suggest switching your game to Stratego and/or
MasterMind. In the "hard version" an empty space counts for
yet another color, yielding 9^5 = 59,049 possible permutations.
White and Black information pegs correspond to (W)"correct color
in a correct hole", and (B)"correct color in an incorrect hole." In
the difficult version, information pegs do not correspond to order of
color placements being guessed. If you supply wrong information
to the other guy guessing the color combination then -YOU- lose.
Otherwise, the person guessing colors has up to 12 chances.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq's Devil-Worshippers Seek Constitutional Rights
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10788
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mabhei
"-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4561a1b7....@news.isomedia.com...
> Bill Saltman tried this and was rebuked during Spring-Summer
> of 2000. That sort of behavior can get you banned from Go Servers.
What if I spread it out over different accounts and do it occasionally, so
they haven't picked it up?
> It's not much help to "win at Go" when you're a dismal failure
> in every other area important for life.
What do you presume to know?
> Yes, I can suggest switching your game to Stratego and/or
> MasterMind. In the "hard version" an empty space counts for
> yet another color, yielding 9^5 = 59,049 possible permutations.
> White and Black information pegs correspond to (W)"correct color
> in a correct hole", and (B)"correct color in an incorrect hole." In
> the difficult version, information pegs do not correspond to order of
> color placements being guessed. If you supply wrong information
> to the other guy guessing the color combination then -YOU- lose.
> Otherwise, the person guessing colors has up to 12 chances.
So do you know Go cheats, or are you going to write elaborate paragraphs
about other games again?
It's funny to watch nerds get angry.
tweet
> The more advanced the player, the less patience he has for repetitively
> filling in dead space. So I've taken advantage of this weakness,
> purposefully make bad moves, then repetitively filling in the dead space,
This is one of the shenanigans renli did.
Vit Brunner
mabhei napsal:
> The more advanced the player, the less patience he has for repetitively
> filling in dead space. So I've taken advantage of this weakness,
> purposefully make bad moves, then repetitively filling in the dead space,
> and redo over and over until he loses his temper and resigns.
The smarter players will not take you stones, they will leave them with
1 liberty, so that you can't refill the dead space. But sooner or later
your "tactic" will get you banned anyway.
If you enjoy winning in this way (eg. boring your opponent to
resignation), you must be mentally retarded. This is not meant as an
offence, it is simply a fact.
Frank de Groot
> you must be mentally retarded.
Although what he does is pretty dishonorable in my book, the rules allow it.
BTW, for someone complaining about the use of swearwords here, you have a
pretty fast mouth yourself.
-
> tweet wrote:
>> This is one of the shenanigans renli did.
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Define renli. Renli on IGS? Wasn't me. Or do you mean "jb"
> using renli as his alias? Or did you mean to say that YOU, in
> the past, removed live stone groups?
A bit late in the game to deny being the "Renli" of our
former discussion. Moreover you have just impelled me to cross
over the boundary of neutrality through slandering in this process.
I was prepared to accept that there might be some genuine doubt
about whether you ought to be banned from IGS, however what
you have written today completely persuades me of its justification.
> I'd like you to provide a SGF file which shows me doing that. You won't
> be able to. In my defense, I will again ask you why my game with robinl
> was hosted on your ftp site for more than five years.
Irrelevant to the point under discussion. "Silliness" is what got
Bill Saltman axed, and "Renli" illustrates even -more- "silliness."
> So tweet - are you going to andwer mef's question or not?
> We're still waiting.
Who, other than "Renli", is waiting ?
--------------------------------------------------------
> "Vit Brunner" <vit.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> you must be mentally retarded.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Although what he does is pretty dishonorable in my book, the rules allow it.
No, rules do not allow it. Try that behavior in a major tournament
and see how long it takes before the tournament director is asked to
make a ruling on whether "mabhei" should be allowed to continue.
On "etiquette rules" such as this one, Mr. Jasiek has waxed at length
concerning the Japanese insistence on game forfeits by the uncouth.
> BTW, for someone complaining about the use of swearwords here,
> you have a pretty fast mouth yourself.
I have a pretty darn good idea how you say Holland is a sh*thole
and where it is you who came from there and why so many leave it.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch Government Backs Burqa Ban
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10791
------------------------------------------------------------------
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>If you enjoy winning in this way (eg. boring your opponent to
>resignation), you must be mentally retarded.
No, it's more symptomatic of a sociopathic personality disorder than
cognitive impairment.
-- Roy L
mabhei
"Vit Brunner" <vit.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164034904.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The smarter players will not take you stones, they will leave them with
> 1 liberty, so that you can't refill the dead space.
It takes a lot of repetitions to get there, if I let them take huge gaps of
territory.
> But sooner or later
> your "tactic" will get you banned anyway.
Unless you create another account.
> If you enjoy winning in this way (eg. boring your opponent to
> resignation), you must be mentally retarded. This is not meant as an
> offence, it is simply a fact.
I enjoy the power trip of infuriating advanced players. It reminds them
that they have not won in the bigger scheme of things.
Vit Brunner
Frank de Groot napsal:
> Although what he does is pretty dishonorable in my book, the rules allow it.
Yes, the rules allow it, but playing like that can be enjoyable only
for someone who is mentally challenged.
Vit Brunner
> > The smarter players will not take you stones, they will leave them with
> > 1 liberty, so that you can't refill the dead space.
>
> It takes a lot of repetitions to get there, if I let them take huge gaps of
> territory.
I don't know what you mean by "repetition", but if you mean playing
where you already played before and was taken, then it doesn't. Read it
once more - your groups will be left with just one liberty (if you are
playing with rules that allow suicide that wouldn't work but I suppose
you are using japanese rules)
> > But sooner or later
> > your "tactic" will get you banned anyway.
>
> Unless you create another account.
Your ip address is logged.
> I enjoy the power trip of infuriating advanced players. It reminds them
> that they have not won in the bigger scheme of things.
Actually they "win" by resigning the game, and you "lose". What matters
to them is not to win this particular game (if it did matter to them
they would just play it out), but to study the game and to get better
at it.
What is the value of having 1k account when you are in fact 30kyu? What
do you gain by that?
Maybe you do that because you enjoy annoying other people, but in that
case I suggest you not to play go and to troll in some usenet group...
oh wait... ;-)
Mef
mabhei wrote:
>
> > It's not much help to "win at Go" when you're a dismal failure
> > in every other area important for life.
>
> What do you presume to know?
>
That you not only claim to use boring and annoying a stronger opponent
as a tactic to win, but you enjoy it. Also this implies that your time
is far less valuble than your opponents (since you are willing to trade
it for a game of pointless space-filling and they are not).
Cheers,
Mef
-
>>> tweet wrote:
>>>> This is one of the shenanigans renli did.
>> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Define renli. Renli on IGS? Wasn't me. Or do you mean "jb"
>>> using renli as his alias? Or did you mean to say that YOU, in
>>> the past, removed live stone groups?
> "-" wrote:
>> A bit late in the game to deny being the "Renli" of our
>> former discussion.
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhh... no. It's my first reply to tweet. That's as early as it is late.
Can't believe it's your "first reply to tweet." You're making
yourself out to be a pathological liar transparent to all who lurk here.
You introduce another question by your subterfuge: if you are not
the "Renli" we discuss, then who is ? See: more questions occur...
>> Moreover you have just impelled me to cross
>> over the boundary of neutrality through slandering in this process.
> That's not a reason.
Call it an emotional migration, then ...
>> I was prepared to accept that there might be some genuine doubt
>> about whether you ought to be banned from IGS, however what
>> you have written today completely persuades me of its justification.
> Why? Because I stand up to tweet's lies, and make you into a fool by
> pretending to honestly believe you can be saved?
Obviously I am not going to be saved from split infinitives.
>>> I'd like you to provide a SGF file which shows me doing that. You won't
>>> be able to. In my defense, I will again ask you why my game with robinl
>>> was hosted on your ftp site for more than five years.
>> Irrelevant to the point under discussion. "Silliness" is what got
>> Bill Saltman axed, and "Renli" illustrates even -more- "silliness."
> Evidence is irrelevant? When did you become a Fascist? Oh yeah.
> Nevermind.
You promised to supply evidence of the citation which you never did.
Breaking a promise establishes that you are not a man of your word.
>>> So tweet - are you going to andwer mef's question or not?
