muted for typing an author's name

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.  

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.

These people had better change their names. Or else.

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.

Maybe he never liked the bunny. 

Cool out Sherlock. Ron's been with us since forever. He's the resident muppet.

is everyone a mod now?

Where did the alt discussion start? Ron had always been Ron.  Martin bred Ron?

Your profile says "Chess.com is an authoritarian regime".  Guessing that's a joke?

And your account is 9-10 months old.  Also you talk about Martin breeding and children.

Don't know what's happening man but maybe you two better get a room

Just because a word had innocent uses doesn't mean it isn't often used in abusive ways. Being a chess site, your example word is very unlikely to be used in a less offensive way for most members anyway.

It's not an abuse or lazy unless you quantify how much abuse it stops vs how much legitimate usage it stops.

Hint: 99.99% of usage is bad, and automatically policing hundreds of thousands of people in real time is not lazy, it's the only practical way.

Mutes resolve themselves (they're short and temporary) and then the user knows not to repeat those words, so is able to avoid future mutes.

There are a few arguments against the way chess.com filters and mutes function, but I'm not seeing them in this topic.

Also, I have shocking news for (apparently) most people here... this is how all laws and policies work in the real world i.e. in a small fraction of cases they're simply incorrect, but we put up with them because it's an efficient way to create order.

That's not my point, and I know how division works, I'm older than 10, thanks.

It makes sense as a policy. Your arguments against it are silly, I don't have much else to say.

There's no point in considering the matter and thinking of such arguments, because the morality vs pragmatism argument isn't taken seriously, so the perception that no-one is going to take any argument seriously isn't countered. After all, what you consider "better arguments" is in your opinion only. You might always try one and I'll see what I think of it.

For example, one problem with the auto filter and mute system is some users are allowed to post any word, and then when you quote them you can be flagged for a bad word in your post even though you didn't type the word yourself.

Yes, words have multiple meanings. Congratulations 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/59bcf0ac-39e8-4bad-a11e-c5be01962404

I'm sure that sounds nice to you, personally, but there's the small problem of you're not the only person on this website, and hiring __# of full time employees to review such button presses would be stupid.

Yes.

I lost half a page I'd written a few months ago for exactly that reason. Zap!