4 ms·

Hans has a documented history of cheating, for which he has been previously banned. That's good enough for me.

rowanG077 4y ago
That's a pretty concerning statement to make. You are basically saying people never change and we should never forgive people for mistakes made in the past.
- effingwewt 4y ago
  This isn't about life and making illegal choices and going to prison and reforming. This is a competition with rules. Should be that if you cheat- lifetime ban. Period. Stop cheating dead except by the most desperate. Temporary bans are something cheaters are willing to take. Lifetime bans are not. We see time and again that when cheating is not rooted out it becomes endemic, as the only way to compete becomes to cheat. At that point the rules are suggestions.
  - timeon 4y ago
    Wasn't he like 16 years old?
    - effingwewt 4y ago
      Age is irrelevant. If he is competing he needs to follow the rules. The wonderful thing about chess is it's a great equalizer. Young and old, rich and poor- anyone can learn and even possibly become great. If you compete with adults you must be held to the same standards. If you worry that under a certain age is too young to be held to such standards (which I totally understand!), they should have separate leagues. He cheated multiple times- apparently more than he admitted to, and on the same platform.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
    This basically happened in bridge: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  There's a difference between not forgiving someone and trusting them. Just because you forgive someone for cheating and telling lies doesn't mean you should now trust them and forget it ever happened.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    If you don't trust them yet you have not fully forgiven them. The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them. You might have accepted the act but that's not forgiveness.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean wiping clean your memory of the past. For example, I have a friend with a drug problem. This friend has on numerous occasions told lies and has otherwise been unreliable in other ways that drug addicts often are. I have forgiven this person for their transgressions and love them just as much as I love anyone else, and would lay down my life for them without hesitation. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to now simply accept their statements without doubt - I would be a fool to do so despite the fact that I have forgiven then completely for their previous lies and don't judge them, or look down on them, for the previous behavior. For better or worse, we are all the sum of our actions.
      - rowanG077 4y ago
        Then we indeed disagree. In my view that's not forgiveness. That's acceptance. Forgiveness doesn't mean you forget the past transgression. It only means you have moved past them and no longer treat the person according to the transgressions. Since you no longer trust your friend you haven't really forgiven them, I'd say.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

That's a pretty concerning statement to make. You are basically saying people never change and we should never forgive people for mistakes made in the past.

effingwewt 4y ago
This isn't about life and making illegal choices and going to prison and reforming. This is a competition with rules. Should be that if you cheat- lifetime ban. Period. Stop cheating dead except by the most desperate. Temporary bans are something cheaters are willing to take. Lifetime bans are not. We see time and again that when cheating is not rooted out it becomes endemic, as the only way to compete becomes to cheat. At that point the rules are suggestions.
- timeon 4y ago
  Wasn't he like 16 years old?
  - effingwewt 4y ago
    Age is irrelevant. If he is competing he needs to follow the rules. The wonderful thing about chess is it's a great equalizer. Young and old, rich and poor- anyone can learn and even possibly become great. If you compete with adults you must be held to the same standards. If you worry that under a certain age is too young to be held to such standards (which I totally understand!), they should have separate leagues. He cheated multiple times- apparently more than he admitted to, and on the same platform.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  This basically happened in bridge: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_bridge
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
There's a difference between not forgiving someone and trusting them. Just because you forgive someone for cheating and telling lies doesn't mean you should now trust them and forget it ever happened.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  If you don't trust them yet you have not fully forgiven them. The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them. You might have accepted the act but that's not forgiveness.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >The definition of forgive is to no longer punish someone as you saw it fit to forgive what they did. If you still act differently towards that someone because of an act then you simply haven't forgiven them. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean wiping clean your memory of the past. For example, I have a friend with a drug problem. This friend has on numerous occasions told lies and has otherwise been unreliable in other ways that drug addicts often are. I have forgiven this person for their transgressions and love them just as much as I love anyone else, and would lay down my life for them without hesitation. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to now simply accept their statements without doubt - I would be a fool to do so despite the fact that I have forgiven then completely for their previous lies and don't judge them, or look down on them, for the previous behavior. For better or worse, we are all the sum of our actions.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      Then we indeed disagree. In my view that's not forgiveness. That's acceptance. Forgiveness doesn't mean you forget the past transgression. It only means you have moved past them and no longer treat the person according to the transgressions. Since you no longer trust your friend you haven't really forgiven them, I'd say.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]