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.
Mods can't do anything about live chat mutes. Those just have to expire and unless someone gets hit by it a lot, it's normally only 30 minutes.
The problem I have with miscontrued individual words being caught by bots is that they are cumulative over time. I was once muted for two words on the no-no list one year apart. Neither was an insult or intentional rule break. Just simple words the bots are programmed to jump on.
Pretty ridicuous. As if kids at any age haven't heard and used worse language everyday. The term puritanical comes to mind.
The problem I have with miscontrued individual words being caught by bots is that they are cumulative over time. I was once muted for two words on the no-no list one year apart. Neither was an insult or intentional rule break. Just simple words the bots are programmed to jump on.
Pretty ridicuous. As if kids at any age haven't heard and used worse language everyday. The term puritanical comes to mind.
That shouldn't happen and for Live, the flag is during a short time frame. So you'll be warned and if it's reposted, it will mute after a third warning.
To avoid trouble, say their formal name “Richard”.
That's a good joke, I like it.
Richard K Richard, author of Blade Richard and Minority Richard.
The problem is when people are chatting its like talking out loud in real life especially for those who type fast and accustomed to talking online like adults with other adults. Its not like the forums where you can go back and edit. Its live. People might not even know they are saying/typing something inappropriate. Its automatic. Aand fi the offenseive language is already hidden what is the problem?
...
I'm not making any moral judgements. The process is a deterrent; by muting after continued attempts after being warned for inappropriate content, it gives the message that content isn't wanted on site, anywhere; in chats, in messages, notes, etc.
Doubt if it was much of an issue then: you had these popular actors like Dick Van Dyke as well as both actors who played the husband Darrin on 'Bewitched'.
Such words stopped being ""offensive"" after nursery school.
The content is already blocked, why mute after that? You feel that is not enough of a deterrent? I just explained to you that when people type live they can't edit their comments. And for many of us typing fast is as natural as speaking out loud. Thats why there is a chat filter, and rather then have content automatically hidden many adults would like the option to turn that off to have a normal conversation.
I remember seeing akanemo blurt out some profanities, repeatedly, by accident in front of a little 8 year old girl on coffee chess channel on youtube. According to your logic, even if the word was already muted an unheard by the little girl. Someone should of come over and put tape over Nemos mouth for a day or two to teach her a lesson that it is not acceptable as if she doesn't already know? Even though the parents said there was no harm done? Nonsense.
It stops a lot of casual abuse and having logs of those actions helps if people circumvent the filters so staff can see it's a pattern and not something innocent.
You don't have to like it. I'm also pretty certain the site isn't going to remove the filters either. It's also probably not worth trying to come up with a context sensitive filter, to allow occasional innocent usage.
They coded the filter once and add words when needed. They probably save more time on abuse reports.
There are members that just leave a site if they start receiving chat messages that the filter aims to minimize. It's in the site's interest to do so.
Auto filters are obviously useful.
This topic is obviously ridiculous.
The topic is not whether auto-filters are useful, obviously.
The implication that a conversation about being muted should not take place carries with it a certain offensive irony, obviously.
Its absolutely not in the sites interest to do so, and the site should immediately get rid of anyone under their employment who feels it is. You are turning away business and for what reason? This is the only gaming site in the 30 years I've been gaming online that doesn't have an optional filter and still bans people from a chat after already being muted. You are the abuser.
So not allowing people to be abusive is abusive?
There are a lot of people that would leave the site quickly if they found their chats filled with obnoxious, to them, text. Some already do with the chat that bypasses the filter. They help decrease that, give some accountability and guidance to members on what the site finds acceptable, and temporary mutes hit repeat offenders and those that are extremely explicit.
It's a business and the site has apparently decided that is something worth doing to try and keep a more friendly atmosphere. If that's not what people really want, they'll migrate somewhere that allows it. While I'm sure some people have decided to do that, my impression is that the current state isn't a cause for concern to the site's success.
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?
Seems like a political and philosophical question but yes given the context that's my opinion. But then again I don't find myself offended by much and don't see much use for a filter in the first place I'm bias in that direction already. In this case removing the word "dick" as its a common name seems to me at least to be the easy solution as it would require changing a single value in some field so no need to turn it off but a small improvement would be to remove the word in this case i think.
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.
Maybe Chess.com ought to get rid of these autobots for this precise reason. Accusing the innocent, at all, even if just a warning, is PISS POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE!
That d-word that apparently chess.com thinks always means a slang form of a male body part is a VERY COMMON man's name:
D Clark, who died 10 years ago
D Francis, a well known author
It can also be:
Part of a book title about a whale
A sporting goods store.
This one's at the fault of chess.com and chess.com alone. Don't care what any admin says. If they claim it is not their fault, they are simply being a (word being discussed here) and not accepting responsibility for invoking an idiotic procedure and not even thinking about what it can do to the innocent users!
↑ this.
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.
incredibly surprising that, being here over ten years (and a former staff member, right?), you don't recognize the bunny, and know his sarcastic wit.
If chess.com bought that filter for money from another company, it would be a good idea to demand your money back. If the filter is the work of chess.com developers, maybe you should radically improve it before you put it back to work. Either way, the way it works now is just a bad joke.