Tu pregunta está respondida varias veces en varios posts.
Y tus pareceres están realmente alejados de la realidad.
Por mucho menos te expulsan de por vida de cualquier lado, virtual o real.
No comprendo qué es lo que se discute.
¿Entonces estarías de acuerdo en que a TheHug se le baneara hasta que devolviera del dinero?
Si sí: Estamos de acuerdo y hay una solución satisfactioria.
Si no: Entonces aceptas que TheHug pagaría el dinero.
Esperemos que comience de una vez a cumplir con la palabra.
> Por otra parte, Hug ya se comprometió a autobanearse.
Esta decisión no es de Jimmy, es de Dadi, miembros no pueden decidir auto-banearse. Lo que Dadi puede corroborar es que Jimmy le pidió que lo baneara.
Con sólo no loguearse más, no lo veremos más.
Sería una gran cosa que comience a cumplir con sus dichos.
Quiero aclarar que estoy en un total acuerdo con las expresiones de José, las suscribo en su totalidad.
We should not miss the appropiate order of events: 1) first of all he should be banned 2) then has to pay all his debts 3) then he must say sorry and apologies to everybody 4) then he has to tell us the truth from minute 0, 5) last, he should apply to be unbanned if he is still interested, which is certainly doubtful according to how he has reacted to our multiple calls to give us the explanations we really deserve.
Most of us are persons who know to forgive and forget but now he has the ball. We are not the bad ones of the film. Jimmy is, and he does not care.
He also said that he'd support the idea of banning TheHug from the forum until he pays the Rybka Team its money.
If you go against these ideas you go against Paul. So if there's two sides on this, I'm with Paul and you guys are against us. I think Paul deserves our support.
he made fraud,he lied us,he continue lying us,he move threads that can compromise him,like he deleted the thread that people was writing about what happened...
that is made by honest guy?the answer is simply:NOT
so a temporary ban is unnaceptable,he deserves a permanent ban from this forum
edit:you are the only who are promoting the temporary ban for thehug,because you are a close friwend of him,so i even doubt about your honestity about your words,because seems you are only trying that a minor punishment falls on him to allow him continue in the forum,and you dont know what to try to prevent he will be banned from here...you are NOT being an advocat of the devil,that is just an excuse to help your close mate,detrimental to paul who has helped you when you needed and to who TheHug made the fraud
you manipulate people to obtain what you want,i never go against Paul,never!i support and i will support him!
shut up your muth******
stop manipulating people to make ruben and me the bad guys of the film!and stop manipulating Paul!what are you doing?
eres un manipulador,y a ruben le das asco,pero a mi me das mas asco aun...
My ideal sequence of facts that I stated before is just mine and couldn't care less if anyone supports it or not. Once TheHug has payed his debts and say sorry to all of us we can continue and see what happens.
I stated all of this many time ago in other posts and I decided not to go deeply in order to make things easier for TheHug. But it seems that other persons have decided to complain about the same person, about the same facts. I don't really think Paul and me are disagreeing so much about this issue. I even think you agree with me much more than you are saying.
Once more, I am not the bad one who is not forgiving Jimmy. He is the one who has missapropiate Paul's money and has not say a single word.
i also have tried to be fair on the matter.
Estoy en contra de la estafa.
Estoy en contra del engaño.
Estoy en contra del abuso de confianza.
Estoy en contra de la marlversación de fondos.
Estoy en contra de la mentira.
Estoy en contra de la cobardía.
Estoy en contra de la delincuencia.
Pienso que devolver el dinero malhabido no cambia la situación para el delincuente, a lo sumo, cambiaría para el despojado, que podría recuperar lo material, pero nunca jamás podrá recuperarse del daño moral ocasionado, el cual, por caracter transitivo, es extensivo a todos nosotros -menos Uly, claro está-.
Definitivamente creo firmemente que individuos de la calaña de ese delincuente, Hug, no merecen tener el privilegio de compratir un espacio en común con hombres como Pablo, José, etc.