>>> We're still waiting.
>> Who, other than "Renli", is waiting ?
> Since you put renli in quotes I will do you the favour of answering
> your question directly: "Not jeff boscole".
Doesn't make sense. Answer needs to be: "not jb -and- not Renli."
> So anyways - did you have a point to make or were you just rambling
> again?
In this exchange you did not provide even one example of another who
is "waiting" for tweet's reply. 1st person plural pronoun requires two.
Even when points at debate are dragged before your eyes you manage
to lose all counts. Why not bend over and take a hot poker up your ass?
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
'We Killed Jesus, We'll Kill You Too!
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10809
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
> > So tweet - are you going to andwer mef's question or not?
> > We're still waiting.
>
>
> Who, other than "Renli", is waiting ?
>
While my question was more of a request for clarification on tweet's
argument, however since it has yet to be fully clarified for me, I
guess my name can be assigned to it. Also, while I hate to speak for
others, I think Bantari might be waiting for a clarification to as per
his post
here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/tree/browse_frm/thread/e17e087b6cd9b4be/090f3d0711a747d9?rnum=11&q=tweet+AND+Sandbagger&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.games.go%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe17e087b6cd9b4be%2Fabd9995117875b76%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dtweet+AND+Sandbagger%26rnum%3D3%26#doc_8d26c8af4e3f9656
As I understand from reading tweet's posts the arguments are something
like this:
Premise: RenLi claims to be an IGS dan strength player. (1)
Premise: Two korean pros, and one strong amateur European say he is a
kyu player. (2)
Conclusion: RenLi's claim to be an IGS dan player is false. (3)
and
Premise: A sandbagger as one who artificially obtains a rank
significantly lower than his true strength in order to win mismatch.
(4)
Premise: RenLi played an IGS 3k in an even game (5)
Conclusion: By merit of (1), (4), and (5), RenLi is a sandbagger.
(6)
However, it would appear to me that in light of (3), (6) does not
necessarily follow from (1), (4) and (5).
Should I have misunderstood any of your premises or conclusions please
correct me.
Thanks,
Mef
-
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Saltman tried this and was rebuked during Spring-Summer
>> of 2000. That sort of behavior can get you banned from Go Servers.
"mabhei" <mab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What if I spread it out over different accounts and do it occasionally,
> so they haven't picked it up?
As I said earlier, you'd need to know something about Stratego.
>> It's not much help to "win at Go" when you're a dismal failure
>> in every other area important for life.
> What do you presume to know?
I don't need to know or presume to know in order to render a truism.
>> Yes, I can suggest switching your game to Stratego and/or
>> MasterMind. In the "hard version" an empty space counts for
>> yet another color, yielding 9^5 = 59,049 possible permutations.
>> White and Black information pegs correspond to (W)"correct color
>> in a correct hole", and (B)"correct color in an incorrect hole." In
>> the difficult version, information pegs do not correspond to order of
>> color placements being guessed. If you supply wrong information
>> to the other guy guessing the color combination then -YOU- lose.
>> Otherwise, the person guessing colors has up to 12 chances.
> So do you know Go cheats, or are you going to write elaborate
> paragraphs about other games again?
Ultimately the Go cheats aren't going to advance you into the
quarter-finals, semi-finals, finals, or championship. So they really
aren't very interesting to most of the readers on this newsgroup.
I suppose that there will very soon be some quick-fix "artificial
intelligence" software that rapidly assesses the "silliness" factor
in game records and accords a win to the player less silly once
a "silliness threshold" has been activated.
> It's funny to watch nerds get angry.
Somewhat striking that the level of political discourse in countries
without any right to keep and bear arms seems to be rather diluted.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Zionism: An Egregious Threat to US-Mideast Understanding
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10779
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand from reading tweet's posts the arguments are
> something like this:
>
> Premise: RenLi claims to be an IGS dan strength player. (1)
> Premise: Two korean pros, and one strong amateur European say
> he is a kyu player. (2)
> Conclusion: RenLi's claim to be an IGS dan player is false. (3)
>
> and
>
> Premise: A sandbagger as one who artificially obtains a rank
> significantly lower than his true strength in order to win mismatch. (4)
> Premise: RenLi played an IGS 3k in an even game (5)
> Conclusion: By merit of (1), (4), and (5), RenLi is a sandbagger. (6)
>
> However, it would appear to me that in light of (3), (6) does not
> necessarily follow from (1), (4) and (5).
>
> Should I have misunderstood any of your premises or conclusions
> please correct me.
Renli asserts "dan player" status while not explaining his sandbagging
(if a "dan player" status assertion is true). So -something- is false.
- regards
- jb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Love Bridge' Fuels Anti-Immigrant Backlash on Swedish Border
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10796
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As I understand from reading tweet's posts the arguments are
> > something like this:
> >
> > Premise: RenLi claims to be an IGS dan strength player. (1)
> > Premise: Two korean pros, and one strong amateur European say
> > he is a kyu player. (2)
> > Conclusion: RenLi's claim to be an IGS dan player is false. (3)
> >
> > and
> >
> > Premise: A sandbagger as one who artificially obtains a rank
> > significantly lower than his true strength in order to win mismatch. (4)
> > Premise: RenLi played an IGS 3k in an even game (5)
> > Conclusion: By merit of (1), (4), and (5), RenLi is a sandbagger. (6)
> >
> > However, it would appear to me that in light of (3), (6) does not
> > necessarily follow from (1), (4) and (5).
> >
> > Should I have misunderstood any of your premises or conclusions
> > please correct me.
>
>
> Renli asserts "dan player" status
(1), Got that
> while not explaining his sandbagging
So now we have:
Premise: Should one engage in sandbagging it requires explanation (7)
Conclusion: Given (1), (4), (5) and (7) RenLi must explain his
sandbagging. (8)
However, without (6) this begs the question. He is only sandbagging
given that his claim from (1) is true. As this claim has not been
established to be true, we have not yet shown there is sandbagging that
needs explaining, therefore we cannot conclude (8).
> (if a "dan player" status assertion is true).
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere....
Premise: RenLi's claim from (1) is true. (9)
Now, let us revise (8):
Conclusion: Given (4), (5), (7), and (9), RenLi must explain his
sandbagging. (8b)
Now we have a properly formed argument, however, as (9) and (3) are
clear contradictions, we must throw out one of them. Given that (9) is
pure speculation, and (3) is based on authority. I think we can say
that (8b) is based on a false premise, thus not a valid argument.
>So -something- is false.
Correct, however, my question was as to sandbagging argument. As there
had been no refutation against (1), (2), or (3), I cannot understand
why (6) or (8) were presented. Thus my quest for clarification
continues.
Thanks,
Mef
-
>>>>> tweet wrote:
>>>>>> This is one of the shenanigans renli did.
>>>> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Define renli. Renli on IGS? Wasn't me. Or do you mean "jb"
>>>>> using renli as his alias? Or did you mean to say that YOU, in
>>>>> the past, removed live stone groups?
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> A bit late in the game to deny being the "Renli" of our
>>>> former discussion.
>> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Uhh... no. It's my first reply to tweet. That's as early as it is late.
> "-" wrote:
>> Can't believe it's your "first reply to tweet." You're making
>> yourself out to be a pathological liar transparent to all who lurk here.
>> You introduce another question by your subterfuge: if you are not
>> the "Renli" we discuss, then who is ? See: more questions occur...
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> A pathological liar? Dude check your glasses then check the tree.
> Tweet made one reply in this thread then I made a reply to that post.
The discussion concerning your silly behavior on the server
began a very long time ago, and has been a subtopic on many
threads. Note that I said:
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> A bit late in the game to deny being the "Renli"
>>>> of our former discussion.
....the key phrase here being "...our _former_ discussion."
> Pathological liar lol. A little thing called reading comprehension
> goes a long way JB. Thats why "more questions occur", because
> you don't understand what people are telling you straigh up.
I don't portend to "understand what people (say)." I work in the
literal realm of quote and reply, i.e. simply what people -actually- say.
>>>> Moreover you have just impelled me to cross
>>>> over the boundary of neutrality through slandering in this process.
>>> That's not a reason.
>> Call it an emotional migration, then ...
> If you prefer. I don't, but if you do. But that just makes you look
> like a foppish flake. That's your problem jb, you talk like indiana
> jones trying to come up with lines for a fifty cent detective novel in 1958.
