| |
BGonline.org Forums
XG price
Posted By: Michael Petch In Response To: XG price (phil simborg)
Date: Tuesday, 11 September 2012, at 2:08 a.m.
I'm going to first preface this with the fact that you and I have many philosophical differences, and I think that that over time it would be fair to say that we are likely indifferent to one another. I don't dislike you, and I believe you are a good person. I do disagree with you many times, and sometimes quietly agree. What I am going to comment on below is not out of malice, it is actually just an observation that I'd offer up even if your name was Xavier.
As a GNUBG developer I'll often enter into a discussion on a forum outside the GNUGB mailing list, and often (but not always) I'll say something simple (paraphrased) "As a GNUBG developer...". I do this because there are times when I feel my comment could be construed as some biased agenda against another bot developer.
I (and I would say the GNUBG developers in general) get along with Xavier, Frank Berger, and others who promote the game from a bot perspective. We often have discussions off the public forums to better the bots. Xavier is also aware that I do support his product, and render assistance to people looking for help. You'd be surprised how many people come to me for Gridgammon and XG help despite the fact I spend my time on SHG and GNUBG. I'd like to think that Xavier doesn't take it personally if I offer up an opinion that may be critical of XG (whether he agrees or not).
I would make this following comment to people who aren't named Phil Simborg. You can take what I say with a grain of salt if you so choose. What I have noticed about your posts when people are critical of something you support is that in some cases it almost seems to take it personally, or you have very strong feelings. When it comes to rule interpretations you seem very set in your ways, and your view on clocks is pretty clear! I see these as informed viewpoints (whether I agree or not with the view isn't relevant).
The grey area that I see is often when someone is critical of XG in particular. You may not realize it, but a lot of times your response to criticisms of XG seem to become personal for you and often the responses seem very biased in heavily defending the XG side. What is hard to tell is whether the support of XG is because you believe that much in the XG product (and Xavier) and have taken an informed position on the subject OR whether the opinion is because you do get money from Xavier (for referrals for example). I think this feeling is shared among others here, and for some they may know you well enough to make that determination, but for others (and I will include myself) it is not so clear cut.
I think the request to at least disclose you have a financial stake in a product when responding to a criticism of XG would make it clear to people that you may have a possible bias. Not everyone here *knows* Phil Simborg well enough to make the distinction, and I do include myself in that.
I recently made a post about my support of Fernando Braconi and went out of my way to put a disclaimer/disclosure suggesting I may have a potential bias because I consider him a friend. I did so because some people know I am friends with Fernando, and some don't. It could make a difference in how people may interpret what I wrote. I don't see disclosure as a bad thing, and I don't do it in all cases, but I try to. Sometimes I only remember once I have ignored the preview message button on BGO and submitted my post ;-).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.