Estoy yendo en contra de mis propias creencias al discutir contigo Uly, pero bueno, creo que por ahora, tu experiencia no alcanza....
resarcir el bien que ha resultado dañado,es solo parte de lo que debe hacer,y lo que debe cumplir;tu atracas un banco,devuelves el dinero,y con eso no basta,vas a la carcel igual...
este tipo ha engañado,mentido,defraudado,ocultado todo borrando threads para que la gente no se enterase,ha seguido mintiendo,y encima hablando con chuleria...y para colmo de males,siempre hay algun descerebrado que por ser su amigo y con la excusa de hacer de abogado del demonio,hace lo imposible para que no le baneen...habida cuenta pienso que el uno es peor que el otro
Think or feel different that Paul is not be against it.
I am against the scam.
I am against the deception.
I am against the abuse of trust.
I am against the marlversacion of funds.
I am against the lie.
I am against cowardice.
I am against crime.
I think that return the money, ganged up against does not change the situation for the offender, at most, exchange rate for the stripped, it could recover the material, but can never be recovered from the moral damage caused, which, by transitive nature, is extended to all of us - less Al, of course-.
Definitely firmly believe that individuals the likes of such offender, Hug, do not deserve the privilege of to share a space in common with men like Paul, Joseph, etc.
I am going against my own beliefs to discuss with you Al, but well, i think that by now, your experience is not ....
1. Uly is a good guy whom i have known for many years now.
2. i also know Ruben is a decent guy and normally easy going like myself.
3. i also believe Barnard is a good guy but would like him to calm down a little
4.Jose also appears to me to be a great guy whom i also like.
5.Now all of you seem to be of Spanish decent which i believe are a very passionate race and this is reflected in your posts.
6.I am an Anglo-Saxon and would like to think slightly calmer than you guys(although i have had my moments as Harvey,turbojouice and Uly will confirm).
7. As you all agree Jimmy misappropriated money i sent him for prize money and whether Rybka forum took over debt is irrelevant in this matter
8.i think you would all agree that i have not pushed the matter as far as i could have done
9. i am not a vindictave person and have made many mistakes in my life as i imagine others on forum have also done.
10.we have destroyed Jimmy's credibility and that is enough for me.
11.if something happens to Jimmy i dont want blood on my hands.
i like all you guys please respect what i have said.
> 10.we have destroyed Jimmy's credibility and that is enough for me.
Who destroyed his credibility? We??
but i dissagree with you in 1 point:
>10.we have destroyed Jimmy's credibility and that is enough for me.
not Paul,we have not destroyed his credibility,he destroyed his own credibility,himself
about all other points,more or less,i agree with you
But from my perspective the most disconcerting facts was the lack of transparency. Who were these sponsors? What happened to Jimmy?
Privacy or not.... if someone sued him over the fraud (the natural reaction in the US even over small claims court for $2k) then he would be fetching that alibi awful fast. So why not here?
And as someone who has tried to recruit chess sponsors in the past... I was always wary of the WBCCC for that reason because 1) I have never heard of a chess sponsor that wanted to remain anonymous. They want their name plastered everywhere as a marketing and advertising expense. 2) Why should they give money? What did they really receive by supporting an untried CC event? Nothing. Therefore, my conclusions are there NEVER were any sponsors which means fraud was the INTENTION from the very beginning.
If dishonest was the basis of the whole architecture than indeed many of Uly's post the logic will no longer hold. At this point, all you are debating are semantics of what the right punishment for the crime is. Some time related ban from forums; some argue permanent ban from forums. Others do not care. But what one should point out is that Jimmy LIVES in KS. Juris prudence for fraud is JAIL. If Jose went after that $500 in US small claims court... the end result would probably be A) Jimmy spends 4000+ hours in community service or pays all the money back and B) Jose spends more money on the court claim.
I personally don't care what the results are. I have been defrauded before and will be again because like Paul I am far too generous. For me, it was a strong CC tournament that I rarely allowed to play. I forgive easy and forget easy but it is important to understand that we are arguing over the PUNISHMENT STATUS not whether it is deserved. The way Uly is talking he acts as though some people expressing their opinions are the criminals rather than the victims. You can disagree with their requested punishments without making them out to be wrongful attackers.
> Therefore, my conclusions are there NEVER were any sponsors which means fraud was the INTENTION from the very beginning.
Of course you are right. However, none of us asked Jimmy before the tournament started about the sponsors. We all trusted Jimmy's word, because none of us played for the money, and we all were just looking at the tournament itself. Time has proven all the story about sponsors was a fraud.