Claiming that somebody talks like somebody else does not amount to
argument. At best, strawman misdirection mixed with analogical fallacy.
>> You promised to supply evidence of the citation which you never did.
>> Breaking a promise establishes that you are not a man of your word.
> I provided a video, which you never bothered to download.
How do you explain that I found out that your video was dated
12 October before you were logging into IGS on 14 October ?
> Now we're waiting for tweets logs, and also tweet's explanation of why there
> are two mutually exclusive points at the heart of his argument about "me".
One prong of his argument is literal, the other dependent upon the
alternative interpretation of that former prong.
> So, if breaking my promise establishes that I am not a man of my word,
> then if tweet broke his promise - I admit - then he he is not a man of
> his word.
Some big "if's" there. We have in writing your indication to supply
anybody with the citation via email once they ask for it. I asked many
times and no citation from you has arrived. I received only the video.
I don't recall where tweet made any promise or indication.
> So are you saying tweet is not a man of his word? What exactly are you
> trying to say here JB? Oh but it is true, tweet broke his own TOS.
Power has its privileges. Fashion your own Go Server and apply policies.
>> ...
>> Doesn't make sense. Answer needs to be: "not jb -and- not Renli."
> It makes perfect sense. I don't need to format my answers to suit your
> specification. Didn't your parents teach you not to lie, JB?
My parents introduced me to Stratego. I shall catch you if you
move your bombs and/or your flag.
>> In this exchange you did not provide even one example of another who
>> is "waiting" for tweet's reply. 1st person plural pronoun requires two.
> How is "not jeff boscole" a 1st person plural anything, let alone
> pronoun? All counts? So if there is an apple and an orange, and I say
> "not orange" it does not mean AN apple (note the an, denoting singular
> - and not plural?)
The set (collection) is singular however its elements are plural.
>> Even when points at debate are dragged before your eyes you manage
>> to lose all counts. Why not bend over and take a hot poker up your ass?
> Lol jb. The fact that you don't understand the pronoun means you don't
> understand the argument. If you misunderstand simple words like "it",
> "him" and "you" when their usage is any more complex than the most
> basic usage - you have no chance to survive.
I don't portend to understand the pronoun. I am asking you to
clarify your meaning and intent. You have been unsuccessful so far.
> You're starting to sound a lot like sam sloan.
Claiming that somebody sounds like somebody else does not amount to
argument. At best, strawman misdirection mixed with analogical fallacy.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
America in No-Win War for Israel
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10795
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> "-" wrote:
>> The discussion concerning your silly behavior on the server
>> began a very long time ago, and has been a subtopic on many
>> threads. Note that I said:
>>
>> >>> "-" wrote:
>> >>>> A bit late in the game to deny being the "Renli"
>> >>>> of our former discussion.
>>
>> ....the key phrase here being "...our _former_ discussion."
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then get the hell out of this thread and go put your post where it
> belongs. Because right here, right now, in this thread, you're wrong.
> Backtracking and trying to say you were speaking in a different
> context is just a red herring.
I detect your streak of violence that lurks beneath a deceptively
calm exterior. Might explain how you arrive to a gamer newsgroup
by way of getting borked on some martial arts newsgroup. Use of
backtracking is what this is all about, when analyzing the causes
and effects of various phenomena and behavior forms. Note that
backtracking is an animal "very different from" backpedaling...
I don't rely upon contexts. I speak in literal forms, exactly what
is being said, and I read what is written here in a literal form. You
suggest that people ought to be banned from a thread, even on an
"unmoderated newsgroup" (of which I am an informal moderator).
Instead of playing boardgames would you just kick over the tables?
You see, Mr. Renli, in this game I make a move, then you make a
move, then I make a move, then you make a move, then I make a
move then you make a move... Was that a new concept for you?
The subtopic here concerned whether you were making your
"first reply to `tweet'." There's ample evidence of "Renli" making
many replies to `tweet'. Indeed, those "Renli" posts far outnumber
your own today, making -you- an imposter, not just former "Renli."
You're using every opportunity to blather lies and discontents to
the four winds. It is appropriate to immerse pathological liars into
echo chambers of their own making, which is what you have here.
Some individuals go through life wearing a sign that says "hit me."
They complain about becoming victims when others do just that.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Daughter Robbed: Chertoff drops the ball yet again
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10830
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david Windsor
pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills
("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global
intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of
mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or below."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation-
Retardation implies a capacity to learn... albeit slowly, but learn none
the less. This 'stratagem' suggest no such capacity.
david Windsor
more productive things... You will then move onto the next game, replant
your thumb in your butt, and continue to do nothing with your life save
build a number down from 30 to 1.
Michael Vondung
> But sooner or later
> your "tactic" will get you banned anyway.
Why, though? Certainly, his behaviour and his "strategy" are highly
annoying, but his "style" isn't violating the game's actual rules. While I
believe that he is a troll that is fed by you guys, he is right that go can
be seen as a "war game", and as long as he plays within the game's rules
(the actual rules, not accepted social standards), he isn't "cheating" --
the objective is winning the "encounter" or achieving one's goals (it can
be argued that it is the journey that matters, not the destination, but
that's personal preference and I don't expect everyone to see the game, or
any other game, the way I do). If I wanted to be a devil's advocate, I'd
say that what the guy lacks in go experience/skill/knowledge, he makes up
with "creativity".
M.
Ben Finney
> On 20 Nov 2006 07:01:44 -0800, Vit Brunner wrote:
>
> > But sooner or later your "tactic" will get you banned anyway.
>
> Why, though? Certainly, his behaviour and his "strategy" are highly
> annoying, but his "style" isn't violating the game's actual rules.
The rules that determines who wins or loses are not the only rules to
be followed in a game community, such as an online game
server. Indeed, the only thing worth "banning" is behaviour that,
while it may be within the game rules, is a threat to that community.
The rules of an abstract board game can be made simple and robust (as
we see with the better rule sets for go). The rules of a social
community are inherently fragile and require constant care and
monitoring by the members of that community.
--
\ "Members of the general public commonly find copyright rules |
`\ implausible, and simply disbelieve them." -- Jessica Litman, |
_o__) _Digital Copyright_ |
Ben Finney
tweet
> tweet wrote:
>
>> This is one of the shenanigans renli did.
>>
>
>
>
> Still waiting,
>
> -
>
From: Alex Papadimitriu <hespe...@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: 1 dan vs "3 dan"
"Fu, Ren-Li" wrote:
> I'm not bragging, I am merely explaining how wrong you are about how strong
> I am. The only other conclusive proof I can give you is if we play a series
> of games (on KGS). You can take that as a challenge, more than this I
> cannot do to open your mind.
>
> -frl
I played three IGS games with you some time ago. In one game you kept playing
random silly moves instead of scoring, and twice you escaped from lost games.
I placed you on my bozo list. :-)
tweet
Additionally (renli also known as 'kungfu')...
From: Tweedie <t...@joyjoy.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: kungfu
Just a few complaint email letters from 2001-2.
. . . . . . .
From m...@flash.net
From: .... <m...@flash.net>
Reply-To: m...@flash.net
Organization: retired
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: igs-...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net
Subject: Poor Sportsman
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Tonight I played a game with kungfu
During the game kungfu made a mistake and I was a gentleman and
allowed an undo.
At the end of the game, I had a clear win and kungfu began removing stones
that were not captured. I did not know what to do. After removing
improper stones he kept
typing "done." . I typed refresh and tried to correct the situation.
Each time he fouled up the board. What can be done about a player like
that? Can you in IGS
take away his account? He finally left the board in such a manner that
I showed up as losing the game. I am not sure how he did this but this
is unfair!. -
. . . . . . .
From hmt...@sina.com
From: .... <hmt...@sina.com>
To: <igs-...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>
Subject: please stop him
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="big5"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by panda-igs.joyjoy.net id EAA27809
the player named kungfu, keeps saying dirty words( like fu
ck you) to opponents in playing. And takes live stones when counting. Shame on h
im. Can u stop that plz?
. . . . . . .
From p...@jesus.ksc.co.th
From: .... <p...@ksc.net.th>
To: igs-...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net
Subject: Please suspend him...
Reply-To: p...@ksc.net.th
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
Dear IGS Admin,
Today I played with 'kungfu' and his behavior is very bad.
He try to remove my group that didn't die twice.
And try to remove my stone that are alive.
I don't know what you can do with this account. But I want you to
ban him.
Sorry if this disturb you all.
Regards,
....
-
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've posted them in the past but I believe it was shown
> that it wasn't me using the account at that time.
How did you prove a negative ?
> In addition, it was said this was a gross abuse of your authority,
> to the tune that regardless if the letters were real or not (In fact
> PRECISELY because you could easily fake them) ...
If the letters are fake then how could somebody else have
used the account `kungfu' "at that time" ?
> you should never have posted them.
Renli asked for evidence. I don't see how he can obtain
that evidence without having some of the evidence posted.
----------------------------------------
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Or Alex? I hardly find alex credible. I would like alex to produce
> these games, or to say when he played me - he most likely did not
> play me. What account was he using? How did he know it was me?
Alex has never lied on this newsgroup. However Renli has lied
on this newsgroup -- perhaps other newsgroups -- and been caught
in those lies. Many times. Who agrees with Renli?
> It is a well known fact that I havent used IGS in years, and that certain
> account names I have used in the past have been used by other
> people more often than they were used by me.
You were able to log into IGS on October 14, after your October 12
video. So Renli has been caught in another lie. One after another...
Renli is a pathological liar. He is a danger to himself and to others.
He doesn't mind lying because he might seek to be fucked by big burly
men on those martial arts newsgroups, perhaps men with hefty biceps.
Renli advertises himself as malware, human trash, with a "hit me" sign.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tools and Guidance to Help Defend Your Network
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/default.mspx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tweet
> You've posted them in the past but I believe it was shown that it
> wasn't me using the account at that time.
Your memory is incorrect.
Mef
- wrote:
> > In addition, it was said this was a gross abuse of your authority,
> > to the tune that regardless if the letters were real or not (In fact
> > PRECISELY because you could easily fake them) ...
>
>
> If the letters are fake then how could somebody else have
> used the account `kungfu' "at that time" ?
>
Pardon me for interjecting, but here's another argument I'm unclear on.
Could you please explain the correlation between authenticity of the
letters and account ownership?
-
>> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In addition, it was said this was a gross abuse of your authority,
>>> to the tune that regardless if the letters were real or not (In fact
>>> PRECISELY because you could easily fake them) ...
> "-" wrote:
>> If the letters are fake then how could somebody else have
>> used the account `kungfu' "at that time" ?
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon me for interjecting, but here's another argument I'm
> unclear on. Could you please explain the correlation between
> authenticity of the letters and account ownership?
Of course. Renli claims knowledge of what some other third
party was doing because he wants to assert that the letters must
be fake. Yet if Renli had knowledge of what some other third
party was doing (or not-doing) then it does not matter whether
such doing (or not-doing) was the third party or Renli himself.
We don't need to know that there was any distinction between
that third party and Renli in order to dispose of this adjudication.
An account may just as well be suspended or banned irrespective
of who was the actual perpetrator of the reported misdeed details.
By resorting to unnecessary knowledge of the situation Renli made
that distinction to separate himself from some bad action which he
simultaneously claims must not exist. In any case Renli sustains
an "inability to use IGS" (from that account) whenever a third party
is using the account instead. If Renli has no knowledge of what a
third party does with his account, or takes no responsibility for the
third party action (some person whose name he has not disclosed)
then there was "unauthorized access to IGS" prohibited by the TOS.
Hope this helps explain what usually follows as rather obvious.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Wave Against Mearsheimer and Walt
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10832
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NYPD Installs 'Sky Watch' In Harlem Neighborhood
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10833
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden: 'It's All Going to Hell!'
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10834
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas: 'Hispanic' Students Now Outnumber Whites
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10837
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack London: The Star Rover
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10840
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers Turn Thanksgiving into Lesson in Political Correctness
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10846
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Africans to Europe: Pay Us or We Will Invade!
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10852
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> >> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> In addition, it was said this was a gross abuse of your authority,
> >>> to the tune that regardless if the letters were real or not (In fact
> >>> PRECISELY because you could easily fake them) ...
>
> > "-" wrote:
> >> If the letters are fake then how could somebody else have
> >> used the account `kungfu' "at that time" ?
>
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pardon me for interjecting, but here's another argument I'm
> > unclear on. Could you please explain the correlation between
> > authenticity of the letters and account ownership?
>
>
> Of course. Renli claims knowledge of what some other third
> party was doing because he wants to assert that the letters must
> be fake. Yet if Renli had knowledge of what some other third
> party was doing (or not-doing) then it does not matter whether
> such doing (or not-doing) was the third party or Renli himself.
> We don't need to know that there was any distinction between
> that third party and Renli in order to dispose of this adjudication.
> An account may just as well be suspended or banned irrespective
> of who was the actual perpetrator of the reported misdeed details.
While some of the argumentation is still a little unclear to me, I
agree with this conclusion. However. in this case the issue was
regarding Renli's behavior on the server. The gap I see is showing that
all actions ever made on an account, that at one time, was owned by
Renli, can be attributed directly to Renli.
> By resorting to unnecessary knowledge of the situation Renli made
> that distinction to separate himself from some bad action which he
> simultaneously claims must not exist. In any case Renli sustains
> an "inability to use IGS" (from that account) whenever a third party
> is using the account instead. If Renli has no knowledge of what a
> third party does with his account, or takes no responsibility for the
> third party action (some person whose name he has not disclosed)
> then there was "unauthorized access to IGS" prohibited by the TOS.
> Hope this helps explain what usually follows as rather obvious.
>
To me it appeared that there were two separate claims being made:
1: The account did not belong to Renli at the time of the reported
incidents.
2: The letters posed as evidence could be easily faked, therefore their
authenticity is questionable.
Now we are left with a potentially very difficult position for either
side to win. I imagine it would be trivial for tweet to demonstrate
that such actions occurred on the server, or (should other parties
involved consent to private information being released) it would also
be fairly trivial to confirm the authenticity of the emails. The main
issue however would be to link Renli to the actions on the server. The
only way this might be able to happen would be to identify the owner of
the email account registered to that name at the time of the incident,
which is not necessarily a trivial task.
One thing I would take issue with is Renli's authorizing the
publication of the account registered at the time. Given that the
account was not his, he would have no authority to offer this. Given
the account was his, there would be no need to show the email address.
In the end, showing the address will prove little one way or the other.
Cheers,
Mef
tweet
To be clear, as of Nov 2006 there has only been one one account
on IGS called 'kungfu', and that account was owned by Oliver
Richman.
-
>>>> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In addition, it was said this was a gross abuse of your authority,
>>>>> to the tune that regardless if the letters were real or not (In fact
>>>>> PRECISELY because you could easily fake them) ...
>>> "-" wrote:
>>>> If the letters are fake then how could somebody else have
>>>> used the account `kungfu' "at that time" ?
>> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Pardon me for interjecting, but here's another argument I'm
>>> unclear on. Could you please explain the correlation between
>>> authenticity of the letters and account ownership?
> "-" wrote:
>> Of course. Renli claims knowledge of what some other third
>> party was doing because he wants to assert that the letters must
>> be fake. Yet if Renli had knowledge of what some other third
>> party was doing (or not-doing) then it does not matter whether
>> such doing (or not-doing) was the third party or Renli himself.
>> We don't need to know that there was any distinction between
>> that third party and Renli in order to dispose of this adjudication.
>> An account may just as well be suspended or banned irrespective
>> of who was the actual perpetrator of the reported misdeed details.
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While some of the argumentation is still a little unclear to me, I
> agree with this conclusion. However. in this case the issue was
> regarding Renli's behavior on the server. The gap I see is showing
> that all actions ever made on an account, that at one time, was
> owned by Renli, can be attributed directly to Renli.
Even if they are -indirectly- attributed, Renli bears the burden
of responsibility for everything happening on an account registered
to him. So the fiction of supposing a difference does not fly at all.
>> By resorting to unnecessary knowledge of the situation Renli made
>> that distinction to separate himself from some bad action which he
>> simultaneously claims must not exist. In any case Renli sustains
>> an "inability to use IGS" (from that account) whenever a third party
>> is using the account instead. If Renli has no knowledge of what a
>> third party does with his account, or takes no responsibility for the
>> third party action (some person whose name he has not disclosed)
>> then there was "unauthorized access to IGS" prohibited by the TOS.
