Did you set your clock back, or push it ahead, KATIE?? He posted 1st (sequence), then the mod reminded him of the policy. 9 post later, when he did it again. The mod posted on 743. Then she removed his pictures, which changed the posting #'s. If your smart enough to look at the time stamp, you can find out WHEN it was done. The professional mod, chimed in within seconds after he posted.
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
Sort:
Mar 10, 2014
0
#743
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Do you see the pattern?? When you tell Mitch something; Cmagnus demands an explanetion. When you tell Cmagnus something, KatieMalia gets angry. When you say, calm down Katie, DEATHW1SH has a nasty comeback, and on, and on and on.
I hear you. I especially get annoyed when one member hounds another from thread to thread. That gets real old quickly.
When it gets to that... I just uncheck tracking :D
If you like that kind of stuff... then track on... I guess. lol
Surely those don't count as warnings in the specific case in question, RJC.
Warnings should definitely be done privately and should be specific. For this same reason, though, they're also no-one else's business here.
I thought that also laid out in Erik's post.
Hey Dashkee; I don't wanna step on a landmine, I'll let you take point on this one. I'll get your purple heart ready.
Gotcha, Air Force--let the fleet lead the way. BTW, according to several members on here, I got a black heart already--is that a step beyond purple?
Itude wrote:
Perhaps some kind of statement about how the process of muting/banning works might be of use ?
ie
1 Warning only
If one contines to do what one was warned about - muting/banning
I know this is pretty implicit if a clear warning is given on the thread
Is there a reason why the WHOLE "procedure" should not be available for all to see ?
Or is it somewhere ?
Nicetude
Erik already did lay it out -- he said the first offending post is deleted, second post get a warning (to be fair, he didn't specify private or otherwise, but surely he must have meant private) and the third would result in muting.
Itude; We covered that about 600 post ago. Erik said, "If you cannot abide by these guidelines, your posting ability may be closed". And I said, not may; WILL, your posting privilages WILL be canceled. Time is your ally. Don't end up in the dog house twice in a row.
Absolutely NOT Katie. I'm in no way associated with the 7 new mods but, I WANT THEM ON THAT WALL. WE NEED THEM ON THAT WALL. And I refuse to argue with a member who fails to abide by the blanket protection provided by those mods. What else do you wanna know, JOHNNY? What's my favorite color? Maybe Iljac wasn't a morning person. Maybe he had no friends. Either way, I don't care. (OH, I'm sorry, I thought I was in Trysts's movie thread).
Not substantial prison time, just 4 years in an Air Force brig.
Did you ever see, "A Few Good Men", with Jack Nicholson?? got cha
This thread makes me want to play chess.
Walls are bad. Lets tear the damn things down!
Itude; didn't you like that?? I thought it was hilarious. In the past 10 mins, my page showed that MIjac was trying to post twice. BATGIRL; they will be. Give it a little time.
batgirl wrote:
So, are the forums better now (as per the title)?
As a casual, usually forgettable, occasionally slightly offensive, contributor. This thread has done nothing except it's nice to know the powers that be care about this feature of chess.com. For me- steady as she goes: Play bad chess, watch people get upset over nothing, occasionally stir the pot.
Wish I was a dog; eat a cookie, take a nap, get my belly scratched
Mar 10, 2014
0
#759
If I were to made a thread in the off-topic forum about the 1845-6 match between CH Stanley and Eugene Rousseau for the US Championship (actually more fascinating than it may seem), would it be deleted for being ON topic?
You should see how we mute people too...
It ain't pretty...