RE: "lighten up". Don't allow software to make decisions re: banning

This is a thread I'm starting to begin a conversation regarding using software to give warnings about "offensive language" or "spamming violations".

I say that it's fine to use the software to give "warnings" to members that the software finds objectionable.  However at the point at which banning or suspending a member currently gets triggered I say a REAL LIVE HUMAN BEING should be making that decision.  In other words "big brother" in the form of a software program should not be booting people from chess.com.  That power should reside only with administrators. 

What say you chess.com community?

If you want context for this discussion please look at:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/can-we-please-lighten-up?page=1

No, I like the Live Chess Moderator.(the one that detects spamming and swearing)

One day I'm going to learn to not post topics at 2am eastern time in the USA.  :)

Do you get what the problem is about that?  Look at the thread I linked to in my OP.

polydiatonic has a point. Maybe we shouldn't trust traffic light controls or traffic speed violations to computers either.

nobody wants to be judged by a piece of software...

... until they've had experience of the human alternative.

I have one question. With over three thousand members in live chess at any one time, and over one thousand games in progress, how exactly would you propose we moderate game chat as thats where a vast majority of the abusive language happens and where the auto filter is used the most.

Your suggestion ?

We've seen threads in here asking why members disable game chat, and the bad reputation those who do disable chat are subjected too.

Here's an idea kohai. Let people handle their own problems. They have a block button right? If someone in game chat starts verbally abusing them, they need to learn to use it.

If they don't know how and complain to you, then you should welcome them to the internet and give them a manual on how to block.

If they wanna disable game chat, that's their call, but they are just showing how antisocial they are. But that's not surprising, many chess players are antisocial.

But there are those of us that want to make new friends. If people disable chat that's horrible. I've never seen an option to "disable communications" in any commercial application except here. There seems to be some sort of chess-culture about staying silent. Causes less friends, eventually indirectly causes more people to quit chess.

Is that acceptable loss for chess.com?

The ability to block others has been around a while so why aren't more using it ? Isn't the help page showing how to use this informative enough? Does it need to be in a more obvious place?

 I do still get members saying to me "and don't tell me to just block them".

As for disabling chat, there is a saying "one mans junk is another mans treasure".

Just because some dislike or disagree with why chat disabling is there or should be used, there are those who love having it there.

The point people try to make here is that our understanding of swearing varies form person to person. Someone made a topic, some days ago, that he/she and friend like to talk without watching their language.

Maybe best solution, if that is possible, is to make "autokicker" optional, like disable chat.

If you (the player) and opponent are on eachothers friends list, the game chat is not auto moderated - but the spam filter is still on.

If after the game ends, observers are chatting, and on your friends list, the game chat is not auto moderated - but the spam filter is still on.

Private chats (not game chat) are not moderated or censored at all

main chatroom is auto moderated and moderated by live chess help volunteer members.

Let me get this straight. On a website where there are usually over 2000 people on live chess at any one time, you want human moderation of chat. Do you realise just how much this would cost chess.com? Surely you can judge what might be considered offensive and use a broader range of vocabulary? As for letting people sort out their own problems, as BorgQueen pointed out this does nothing to stop abusers abusing. eXecute, your argument is self-contradictary; arguing people should block abusers and then blasting those who disable chat. Just use your brain, work out what could be considered offensive and you should be right. You signed the contract when you joined, don't complain now if you aren't following it.

Well, off hand I'd say that one way to bring humans into the decision making process would be to have "admins" logged in somewhere.  If some "auto alert" fires off then admins would receive notice that something "bad" is happening that needs their attention.  Then you, or whoever is "on call" could go take a look and see what's happening.   You'd only need to get involved at the point where the "suspension" is about to automatically happen. 

Can you tell me how often this happens on a daily basis?   I mean if you're looking at thousands of people being suspended everyday obviously there's a problem.  But, I'll tell you that here in the USA there are laws regarding "speed limits" that basically say that if a certain percentage of drivers are routinely breaking a speed limit then it is incumbent upon the municipality to RAISE THE SPEED LIMIT.  I think if there are so many people here that are triggering auto ejections of some sort that real live admins can't handle it, then obviously the tolerence for "law breaking" is too low and should be raised. 

And, if we're "protecting the children", they should play at the kidschess.com site (whatever it's called) because if they're not then it's the kid's PARENTS who are responsible for monitering what content they see, not yours or ours. 

In response to polydiatonic

Two things to be aware of here;

1. When someone is warned, muted or kicked from live chess, both staff and live help can see a message saying " [username has been warned].

2. When a game has ended, we cannot (no-one can) view that game.

So if [username] ends the game and says something they shouldn't, we can't observe to see that, which is why members then copy/paste that message and mail it to support.

So if the filters were re-adjusted, and humans could moderate each time a warning appeared, game viewing would have to be changed aswell.

So the task gets bigger.

You asked how many on a daily basis .. to be honest i couldn't really estimate. I'm logged into live chess on a 7 day week roughly 12 - 18 hours a day.

As an example, i could log in at 8am gmt time and see the entire main chatroom filled with [username] has been warned [username has been muted]

I do see on a daily basis the types of abuse some members get in game chat, and it is extremely colourful to say the least.

most of the cars I bin in with dodgy accelerators has bin down to girlies losin' control of right foot cos of alcohol intolerance