>> Hope this helps explain what usually follows as rather obvious.
> To me it appeared that there were two separate claims being made:
>
> 1: The account did not belong to Renli at the time of the reported
> incidents.
I'm not aware that accounts can be transferrable.
> 2: The letters posed as evidence could be easily faked, therefore
> their authenticity is questionable.
It is curious that the sender addresses have been munged, as
if by retrieval from some blogging site which mungs them. I would
expect that sender addresses should be revealed because anyone
who lodges a complaint which has force must agree to having their
identity revealed. I am inclined to say that banned individuals have
a right to confront those who bear witness against them. At least one
of three would be expected to allow for this kind of confirmation.
> Now we are left with a potentially very difficult position for either
> side to win. I imagine it would be trivial for tweet to demonstrate
> that such actions occurred on the server, or (should other parties
> involved consent to private information being released) it would also
> be fairly trivial to confirm the authenticity of the emails. The main
> issue however would be to link Renli to the actions on the server.
> The only way this might be able to happen would be to identify the
> owner of the email account registered to that name at the time of
> the incident, which is not necessarily a trivial task.
Linking Renli to the account `kungfu' is trivial because in earlier
correspondence on this newsgroup he claimed to hold that account.
Whether or not third party individuals borrowed the `kungfu' account
is irrelevant if Renli was the registered account holder. The account
would be banned summarily for TOS violations; other details would be
sorted out later (in private or in public). Renli did not try to tell
us earlier that third party individuals were using the `kungfu' account.
If third parties use Renli's account(s) then who plays Renli's games?
> One thing I would take issue with is Renli's authorizing the
> publication of the account registered at the time. Given that the
> account was not his, he would have no authority to offer this. Given
> the account was his, there would be no need to show the email address.
> In the end, showing the address will prove little one way or the other.
The associated email address is public information and there
is no expectation of privacy on IGS.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Birthrate Worries Russia
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10853
--------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > While some of the argumentation is still a little unclear to me, I
> > agree with this conclusion. However. in this case the issue was
> > regarding Renli's behavior on the server. The gap I see is showing
> > that all actions ever made on an account, that at one time, was
> > owned by Renli, can be attributed directly to Renli.
>
>
> Even if they are -indirectly- attributed, Renli bears the burden
> of responsibility for everything happening on an account registered
> to him. So the fiction of supposing a difference does not fly at all.
>
Agreed, provided the account was still his.
>
> I'm not aware that accounts can be transferrable.
>
Pardon my being unfamiliar with IGS (I've only been on a few times,
usually to watch the brodcasts) so I have no idea if accounts are
transferable or not. I know on some other servers if your account is
inactive for a period of time it is deleted, and then open for anyone
else to register. If IGS is not like this then yes, Renli has a much
harder case to make.
>
> > 2: The letters posed as evidence could be easily faked, therefore
> > their authenticity is questionable.
>
>
> It is curious that the sender addresses have been munged, as
> if by retrieval from some blogging site which mungs them. I would
> expect that sender addresses should be revealed because anyone
> who lodges a complaint which has force must agree to having their
> identity revealed. I am inclined to say that banned individuals have
> a right to confront those who bear witness against them. At least one
> of three would be expected to allow for this kind of confirmation.
>
It's one thing to be able to confront your accuser, but another to post
the accuser's email on a public forum. Anyway, since the incidents in
question are recorded by the server (I think? again, I'm not very
knowledgeable on IGS) the facts can speak for themselves.
>
> > Now we are left with a potentially very difficult position for either
> > side to win. I imagine it would be trivial for tweet to demonstrate
> > that such actions occurred on the server, or (should other parties
> > involved consent to private information being released) it would also
> > be fairly trivial to confirm the authenticity of the emails. The main
> > issue however would be to link Renli to the actions on the server.
> > The only way this might be able to happen would be to identify the
> > owner of the email account registered to that name at the time of
> > the incident, which is not necessarily a trivial task.
>
>
> Linking Renli to the account `kungfu' is trivial because in earlier
> correspondence on this newsgroup he claimed to hold that account.
> Whether or not third party individuals borrowed the `kungfu' account
> is irrelevant if Renli was the registered account holder. The account
> would be banned summarily for TOS violations; other details would be
> sorted out later (in private or in public). Renli did not try to tell
> us earlier that third party individuals were using the `kungfu' account.
> If third parties use Renli's account(s) then who plays Renli's games?
>
If the accounts are non-transferable, and they do not expire, then yes,
linking is much easier now.
>
>
> > One thing I would take issue with is Renli's authorizing the
> > publication of the account registered at the time. Given that the
> > account was not his, he would have no authority to offer this. Given
> > the account was his, there would be no need to show the email address.
> > In the end, showing the address will prove little one way or the other.
>
>
> The associated email address is public information and there
> is no expectation of privacy on IGS.
>
Ah, very well, in that case there is no problem showing it (although I
still doubt it will accomplish very much.).
Cheers,
Mef
-
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> But JB, you don't understand. Either the letters are fake, or it wasn't
> *my* account. Thats what you dont get. I hadn't removed any living
> groups nor was I rude, etc. still waiting for tweets logs...
They aren't tweet's logs: they are the property of PandaNet.
The letters mention `kungfu' so if they are fake then we would not
encounter the false dichotomy you broach ( "either/or" ).
>> Hope this helps explain what usually follows as rather obvious.
> lol, whatever that's supposed to mean
Hope this helps explain what usually follows as rather obvious.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------
India: Catholic Priest Attacked
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10838
------------------------------------------------------------
tweet
> You've posted them in the past but I believe it was shown that it
> was a gross abuse of your authority, to the tune that regardless if the
> letters were real or not (In fact PRECISELY because you could easily
>
> Tweet. What e-mail address was registered on the account at that time?
email address provided below ...
> Go ahead, I bet you can't produce one. I, Oliver Richman, expressly
> authorize tweet to show the email address registered to the kungfu
> account during 2001-2002.
stats kungfu
Player: kungfu
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: 7k* 26
Rated Games: 27
Rank: 5k 27
Wins: 11
Losses: 20
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 04:51:10 2001
Last Access(local): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 13:51:10 2001
Address: fr...@home.com
Reg date: Tue Jul 24 21:49:17 2001
Info: Chen shi Taijiquan Xinjia / frl shi weiqiquan 'shin fuseki' ^^
Defaults (help defs): time 90, size 19, byo-yomi time 10, byo-yomi stones
25
>
> Lets see it tweet, prove it's real. I dare you.
>
> Let me guess, the account was any...@hotmail.com right? lol..
>
> Oh, can you produce the SGF files as well? I'd like to see em. You keep
> posting this garbage but you never do seem to be able to produce any
> evidence.
>
sgf provided in the email complaint, which shows that kungfu
removed lives stones (see bottom of the sgf).
From p...@jesus.ksc.co.th Thu Dec 21 19:22:04 2000
Received: from jesus.ksc.co.th (jesus.ksc.co.th [203.107.130.99])
by panda-igs.joyjoy.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA04896
for <igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:22:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from psa@localhost)
by jesus.ksc.co.th (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBLALuw15280
for igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
From: Prasong Aroonruviwat <p...@ksc.net.th>
To: igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net
Subject: Please suspend him...
Message-ID: <2000122117...@jesus.ksc.co.th>
Reply-To: p...@ksc.net.th
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
Status: RO
Dear IGS Admin,
Today I played with 'kungfu' and his behavior is very bad.
He try to remove my group that didn't die twice.
And try to remove my stone that are alive.
I don't know what you can do with this account. But I want you to
ban him.
Sorry if this disturb you all.
Regards,
Prasong Aroonruviwat
----- Forwarded message from Tweedie <tw...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net> -----
From: Tweedie <tw...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:34:12 +0900 (JST)
Subject: kungfu-psa-21-18-34
To: p...@ksc.net.th
(;
GM[1]US[Brought to you by IGS]
CoPyright[
Copyright (c) NKB, Inc. 1998
Permission to reproduce this game is given, provided proper credit is given.
No warrantee, implied or explicit, is understood.
Use of this game is an understanding and agreement of this notice.
]
GN[kungfu-psa(B) IGS]RE[B+5.5]
PW[kungfu]WR[7k*]NW[ 25]
PB[psa]BR[7k*]NB[ 25]
PC[IGS: igs.joyjoy.net 6969]DT[2000-12-21]
SZ[19]TM[60]KM[5.500000]LT[]
;B[pd]BL[56]C[
psa 7k*: hi
]
;W[dp]WL[58]
;B[pq]BL[48]
;W[dd]WL[57]
;B[fq]BL[43]
;W[eq]WL[45]
;B[fp]BL[35]
;W[cn]WL[44]
;B[jq]BL[33]
;W[po]WL[34]
;B[qm]BL[25]
;W[oq]WL[31]
;B[or]BL[22]
;W[qq]WL[21]
;B[pp]BL[3]
;W[qp]WL[17]
;B[qo]BL[300]
;W[ro]WL[2]
;B[qn]BL[297]
;W[pr]WL[246]
;B[op]BL[294]
;W[qr]WL[242]
;B[nq]BL[289]
;W[oo]WL[235]
;B[no]BL[287]
;W[on]WL[234]
;B[nn]BL[285]
;W[om]WL[233]
;B[nm]BL[280]
;W[pl]WL[227]
;B[rn]BL[276]
;W[rp]WL[223]
;B[rk]BL[273]
;W[qj]WL[219]
;B[qk]BL[270]
;W[pk]WL[218]
;B[pj]BL[268]
;W[rj]WL[209]
;B[oj]BL[257]
;W[nl]WL[207]
;B[qi]BL[233]
;W[ri]WL[204]
;B[qh]BL[231]
;W[rh]WL[203]
;B[rg]BL[229]
;W[qg]WL[192]
;B[rf]BL[226]
;W[rl]WL[125]
;B[ql]BL[217]
;W[pm]WL[95]
;B[sj]BL[213]
;W[ll]WL[90]
;B[ml]BL[198]
;W[mk]WL[85]
;B[mm]BL[196]
;W[nj]WL[82]
;B[ok]BL[181]
;W[nk]WL[81]
;B[oh]BL[177]
;W[ol]WL[73]
;B[oi]BL[169]
;W[kk]WL[69]
;B[lm]BL[167]
;W[km]WL[68]
;B[kn]BL[164]
;W[jn]WL[67]
;B[jm]BL[294]
;W[kl]WL[66]
;B[im]BL[292]
;W[in]WL[294]
;B[hm]BL[289]
;W[hn]WL[293]
;B[gn]BL[286]
;W[ko]WL[292]
;B[ln]BL[283]
;W[go]WL[291]
;B[ho]BL[280]
;W[hp]WL[284]
;B[io]BL[277]
;W[jo]WL[283]
;B[ip]BL[274]
;W[gm]WL[280]
;B[fn]BL[272]
;W[hl]WL[279]
;B[gl]BL[268]
;W[fm]WL[278]
;B[il]BL[265]
;W[hk]WL[277]
;B[ik]BL[262]
;W[ij]WL[277]
;B[hj]BL[258]
;W[gk]WL[276]
;B[jj]BL[254]
;W[ii]WL[275]
;B[fl]BL[238]
;W[em]WL[273]
;B[jk]BL[236]
;W[kj]WL[235]
;B[ji]BL[234]
;W[ki]WL[235]
;B[jh]BL[231]
;W[fo]WL[230]
;B[en]BL[225]
;W[eo]WL[229]
;B[el]BL[221]
;W[dn]WL[227]
;B[gj]BL[220]
;W[kq]WL[220]
;B[kr]BL[203]
;W[iq]WL[216]
;B[lo]BL[199]
;W[mp]WL[201]
;B[lp]BL[195]
;W[np]WL[199]
;B[oq]BL[162]
;W[mq]WL[197]
;B[mr]BL[297]
;W[os]WL[184]
;B[nr]BL[293]
;W[jr]WL[183]
;B[lq]BL[288]
;W[jp]WL[174]
;B[lh]BL[285]
;W[kh]WL[170]
;B[kg]BL[283]
;W[jg]WL[168]
;B[lg]BL[274]
;W[ih]WL[165]
;B[fk]BL[270]
;W[ni]WL[156]
;B[nh]BL[248]
;W[mi]WL[155]
;B[lj]BL[245]
;W[mh]WL[154]
;B[mg]BL[240]
;W[ng]WL[146]
;B[pg]BL[230]
;W[og]WL[139]
;B[ph]BL[220]
;W[qf]WL[132]
;B[pf]BL[216]
;W[qe]WL[129]
;B[sh]BL[214]
;W[pe]WL[124]
;B[qc]BL[205]
;W[od]WL[119]
;B[oc]BL[199]
;W[of]WL[115]
;B[si]BL[195]
;W[qd]WL[114]
;B[pc]BL[192]
;W[dj]WL[110]
;B[ne]BL[187]
;W[jf]WL[109]
;B[oe]BL[183]
;W[hk]WL[104]
;B[fd]BL[176]
;W[ef]WL[102]
;B[cc]BL[172]
;W[dc]WL[101]
;B[cd]BL[169]
;W[ce]WL[101]
;B[be]BL[167]
;W[bf]WL[101]
;B[cf]BL[164]
;W[de]WL[100]
;B[bg]BL[298]
;W[bd]WL[99]
;B[af]BL[296]
;W[bc]WL[300]
;B[ci]BL[293]
;W[ch]WL[295]
;B[bh]BL[290]
;W[cg]WL[293]
;B[di]BL[285]
;W[ej]WL[291]
;B[ei]BL[282]
;W[fi]WL[290]
;B[fj]BL[278]
;W[ck]WL[289]
;B[cl]BL[275]
;W[bl]WL[288]
;B[dk]BL[267]
;W[cj]WL[285]
;B[fh]BL[265]
;W[gi]WL[283]
;B[gh]BL[262]
;W[bj]WL[277]
;B[jc]BL[257]
;W[hd]WL[275]
;B[hc]BL[255]
;W[gc]WL[273]
;B[gd]BL[246]
;W[ic]WL[272]
;B[hb]BL[244]
;W[id]WL[271]
;B[fb]BL[242]
;W[ib]WL[265]
;B[gb]BL[238]
;W[gf]WL[262]
;B[db]BL[225]
;W[cb]WL[260]
;B[ec]BL[223]
;W[da]WL[259]
;B[ea]BL[217]
;W[eb]WL[257]
;B[jb]BL[205]
;W[ja]WL[250]
;B[db]BL[204]
;W[hl]WL[250]
;B[gk]BL[199]
;W[eb]WL[249]
;B[ha]BL[196]
;W[ia]WL[240]
;B[db]BL[193]
;W[hg]WL[227]
;B[ca]BL[288]
;W[hi]WL[226]
;B[dg]BL[285]
;W[bi]WL[293]
;B[li]BL[280]
;W[eh]WL[286]
;B[dh]BL[277]
;W[eg]WL[286]
;B[lc]BL[257]
;W[lb]WL[279]
;B[mb]BL[255]
;W[kb]WL[277]
;B[kc]BL[253]
;W[le]WL[272]
;B[jd]BL[247]
;W[kf]WL[267]
;B[je]BL[242]
;W[ie]WL[266]
;B[md]BL[234]
;W[ks]WL[254]
;B[mo]BL[214]
;W[lr]WL[252]
;B[ns]BL[210]
;W[ps]WL[250]
;B[cq]BL[207]
;W[cp]WL[244]
;B[br]BL[204]
;W[dr]WL[242]
;B[bp]BL[198]
;W[bo]WL[241]
;B[ff]BL[159]
;W[fe]WL[229]
;B[ge]BL[156]
;W[fg]WL[223]
;B[ka]BL[153]
;W[he]WL[215]
;B[la]BL[145]
;W[ad]WL[211]
;B[ae]BL[139]
;W[ba]WL[210]
;B[da]BL[117]
;W[tt]WL[200]
;B[lf]BL[107]
;W[ke]WL[195]
;B[me]BL[100]
;W[cm]WL[192]
;B[dl]BL[96]
;W[dm]WL[177]
;B[lk]BL[93]
;W[ek]WL[175]
;B[ah]BL[285]
;W[ai]WL[174]
;B[ls]BL[275]
;W[ms]WL[298]
;B[ak]BL[272]
;W[bk]WL[295]
;B[ls]BL[270]
;W[ed]WL[292]
;B[fc]BL[267]
;W[ms]WL[292]
;B[al]BL[263]
;W[bm]WL[288]
;B[ls]BL[260]
;W[hl]WL[286]
;B[hk]BL[257]
;W[ms]WL[285]
;B[if]BL[245]
;W[hf]WL[282]
;B[ls]BL[243]
;W[fa]WL[267]
;B[ga]BL[240]
;W[ms]WL[266]
;B[hh]BL[239]
;W[gg]WL[264]
;B[ls]BL[238]
;W[kr]WL[261]
;B[ms]BL[235]
;W[sn]WL[261]
;B[sm]BL[231]
;W[so]WL[261]
;B[ld]BL[223]
;W[ig]WL[259]
;B[tt]BL[218]
;W[tt]WL[256]
;B[tt]BL[208]C[
kungfu dead @ A8
kungfu dead @ F3
psa dead @ R15
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B2
psa dead @ P16
kungfu dead @ B4
psa dead @ S8
kungfu dead @ P2
kungfu dead @ M5
kungfu done
kungfu done
psa 7k*: that group isn't die
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu dead @ F3
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B2
kungfu dead @ B4
kungfu dead @ A8
kungfu done
kungfu dead @ O2
kungfu dead @ M5
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
]
;W[tt]WL[215]
;B[jl]BL[197]
;W[tt]WL[211]
;B[tt]BL[197]
;W[tt]WL[0]C[
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B2
kungfu dead @ B4
kungfu dead @ A8
psa dead @ P13
kungfu dead @ F3
psa dead @ N11
kungfu dead @ D11
psa dead @ S8
kungfu dead @ B12
kungfu dead @ B15
psa dead @ P16
kungfu dead @ C14
psa dead @ Q15
kungfu dead @ M19
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
psa dead @ J19
psa dead @ F15
psa dead @ E16
psa dead @ B19
psa dead @ B17
psa dead @ C18
psa done
kungfu dead @ O2
kungfu dead @ J9
kungfu dead @ M6
psa dead @ S5
psa dead @ L2
kungfu dead @ R8
psa dead @ F5
kungfu dead @ P11
psa dead @ F7
kungfu dead @ M12
kungfu dead @ N15
psa dead @ J6
kungfu dead @ T10
psa dead @ E3
kungfu dead @ S13
