Forums

muted for typing an author's name

Sort:
Clark424

Good grief!

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) was a well-known author of speculative sci-fi.  In the chat section of a game with a former student of mine, I made a reference to him and got some automatic warning.  Is there some way to revoke this misguided auto-penalty?

justbefair

If you were still muted, I could have helped you but you are already un-muted.

Clark424

Thank you.

Martin_Stahl
Clark424 wrote:

Good grief!

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) was a well-known author of speculative sci-fi.  In the chat section of a game with a former student of mine, I made a reference to him and got some automatic warning.  Is there some way to revoke this misguided auto-penalty?

 

If you get a warning, repeated uses over a short time will eventually mute you. The filter is not something that is context sensitive, so unfortunately can catch some innocent text in the process.

magipi
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Clark424 wrote:

Good grief!

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) was a well-known author of speculative sci-fi.  In the chat section of a game with a former student of mine, I made a reference to him and got some automatic warning.  Is there some way to revoke this misguided auto-penalty?

 

If you get a warning, repeated uses over a short time will eventually mute you. The filter is not something that is context sensitive, so unfortunately can catch some innocent text in the process.

That filter should be just turned off then, obviously.

justbefair
magipi wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Clark424 wrote:

Good grief!

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) was a well-known author of speculative sci-fi.  In the chat section of a game with a former student of mine, I made a reference to him and got some automatic warning.  Is there some way to revoke this misguided auto-penalty?

 

If you get a warning, repeated uses over a short time will eventually mute you. The filter is not something that is context sensitive, so unfortunately can catch some innocent text in the process.

That filter should be just turned off then, obviously.

You think that the 1 legitimate use should outweigh the 99,999 abusive uses?

Malishious
justbefair wrote:
magipi wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Clark424 wrote:

Good grief!

Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) was a well-known author of speculative sci-fi.  In the chat section of a game with a former student of mine, I made a reference to him and got some automatic warning.  Is there some way to revoke this misguided auto-penalty?

 

If you get a warning, repeated uses over a short time will eventually mute you. The filter is not something that is context sensitive, so unfortunately can catch some innocent text in the process.

That filter should be just turned off then, obviously.

You think that the 1 legitimate use should outweigh the 99,999 abusive uses?

This is the same philosophy the fair play team utilizes when it comes to false positives, and one I personally agree with. The horror stories of innocent people having their support ticket ignored or declined instantly are what I disagree with

mrsidboi1190

I think u got muted because of the authors last name xD

Chan_Fry

While I agree that the filter should be fixed, I must say that my son figured out early (when he was 7, I think) to call people "Philip K. Dick" or "Dick Grayson" (Batman's friend) in order to avoid trouble. (Note: he still got in trouble.)

Clark424
Chan_Fry wrote:

While I agree that the filter should be fixed, I must say that my son figured out early (when he was 7, I think) to call people "Philip K. Dick" or "Dick Grayson" (Batman's friend) in order to avoid trouble. (Note: he still got in trouble.)

I promise you that my problem here is not one of cognitive ability, but thanks for the constructive criticism.

idilis

The filter is a proper Richard sometimes

idilis
justbefair wrote:
*Snip*

You think that the 1 legitimate use should outweigh the 99,999 abusive uses?

Those who want to abuse will find their way around it since they are mostly focused on that. The filter might just keep penalizing innocent folks mostly.

DlCK for example is using an L.

Or they could use images that the filter would need an ocr facility to scan and catch.

David
idilis wrote:
justbefair wrote:
*Snip*

You think that the 1 legitimate use should outweigh the 99,999 abusive uses?

Those who want to abuse will find their way around it since they are mostly focused on that. The filter might just keep penalizing innocent folks mostly.

DlCK for example is using an L.

Or they could use images that the filter would need an ocr facility to scan and catch.

People deliberately circumventing the auto filter demonstrates a greater level of culpability. Most folks will just take it as a reminder to watch their language and be perfectly fine with it.

idilis
David wrote:
idilis wrote:
justbefair wrote:
*Snip*

You think that the 1 legitimate use should outweigh the 99,999 abusive uses?

Those who want to abuse will find their way around it since they are mostly focused on that. The filter might just keep penalizing innocent folks mostly.

DlCK for example is using an L.

Or they could use images that the filter would need an ocr facility to scan and catch.

People deliberately circumventing the auto filter demonstrates a greater level of culpability. Most folks will just take it as a reminder to watch their language and be perfectly fine with it.

it may demonstrate culpability but they still go scot free mostly.

don't know about most folks - don't really have data on that.  personally i find it frustrating when caught by surprise.

David
idilis wrote:

don't know about most folks - don't really have data on that.  personally i find it frustrating when caught by surprise.

Try not using a username or avatar that is skirting the Terms of Service and maybe you'll be less frustrated.

idilis
David wrote:
idilis wrote:

don't know about most folks - don't really have data on that.  personally i find it frustrating when caught by surprise.

Try not using a username or avatar that is skirting the Terms of Service and maybe you'll be less frustrated.

now that was a quick change of subject and so i'll assume you're making a point about me.  interpretation is often ambiguous and people with limited exposure will always easily be offended.  there should be some leeway for artistic license.

David
idilis wrote:
David wrote:
idilis wrote:

don't know about most folks - don't really have data on that.  personally i find it frustrating when caught by surprise.

Try not using a username or avatar that is skirting the Terms of Service and maybe you'll be less frustrated.

now that was a quick change of subject and so i'll assume you're making a point about me.  interpretation is often ambiguous and people with limited exposure will always easily be offended.  there should be some leeway for artistic license.

Just pointing out that the auto filter reduces rather than elevates ambiguity, which doesn't favour the people using that ambiguity as a fig leaf for their desire to cause offence. Having a recognisable picture of an acknowledged despot without explicit disavowal of that person's actions and behaviour is implicit approval of those same actions and behaviour: not enough to get you banned from Chess.com, of course, but it's important context when considering anything you post.

idilis
David wrote:
*snip*

Just pointing out that the auto filter reduces rather than elevates ambiguity, which doesn't favour the people using that ambiguity as a fig leaf for their desire to cause offence. Having a recognisable picture of an acknowledged despot without explicit disavowal of that person's actions and behaviour is implicit approval of those same actions and behaviour: not enough to get you banned from Chess.com, of course, but it's important context when considering anything you post.

but i'm guessing the supporters of this despot wouldn't like someone poking fun at their leader comparing him to a round fluffy south indian rice cake.  but that's all probably lost on someone who might have this need to feel offended on behalf of another community.  hate from both sides, but that's ok.  implicit approval, yes - assuming the worst about others does make some feel better about themselves.

David
idilis wrote:

but i'm guessing the supporters of this despot wouldn't like someone poking fun at their leader comparing him to a round fluffy south indian rice cake.  but that's all probably lost on someone who might have this need to feel offended on behalf of another community.  hate from both sides, but that's ok.  implicit approval, yes - assuming the worst about others does make some feel better about themselves.

Yeah, we get a lot of supporters of authoritarian despots around here. Particularly ones that have been dead for almost 20 years. Claiming to be the victim definitely makes that person feel better about themselves, but it doesn't really fool other people for very long. One doesn't haven't to assume the worst about people when they've already shown it themselves.

ninjaswat

Again, as the original replies to the topic stated you can dm a mod if you feel you were unfairly muted.

However if someone is circumventing the filter take screenshots of the chats and email them to abusereport@chess.com (I believe that's it) along with a report here on the website.