10304 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
As I understand it we are not supposed to complain publicly in the forums about the "idiots" here on Chess.com. Why exactly is that? I think it would be a good idea, as long as it's done in a proper tone. This way other players would know who to avoid.
I'm raising this issue, since I'm currently involved in a tournament with clearly stated rules about not playing 2. Nf3. It's even in the title of the tournament name. Still, some players play 2. Nf3 (which is against the premise of the tournament, a tournament they themselves decided to join). This, of course, spoils it for everyone else. Luckily some players who played 2. Nf3 have resigned, but others keep playing, even when politely asked many times to resign.
I think the only right thing to do here would be to let the community know who these players are, so it becomes easier for all the good people on this site (the vast majority) to avoid these "rotten eggs".
In one of my games in this tournament, I've asked my opponent to resign. He keeps playing, although I have simply pushed my h-pawn across the board, one step at the time, clearly refusing to take part in this game (as it doesn't agree with the rules of the tournament). To no avail.
I think we need to find a solution once and for all. Maybe a point system or something, so people who show poor sportsmanship in games, and poor behavior in the forums could be "marked". Then every player could decide to set a threshold of some sort, and all the players rated below this threshold wouldn't show in the forums, and no games against these players would be started. With such a threshold, set individually by every user, the ones who doesn't like to neglect other members (no matter how poor their behavior might be) could simply disable this feature.
What do you guys think?
I'm against the idea of simply naming and shaming people, but I do support a more formalized (and anonymized) feedback system both for the community's assessment of quality of threads and individual posts and also for sportsmanship and general rudeness/politeness in interacting with others everywhere on the site.
Ideally these ratings could be used to provide each member the ability to dial in to their particular tolerance level and to automatically avoid or have hidden anything (content, games etc.) that falls below it.
Yes, I think you are you, TheGlobe. No need to publicly name people, if there was a system in place. But there isn't, so until then, I think there should maybe be a thread in the forums, in which we could write the names of the "rotten eggs" - without a bunch of rude words, but simply a fair and unbiased statement explaining why we think they deserve to be on this list.
It's weird. In the game I mentioned earlier, I've just hanged a Rook, and still my opponent keeps playing. I really wonder what he gains from this? Yes, he will win the game for sure, but where's the fun? Where's the challenge? People are weird.
welcome to the internet.
Because too many of us would be on that list.
Like us !
I don't think so, ivandh. I've only come across a handful or so people I would place on such a list, out of hundreds I've either played against, or interacted with in the forums.
You must not know me very well then.
What, so every time we think about starting a game we have to run to this forum thread to check if our potential opponent is listed? Yeah, I'm all about wasting my time to prevent wasting my time.
Bear in mind that we'll also need a list for those that abuse the list.
You don't have to.
Bold and italics?
That's it, you're going on my list.
You're right. I'm an idealist. I forget some would even do that! Forget it, it wouldn't work, as long as the "idiots" are around - and they are. I guess the only solution is making my own site, with membership being on invite only.
Well that's why not. Nobody is going to use it as anything more significant than a means to griping in public about people that have annoyed them.
I'm beginning to sympathize with the idea of genocide.
Don't forget he spelled your name wrong in post #3
Oh, and I wouldn't be underlining any more conjunctions, if you know what's good for you.
Wow, and this makes me wonder if eugenics doesn't have it's place.
Uhhh, this is a pretty big jump, even by internet standards.
by RonaldJosephCote 7 minutes ago
8/30/2014 - Nimzowitsch - Marshall
by CSOPchess 10 minutes ago
St. George's Defense is OK!
by Indirect 10 minutes ago
by btickler 12 minutes ago
Why can't I capture the king???
by RonaldJosephCote 16 minutes ago
by Orlandohmor 16 minutes ago
How good is one's likelihood of becoming a GM?
by LuftWaffles 19 minutes ago
What is your favorite opening?
by Mainline_Novelty 28 minutes ago
Sinquefield Cup 2014
by YANQUI_UXO 28 minutes ago
How Lonnnnnnnng Untilllllllll V3???
by Conflagration_Planet 29 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!