psa dead @ D4
kungfu dead @ N18
psa dead @ B5
kungfu dead @ G18
psa dead @ D2
psa dead @ H4
kungfu dead @ Q17
psa dead @ J3
kungfu dead @ T7
kungfu dead @ D19
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu dead @ G16
kungfu dead @ D18
kungfu dead @ D11
kungfu dead @ B12
kungfu dead @ B15
kungfu dead @ C14
kungfu dead @ A8
kungfu dead @ B2
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B4
kungfu dead @ F3
psa dead @ Q7
psa dead @ P13
psa dead @ P16
psa dead @ Q15
psa dead @ S8
psa dead @ T5
kungfu dead @ O1
kungfu dead @ N5
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
psa dead @ E13
kungfu dead @ K7
psa dead @ F15
kungfu dead @ M11
kungfu dead @ P11
psa dead @ E16
kungfu dead @ R6
kungfu dead @ T7
psa dead @ B19
kungfu dead @ N15
kungfu dead @ Q17
kungfu dead @ S13
kungfu dead @ T10
kungfu dead @ N18
kungfu dead @ M19
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu dead @ K8
kungfu dead @ M5
kungfu dead @ O1
kungfu dead @ M11
kungfu dead @ O15
kungfu dead @ P12
kungfu dead @ S13
kungfu dead @ T11
kungfu dead @ R7
kungfu dead @ T7
kungfu dead @ Q16
kungfu dead @ N18
kungfu dead @ M19
kungfu dead @ F3
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B2
kungfu dead @ B4
kungfu dead @ M3
kungfu dead @ G8
kungfu dead @ D18
kungfu dead @ G16
kungfu dead @ O8
kungfu dead @ O7
kungfu dead @ M11
kungfu dead @ J8
kungfu dead @ P10
kungfu dead @ R6
kungfu dead @ P2
kungfu dead @ T11
kungfu dead @ T7
kungfu dead @ S14
kungfu dead @ Q16
kungfu dead @ O15
kungfu dead @ N18
kungfu dead @ M19
kungfu dead @ F3
kungfu dead @ C3
kungfu dead @ B2
kungfu dead @ B4
kungfu dead @ A9
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
kungfu done
];
TW[aa][ab][ac][bb][cc][cd][co][do][ee][en][ff][fh][fn][gh][gn][hh][ho][if]
[io][ip][jq][qs][rq][rr][rs][sp][sq][sr][ss]
TB[ag][bf][cg][ch][eb][fa][gc][hl][kb][kh][ki][kj][kk][kl][km][lb][ll][mn]
[mp][mq][np][pi][qj][rh][ri][rj]
)
----- End forwarded message -----
tweet
> But JB, you don't understand. Either the letters are fake, or it wasn't
> *my* account. Thats what you dont get. I hadn't removed any living
> groups nor was I rude, etc.
>
stats kungfu
Player: kungfu
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: 7k* 26
Rated Games: 27
Rank: 5k 27
Wins: 11
Losses: 20
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 04:51:10 2001
Last Access(local): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 13:51:10 2001
Address: fr...@home.com
Reg date: Tue Jul 24 21:49:17 2001
Info: Chen shi Taijiquan Xinjia / frl shi weiqiquan 'shin fuseki' ^^
Defaults (help defs): time 90, size 19, byo-yomi time 10, byo-yomi stones
25
sgf provided in the email complaint, which shows that kungfu
removed lives stones (see bottom of the sgf).
From p...@jesus.ksc.co.th Thu Dec 21 19:22:04 2000
Received: from jesus.ksc.co.th (jesus.ksc.co.th [203.107.130.99])
by panda-igs.joyjoy.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA04896
for <igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:22:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from psa@localhost)
by jesus.ksc.co.th (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBLALuw15280
for igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
From: Prasong Aroonruviwat <p...@ksc.net.th>
To: igs...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net
Subject: Please suspend him...
Message-ID: <2000122117...@jesus.ksc.co.th>
Reply-To: p...@ksc.net.th
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
Status: RO
Dear IGS Admin,
Today I played with 'kungfu' and his behavior is very bad.
He try to remove my group that didn't die twice.
And try to remove my stone that are alive.
I don't know what you can do with this account. But I want you to
ban him.
Sorry if this disturb you all.
Regards,
ian
On Nov 26, 11:51 pm, tweet <t...@pandanet.net> wrote:
>.stats kungfu
> Player: kungfu
> Game: go (1)
> Language: default
> Rating: 7k* 26
> Rated Games: 27
> Rank: 5k 27
> Wins: 11
> Losses: 20
> Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 04:51:10 2001
> Last Access(local): (Not on) Mon Aug 6 13:51:10 2001
> Address: f...@home.com
> Reg date: Tue Jul 24 21:49:17 2001
> Info: Chen shi Taijiquan Xinjia / frl shi weiqiquan 'shin fuseki' ^^
> Defaults (help defs): time 90, size 19, byo-yomi time 10, byo-yomi stones
> 25
>
> sgf provided in the email complaint, which shows that kungfu
> removed lives stones (see bottom of the sgf).
>
> From p...@jesus.ksc.co.th Thu Dec 21 19:22:04 2000
> Received: from jesus.ksc.co.th (jesus.ksc.co.th [203.107.130.99])
> by panda-igs.joyjoy.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA04896
> for <igs-...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:22:00 +0900 (JST)
> Received: (from psa@localhost)
> by jesus.ksc.co.th (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBLALuw15280
> for igs-...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:21:56 +0700
<snip>
> From: Tweedie <t...@panda-igs.joyjoy.net>
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:34:12 +0900 (JST)
> Subject: kungfu-psa-21-18-34
> To: p...@ksc.net.th
>
> (;
> GM[1]US[Brought to you by IGS]
> CoPyright[
> Copyright (c) NKB, Inc. 1998
> Permission to reproduce this game is given, provided proper credit is given.
> No warrantee, implied or explicit, is understood.
> Use of this game is an understanding and agreement of this notice.
> ]
> GN[kungfu-psa(B) IGS]RE[B+5.5]
> PW[kungfu]WR[7k*]NW[ 25]
> PB[psa]BR[7k*]NB[ 25]
> PC[IGS: igs.joyjoy.net 6969]DT[2000-12-21]
I'm sure this has been explained somewhere else and I've missed it.