> If Jose went after that $500 in US small claims court... the end result would probably be A) Jimmy spends 4000+ hours in community service or pays all the money back and B) Jose spends more money on the court claim.
I am sure about this, actually I am a lawyer, and it is part of my daily job. Since it is not worthy none of these actions, that is why I was claiming for something more handy: temporary fora ban (not only Rybka forum) until he (1) payback the money he has kept for himself and (2) tell us the whole story and say sorry. I am afraid these conditions mean like requesting for a permanent ban, though.
> The way Uly is talking he acts as though some people expressing their opinions are the criminals rather than the victims
Well, everybody has the right to have someone to defend himself. In this case Uly has choosen (no matter the reasons) to play the role of Jimmy's "advocate" and, not only I see nothing wrong in it, but also it is absolutely respectful for Uly.
>But from my perspective the most disconcerting facts was the lack of transparency.
There are several things we won't be able to find out. But I'm willing to answer some questions.
>Who were these sponsors?
We'll probably never find out if any ever existed.
>What happened to Jimmy?
He lost his moderator's rights. Since that moment he didn't post anything. We are currently discussing some kind of ban. Most likely this ban will last until he has payed back some money.
>Therefore, my conclusions are there NEVER were any sponsors which means fraud was the INTENTION from the very beginning.
Maybe there were none, but in his naivety he might have hoped to find some during the tournament. I don't think fraud was his intention from the beginning on. But I don't know.
In case there are any questions, feel free to ask them. I'm willing to tell all I know.
>I think at some point this topic should be moved to maybe the WBCCC board
well,i also think the same,at some point the topic must be moves,BUT only when all about TheHug wil be solved,and all the decisions about TheHug will be taken (and there are still some decisions without taking about him)
>WBCCC is in good hands now with Garvin at the head and the supporting cast of Paul
of course,no one doubt about one of them;they are good and honest people (i know Paul,and i can tell about him,but even if i dont know a lot about Garvin,im also sure about him since the few things people spoke about him are only good things)
>I think we can all look future to some good chess now and in the future.
right,we need look to the future,but without forgeting the past
Estamos diciendo que lo deforman, que escriben basura....
Se pierde la idea original.
A quien le puede importar si hay o no analfabetos que jueguen ajedrez, cuando se habla de delincuencia?
pero Scott dijo que si hay alguna forma de over este post a la papelera,es decir,borrarlo,y tu le pusiste un '+1',que es una forma de estar de acuerdo,por eso te pregunte que si de verdad estas de acuerdo en borrar este post
yo,por mi parte,no solo no estoy de acuerdo en borrarlo,sino que por mi lo pondria en un marco y se lo clavaria con una alcayata en la frente a mas de uno para que no se les olvidase nada de esta delincuencia que hemos vivido
p.s. aunque eso si,si este post es para hablar de lo que hizo TheHug defraudando el dinero,no se que hace la gente hablando de los analfabetos y de si juegan al ajedrez o no...
What is there to stop him registering as a new user in some other name?
> I haven't seen Jimmy making the slightest attempt in returning the money he owes.
He did on private.
> What is there to stop him registering as a new user in some other name?
We'd probably recognize him with ease and apply a ban to the new account.
No doubt people who decided about this ban, have read and understood what happened with Jimmy Huggins. We ALL should celebrate this decision as a victory of all the players in WBCCC 2011.
Personally, as I stated many times, I would forgive him or any other person who, at least, say sorry, return the money that he kept for himself, and give us all kind of well deserved explanations. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and he has preferred to put this black spot under his name in internet.
I close this chapter forever, now it is time for chess.
Espero sepas disculpar esta falta de acuerdo contigo.
Yo creo que es una victoria de la lógica y el sentido común, que por suerte, los Moderadores no han dejado de tener.
No creo que se pueda perdonar a alguien que claramente hizo todo con una planificación previa, en forma dolosa. Aquí no hay dudas que hubo premeditación. Un error, un desliz, un desbarranco, se le puede perdonar a cualquiera, como tu dices, si se disculpa y repara el error, pero en este caso, fue en forma reiterada y a través del tiempo. Como tu bien sabes por tu profesión, hay un abismo entre lo doloso y lo culposo.
Acuerdo totalmente contigo que ya es tiempo del ajedrez, y cerremos este amargo capítulo.
Un saludo cordial.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill