Cheating in chess

[Robin Nandi]

OK. I have to say I'm not seeing the inconsistency myself...

[Robin Nandi]

Uh huh. Are you under the impression that the sole responsibility for defamation on the internet lies with the poster?

No. I think it depends on the forum and whether they are deemed to be a "publisher". What is your impression?

The legal definition includes forums like this one, but FB has wriggled for many years. They have lost the argument, which is why they are doing more to police what appears on their platform!

Good to know. In general, I don't know the legal position in most forms of the internet (I knew a few only). I probably have that in common with the vast majority of internet users. Does that not diminish the responsibility of the poster?

[Alan Walton]

But if all you are saying, player x has had his account suspended on chess site y for assistance, and player x name/handle is publicly available online elsewhere; then all you are doing is stating known facts, is this libelous to name on a forum?

[Nick Burrows]

But if all you are saying, player x has had his account suspended on chess site y for assistance, and player x name/handle is publicly available online elsewhere; then all you are doing is stating known facts, is this libelous to name on a forum?

Definitely not.

[JustinHorton]

Hmmm, maybe. Are you sure there's no danger that you are actually putting an allegation into the public domain?

[Robin Nandi]

But if all you are saying, player x has had his account suspended on chess site y for assistance, and player x name/handle is publicly available online elsewhere; then all you are doing is stating known facts, is this libelous to name on a forum?

Agree. No problem with that.

[David Sedgwick]

Actually, I never use the ch... word if I can avoid it. I have seen too many false accusations, and it is ugly. I don't think naming people is appropriate because you can say they are guilty of breaking some rules, but technically they are innocent until proven guilty.

Making accusations about people on a Forum is different to withholding prizes, or deleting results, refusing entries or closing accounts. You are definitely on dodgy ground as a publisher and that means Carl.

Can I check that I have understood this correctly?

If I play in one of your tournaments, you give yourself the right to withhold any prize money which I win, to delete my results and to refuse future entries from me.

You also give yourself the right to do all this without being prepared to say that I have cheated or offering me any other explanation.

I'll see you when OTB chess comes back.

[Adam Raoof]

Actually, I never use the ch... word if I can avoid it. I have seen too many false accusations, and it is ugly. I don't think naming people is appropriate because you can say they are guilty of breaking some rules, but technically they are innocent until proven guilty.

Making accusations about people on a Forum is different to withholding prizes, or deleting results, refusing entries or closing accounts. You are definitely on dodgy ground as a publisher and that means Carl.

Can I check that I have understood this correctly?

If I play in one of your tournaments, you give yourself the right to withhold any prize money which I win, to delete my results and to refuse future entries from me.

You also give yourself the right to do all this without being prepared to say that I have cheated or offering me any other explanation.

I'll see you when OTB chess comes back.

No, you have misunderstood me totally. If you enter one of my events and you use an engine, I will offer you all the proof you require, but I will not humiliate you in public. I hope that is acceptable?

[Alan Walton]

Hmmm, maybe. Are you sure there's no danger that you are actually putting an allegation into the public domain?

Isn't this investigative journalism; I have all my facts and source information

[Roger Lancaster]

But if all you are saying, player x has had his account suspended on chess site y for assistance, and player x name/handle is publicly available online elsewhere; then all you are doing is stating known facts, is this libelous to name on a forum?

Agree. No problem with that.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just pointing out that [under E&W law, unless there's been a change recently] re-publishing a libel is itself libellous - in which case, the question to ask is whether you are repeating something that is [or may be, if you are cautious!] itself defamatory.

[Roger de Coverly]

EITHER that player is a deserved winner and should receive the prize money - there is no direct proof of engine use so they are innocent until proven guilty, right?

OR their score on the engine use detection software is too high to justify their place in the tournament (again avoiding the c word) and hence prize money should be withheld.

In the recent 4NCL online Congress, there aren't any money prizes, just trophies.

[Robin Nandi]

I think he was making the point that if you are just stating publicly available facts it is not libel.

[MartinCarpenter]

No, you have misunderstood me totally. If you enter one of my events and you use an engine, I will offer you all the proof you require, but I will not humiliate you in public. I hope that is acceptable?

Very, to me.

It is also, I would hope, obvious to most people that the level of proof you could reasonably demand to quietly deny someone a prize/placing in a specific tournament is quite a lot lower than that you'd need to make a public assertion that they did use an engine, and basically stop them ever playing serious chess again.

Like civil vs criminal courts.

[Robin Nandi]

EITHER that player is a deserved winner and should receive the prize money - there is no direct proof of engine use so they are innocent until proven guilty, right?

OR their score on the engine use detection software is too high to justify their place in the tournament (again avoiding the c word) and hence prize money should be withheld.

In the recent 4NCL online Congress, there aren't any money prizes, just trophies.

Yes. That's true. I think tournament organisers should publish a list of those suspected of cheating for the online events and disqualify them (whether there is prize money at stake or not).

[Michael Farthing]

But if all you are saying, player x has had his account suspended on chess site y for assistance, and player x name/handle is publicly available online elsewhere; then all you are doing is stating known facts, is this libelous to name on a forum?

Definitely not.

Nevertheless, in the interests of the right to self defence, I have taken steps to inform your opponent of what is happening here.