Saves money on botox
erik, we are frustrated
Sort:
Nov 21, 2019
0
#123
This kind of warning doesn't show up from one game, but from more than that. If you keep playing without abandoning, making opponents waiting, etc, then very shortly you will return to the normal pool. Thank you!
erik wrote:
Some fair criticisms! We do not have everything documented. Part of that is because the site is so complex and has so much going on (and very few people would read it), and part of it is because writing out some things exactly then gives people with bad motives the parameters to work within. Anyway, you are right, there is very little documentation outside of what you find on https://support.chess.com .
We do try to post regular updates now of new features and changes. Latest example: https://www.chess.com/news/view/chess-com-september-update
As for not receiving responses to support requests, please privately message me the support request and time you made it and I will look into it. Our support team actually receives incredibly strong and positive feedback generally, and strives to respond to most issues within 24 hours.
As for the limits on posting more than 3 times consecutively in a forum, that was meant to curtail the annoying behavior of constant repeaters and thread hijackers. Of course there are some curtailed legitimate use-cases which were impacted too. It’s a tough balance. Any restriction of freedoms or abilities is... a restriction. But we are trying to find a good balance. We face a LOT of challenges from attacks, trolls, harassers, and people looking to create problems. It’s just a sad part of what we do. They keep changing their attacks, and then we keep trying to react. Not a fun game.
Finally, I’m unaware of any board shrinking issue. Please use the “Report a Bug” link in the nav bar and that will help us gather the info we need.
Cheers!
Does this mean that the user can prove nothing and you do not have to say anything?
Nov 23, 2019
0
#125
beafraid3 wrote:
erik wrote:
Some fair criticisms!
Does this mean that the user can prove nothing and you do not have to say anything?
I don't know what you mean by this. I think the OP makes some great points. Communicating with our members is a challenge, and we can do better.
You did.
Ya.
erik wrote:
beafraid3 wrote:
erik wrote:
Some fair criticisms!
Does this mean that the user can prove nothing and you do not have to say anything?
I don't know what you mean by this. I think the OP makes some great points. Communicating with our members is a challenge, and we can do better.
What it means chess.com can not or will not say anything therefore nothing can be proven by anyone
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Honduras......your in the wrong thread.....post 148 The OP is notorious for being friends with the YGNR accounts. Why don't yall put your foot down on folks like him and stop catering to their nonsense? The OP of THIS thread is not drmrboss.
They don't get any additional benefit for being friend with me.
New members can do whatever they wish after creating new accounts.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
So why are you telling these new members to cause trouble in the forums.?
It is their own accounts, their own rules.
If I read this correctly,....drmrboss just posted in a thread directed to & at Erik--CEO of Chess.com. Most members come to this thread to express frustration to the CEO and site Admins about policies & procedures relating to the running of said site. drmrboss seems to be having a problem with his "friends" accounts.
My suggestion is 2-fold. First......Erik, or his representatives should arrange a meeting with the other chess sites that drmrboss belongs to, so as to compare notes & intel, IP adresses, P.M's, etc etc. 2nd......the offers that were made to Red Girl by the "Community Defenders" in the recent past who had a similar problem with unwanted friends should also be extended to the good Dr.
I'm sure more than a few members of that group would want the good Dr's account to be monitored on a daily basis...(if not hourly)
..... and it only seems fair that if an offer was made to Red Girl, it should also be extended to other members with "similar" problems. Good....then its settled....I'll take 1st watch! 
Nov 25, 2019
0
#132
In the world outside the internet and the anonymity it provides, the actions that drmrboss advocates would be regarded as criminal. He hides behind, slogans of free speech, imagined rights, their account - their own rules. Making up one's own rules, encouraging others to be disruptive and abusive of community guidelines would result in time between bars.
Most members are frustrated that such members are given the latitude to disrespect the chess community. The issue of censorship and banning accounts becomes a complicated issue. Unfortunately, what is observed in the forums, are the disgruntled people who reject and rebel against any form of authority. We don't hear from the vast majority, people who live by established guidelines and respect the rules.
It works both ways ... this frustration. Many do become frustrated with certain policies and how they are enforced. This is a fair concern.
But to openly represent a position that it is a persons right to be disrespectful and ignore community guidelines becomes just as frustrating that the activity is allowed to persist.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
So why are you telling these new members to cause trouble in the forums.?
drmrboss - "It is their own accounts, their own rules."
Sounds like antifa
I know in public housing if you have guests over......your responsible for their behaviour.
Nov 25, 2019
0
#135
Well, it's the age old issue of community. People make the choice, the decision to live together. Most often out of necessity. There will always be differences between an individuals rules and community rules. A compromise becomes the order of the day. The definition of "growing up" is closely related to learning how as an individual is to fit in, get along with the community they live in. Living by the motto, "my rules" and only my rules while at the same time taking advantage of all the benefits a community provides is the definition of "immaturity".
Nov 25, 2019
0
#136
MustangMate wrote:
The issue of censorship and banning accounts becomes a complicated issue.
I'm with you dude, but as to the above comment, it is not a complicated issue at all. I have seen more than one forum where civility is demanded, and it is achieved. First, chess.com needs to give a $41t, but they apparently don't. After that, you man up with moderators who have a clear mission, and you take out the trash.
I dont think it's libelous. The definition of poor sport here is probably extremely broad. Not granting rematches is called poor sportsmanship. Not resigning is sometimes called poor sportsmanship. Resigning at the wrong time is poor sportsmanship. Chess.com probably considers getting disconnected poor sportsmanship, even if you are winning. Just playing chess here, under any circumstance, is suspect. I wouldn't worry about it too much. The no disconnecting policy is in place for your own good.