"4) All moderators are asked to not mod games for players on probabation."
This is difficult to put into action, since it requires all mods to know who is on probabtion. Also, it unduly punishes an opponent who might require the game to be modded by a third party.
I think points 1, 2 and 3 are definitely workable. I would also propose that a major infraction should be voted upon by the committee and not the sole decsion of a mod. The mod should simply issue a warning and refer the incident.
Somehow a consensus should be found as to what sanctions the moderators should impose in such cases, and these should, in my opinion, be uniform. I see the individual scope of the moderators only in the decision whether AFTER a move an "ouch" or otherwise a spontaneous remark is tolerable or not. And if that were handled absolutely restrictively, we would have a dead silence because none of the viewers would dare to say anything else. I think that would be a pity, because the comments can also be invigorating, as long as they don't give hints on the further course of the game.
Yeah it's a fine line. We don't want to discourage people from watching and commenting responsibly in games. I know some people prefer outright silence, and if someone asked me to stop talking, I would. But generally the vast majority of the real time chat is fine and does not compromise the integrity of the game. It shouldn't really need to be clarified what is and isn't acceptable. Unfortunately we do need the clarification, since some people don't think about what they are posting before they click submit.
Posting 'ouch' after a Queen drop should be avoided even after the Queen has been collected. It reveals that nobody sees a hidden tactical trap.
It could be me that missed the tactical trap. But yeah I'm inclined to agree that perhaps it should be avoided, just to avoid influencing either player.
And why would that be a problem when an irreversible fact is commented with an "ouch"?
Maybe a "missed" idea supposedly bad for one player has a tricky way of turning the tables, like some crazy sacrifice that only works one specific way. And if the player who played that was somewhat unsure, still calculating whatever, and then some third party barges in with the comment "ouch", it could negatively affect that player. Dunno, but I'm against such comments from outside parties.
Maybe come up with a specified number of moves until such comments become fair game. So if a game is on move 30, people can make unspecific comments on stuff that happened before move 20.
If someone sacrifices a queen for a tactical trap, it must lead to a forced checkmate or result, otherwise it was a blunder. An "ouch" does not affect this; it is not a poker game.
It cannot be the job of any rules committee to define a "blunder", since what satisfies each player varies. Nor should the rules be built around "optimal" play, since, even if you did have the ability to perfectly analyze a game, "best" moves are not always practical, players sometimes preferring to play their opponent on a more psychological level. Humans are not chess engines; psychology matters.
Agreed, but if someone loses a queen, it's allowed to say "ouch"! And if there's a hidden trap behind it that hasn't been seen, it doesn't matter to the player. I'm just arguing that you shouldn't be too restrictive in restricting the possibilities of spontaneous comments as long as you don't give any concrete hints about the game.
How do I start a game of bulldog? It sounds interesting. Also, where are the variant rules?
How do I start a game of bulldog? It sounds interesting. Also, where are the variant rules?
Variant rules:
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rules-for-bulldog-chess-with-witch
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/correspondence-chess-rules-for-variant-chess-proposal
Rules for pieces:
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/list-of-pieces-used-for-bulldog-and-infinite-chess
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/witch-explained
And this is how people update diagrams:
https://www.chess.com/blog/Martin0/chess-variant-board-editor-program
Looks like we can see more exact times posts are made now. By hovering with the mouse we don't just see the date, but also see the hour, minute and second now. This makes it much easier to track if someone posts a time warning too early or if someone loses on time.
Excellent, well spotted.
It only seems to work when it changes from "x mins or hours ago" to a date. But that's fine.
I can't be bothered to take a screenshot, but for me when I hover above your recent post time stamps, it asks me if I want to gift you a membership!
Maybe it's my browser.
My remark about moderators was on vickalan's suggestion to ask moderators not to mod games for these players.