However I will ask now just to clarify.
The game is dated 21st dec, 2000
Kungfu's stats show he registered a year later.
"Reg date: Tue Jul 24 21:49:17 2001"
I find this a little puzzling. The ranks are the same 7k*. As for the
game, seems reasonably in his style, so I suppose he could have played
it. I wonder if you have the date wrong, I will email the Thailand
player to check.
tweet
He re-registered the account.
tweet
Mef
- wrote:
> "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But JB, you don't understand. Either the letters are fake, or it wasn't
> > *my* account. Thats what you dont get. I hadn't removed any living
> > groups nor was I rude, etc. still waiting for tweets logs...
>
>
> They aren't tweet's logs: they are the property of PandaNet.
> The letters mention `kungfu' so if they are fake then we would not
> encounter the false dichotomy you broach ( "either/or" ).
>
I think the issue here is there is no dichotomy. What we have are two
mutually independent statements. Whether or not the letters were fake
(A) has no bearing on whether or not Renli was the owner of the Kungfu
account at the time (B), however either of these statements would
vindicate Renli hence we have A or B, no either, just or, and value
of one doesn't affect the value of the other (though truth be told it
would appear sufficient evidence has been provided for A, so now we
just have the matter of settling B).
Cheers,
Mef
tweet
> being made in 2001.
>
> Are you sure I wasn't using xinjia, or a different account?
>
> I mean, you were mistaken about when kungfu was registered - now you're
> backtracking and saying it was re-registered. Are just making this up
> as you go along Mark?
>
> -
>
Actually you re-registered the kungfu account four times.
In 2003, you changed from home.com to rogers.com and a
few days later from rogers.com to rogers.com again.
xinjia re-registered from china.com to home.come in 2000.
Then there's the frl account too, plus a few others.
tweet
> Renli wrote:
>
>> tweet wrote:
>>
>>> He re-registered the account from idirect.com to home.com in 2001.
>>
>>
>>
>> That directly contradicts what you said earlier, about the account
>> being made in 2001.
>>
>> Are you sure I wasn't using xinjia, or a different account?
>>
>> I mean, you were mistaken about when kungfu was registered - now you're
>> backtracking and saying it was re-registered. Are just making this up
>> as you go along Mark?
>>
>> -
>>
>
> Actually you re-registered the kungfu account four times.
kungfu was originally registered under idirect.com in 2000,
and you re-registered it to home.com in 2001, and then in ...
tweet
tweet
> tweet wrote:
>
>> tweet wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> tweet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He re-registered the account from idirect.com to home.com in 2001.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That directly contradicts what you said earlier, about the account
>>>> being made in 2001.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure I wasn't using xinjia, or a different account?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, you were mistaken about when kungfu was registered - now you're
>>>> backtracking and saying it was re-registered. Are just making this up
>>>> as you go along Mark?
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually you re-registered the kungfu account four times.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> kungfu was originally registered under idirect.com in 2000,
>> and you re-registered it to home.com in 2001, and then in ...
>>
>>> In 2003, you changed from home.com to rogers.com and a
>>> few days later from rogers.com to rogers.com again.
>>>
>>> xinjia re-registered from china.com to home.come in 2000.
>
>
> Typo ...
> xinjia re-registered from china.com to home.come in 2001.
Additionally, xinjia re-registered from pathcom.com to
china.com in 1999.
>
>
>>>
>>> Then there's the frl account too, plus a few others.
>>>
Such as the notorious 'Invincible' account registered
as interlog.com and china.com, and from china.com
to interlog.com again ...
Michael Alford
> Sorry tweet, but it's fake.
>
> Can you prove it's not? You have a vested interest in discrediting me
> (furthermore I question the relevance why you keep insisting it
> happened).
>
> Unfortunately for you i'm just not that kind of person, and pretty much
> everyone who has had real contact with me knows that What about the
> fact that I've been posting here since prior to 1999 yet you only try
> to discredit me when I point out your lies? And how you still haven't
> actually answered my question, nor mefs, nor have you provided the logs
> which show when and by whom my password was changed on IGS.
For the record, and since his memory seems faulty, let me say, again,
that tweet never said anything to me about logs. I've posted this
before, it's been restated by others - tweet never said anything to me
about logs.
Michael
PS: Oliver Richman is _UNBEARABLY_ stupid.
-
Michael Alford <ma...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> For the record, and since his memory seems faulty, let me say,
> again, that tweet never said anything to me about logs. I've posted
> this before, it's been restated by others - tweet never said anything
> to me about logs.
It's rather extraordinary that `tweet' can dig up from archives
the correspondence from 2001, etc., when `Renli' supplies little
or nothing for evidentiary substantiation. Nevertheless, it is not
an unreasonable request to learn whether any password-change
logs exist and what they might indicate, if they do exist.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Stole Private Land for Settlements: Report
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10856
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> It's rather extraordinary that `tweet' can dig up from archives
> the correspondence from 2001, etc., when `Renli' supplies little
> or nothing for evidentiary substantiation.
I would say it's only perfectly logical when one party is claiming
events never happened, and the other is claiming they did. It is very
rare that one would have email correspondence regarding all the
accounts you do not own. For example, if the claim were made that I
owned the kungfu account, I cannot say that I would have any
correspondence to the contrary, I would have to rely on the lack of any
evidence supporting the other side.
Cheers,
Mef
ian
> > He re-registered the account.He re-registered the account from idirect.com to home.com in 2001.
Can we see something to prove this?
tweet
07-24-101 21:49 kungfu f...@idirect.com fr...@home.com
03-07-102 09:22 kungfu fr...@home.com fr...@rogers.com
03-10-102 21:09 kungfu fr...@rogers.com
-
> "-" wrote:
>> It's rather extraordinary that `tweet' can dig up from archives
>> the correspondence from 2001, etc., when `Renli' supplies little
>> or nothing for evidentiary substantiation.
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say it's only perfectly logical when one party is claiming
> events never happened, and the other is claiming they did. It is very
> rare that one would have email correspondence regarding all the
> accounts you do not own. For example, if the claim were made that
> I owned the kungfu account, I cannot say that I would have any
> correspondence to the contrary, I would have to rely on the lack
> of any evidence supporting the other side.
Renli claimed to be kungfu:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/a0c670565572fc16
Renli found other servers to be "better" :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/1470d397a7d0a3bd
It was "better" all around that Renli found those other servers:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/3cc1988bee62c49a
"It must be named taiji or kungfu, taiji if possible." ( why? )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/c0b969a4340d9015
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Converts will no longer be recognized as Jews under the Law of Return,
according to a bill formulated by the Chief Rabbinate and presented
to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a few days ago..."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10870
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> > "-" wrote:
> >> It's rather extraordinary that `tweet' can dig up from archives
> >> the correspondence from 2001, etc., when `Renli' supplies little
> >> or nothing for evidentiary substantiation.
>
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would say it's only perfectly logical when one party is claiming
> > events never happened, and the other is claiming they did. It is very
> > rare that one would have email correspondence regarding all the
> > accounts you do not own. For example, if the claim were made that
> > I owned the kungfu account, I cannot say that I would have any
> > correspondence to the contrary, I would have to rely on the lack
> > of any evidence supporting the other side.
>
>
> Renli claimed to be kungfu:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/a0c670565572fc16
>
You misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no evidence
supporting the case that RenLi is kungfu, I'm saying there's a
perfectly valid reason for why Renli isn't providing evidence. On the
contrary I would find it more extraordinary if he did have
documentation proving his lack of ownership of all the IGS accounts he
did not possess at the time.
After looking through the links you have posted, and some the
corresponding threads, I must say there is still one problem in the
case being made against RenLi, and that is the timeline of all the
documentation of his being kungfu. From the rgg links you posted, none
of the posts fall within 2 years of the incident at hand. The records
tweet has posted come a little closer bring us to about 7 months
difference, however, by looking through some of those links you posted,
it looks like IGS has an account termination window of 60 days? In
order to be assured that it was Renli's account at the time we need to
narrow it to within plus or minus 60 days of incident. Perhaps tweet
has record of the account's initial creation date along with all the
dates of re-registry? That would help clear things up significantly.
Cheers,
Mef