muted for typing an author's name

Sort:
idilis
ANIRUDH-KC wrote:
Wooooooow

Too many 'o's. His name sounds rude. Somebody mute this dude.

AlCzervik
CooloutAC wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:

    I know your not gonna believe me but in 2010 I was driving my car when out of the blue, a giant Dick fell on my me.                                                                                    I was Ok but come to find out,...my insurance policy doesn't cover falling dicks.  

 

No games played for over 4 years.  Throwaway account.  Let me guess,  you got muted once for no reason and now resent the site and just come here to troll it?  lol While playing matches on your dozens of other accounts?

what. a. tool.

who the hell are you to pass judgement like this?

you don't know sh*t. ron has been here for years. the other person you have been badgering is one that has quit the site at times. mostly because of dealings with douches like you. 

but, here you are, telling the world that ron and idilis are not worthy.

if i might be so bold, why don't you just f off. you pretend you know things when you don't. both of the members you pretend are trolls are two of the best contributors. 

allow that to sink in. you are harassing two of the most respected members here. all to glorify your ego as if you know more than everyone else. please stop this and try to repair your reputation.

 

AlCzervik
cokezerochess22 wrote:
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?

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.  

on the filter, it is plain laziness from cc. use a bot instead of paying someone to monitor. on that, what we see from the mods is gross. they all cite tos and make strawmen rebuttals that make no sense. we see it in this topic.

if someone were to reference nixon as 'tricky d*ck", that might be censored here, even though almost every adult is familiar with that term for a former president.

David
CooloutAC wrote:

Yes he contributed a nice sexually vulgar pic for Martin, really proving Martin wrong and exposing how the measures Martin is defending really doesn't encourage the moral behavior he seeks.  It encourages the opposite like I claimed.       Ron is the perfect example of that especially since his account is so old so I should thank him.    And Maybe chess.com doesn't want to drive off one of the few accounts that are that old because I'm not sure how he gets away with that.  I certainly wouldn't risk posting such an image. 
     
But the reason Ron acts that way he does is because he obviously doesn't care about the account since he hasn't played a game here in over 5 years on it and barely played any to begin with.  Barely has a 100 games played on it in over 10 years,  so the age of his account is meaningless to me and I find it suspicious. 

It's ironic when people who declare the mods "soft" don't realise that if Chess.com weren't such a tolerant place, they'd be long gone.

Ron's prone to the odd brain explosion, but he owns his mistakes and sincerely apologizes for them to all affected. That's much better than a liar who is intent on spinning everything about the site in as negative a fashion as he can find, and far less "suspicious". I can only imagine that they're insecure about lichess' "superiority" and feel compelled to try and pull Chess.com down to make those other folks look better. Hilariously, it's only making them look worse.

David
CooloutAC wrote:

But the truth is people should learn what is real and what is fake online.  I'm simply rolling around in the mud with others here.  Usually little kids and old loonies.  Most normal people don't post on forums.    And when i see tons of newly created accounts and accounts that don't play games trolling the forums,  and those going out of their way to defend dishonest behavior?  Well then its obvious why there is such a difference between the sites.

They don't learn it from you, you continue to say that evidence that disproves you actually proves your point.

FoxWithNekoEars

The filter of bad words is overall good thing, but I don't think that it should have the ability of muting people or at least not for so long time. I did once talk here with somebody in an another laguage than english and I was muted for bad word useage at the moment when I didn't even know what exactly that filter recognized as a bad word in my message...  I understand that cases like that are rare, but isn't the fact that you can't write those words already enough?

yetanotheraoc
Optimissed wrote:

I changed oriented to orientated. I'm letting my standards slip. I think that to "orient" something you'd need to point it towards the East.

My 1913Websters (it's an app) has it oriented precisely the opposite way:

  • orient (v.t.) - 1. To define the position of, in relation to the orient or east; ....
  • orientate (v.t.) - 1. To place or turn toward the east; ....
  • orientate (v.i.) - 1. To move or turn toward the east; ...

I suppose that means there's a distinction to be made between an orienteer and an orientater.

badenwurtca

As I've said here before: people come and people go.

Martin_Stahl
Optimissed wrote:

...

I've been looking at the staff list here. It's weighed down with programmers and software developers but I'm not sure they have anyone to give them direction. They're all obviously enjoying themselves though. Maybe a bit of Victorian work ethic would help?

 

For a website, a lot of them are going to be programmers, both front and back end, but there are a lot of other staff as well, including project managers, support, community related staff, and upper level managers that set the direction. I'm not sure all of the 400+ staff show on the staff list.

Martin_Stahl
Optimissed wrote:

I don't think they did. I went through the lot of them and there may have been between 2 and 300. I think I know what front end means .... that will be the bit you see. Never heard of the "back end". Is that the number crunching?

 

Back end is what the front end connects to.

not_cl0ud
justbefair wrote:

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

ur boasting just because you're mod

AlCzervik
David wrote:
 

It's ironic when people who declare the mods "soft" don't realise that if Chess.com weren't such a tolerant place, they'd be long gone.

 I can only imagine that they're insecure about lichess' "superiority" and feel compelled to try and pull Chess.com down to make those other folks look better.

interesting take on tolerance. this topic, like some others (wink, wink) have been started to show the fails in hope that someone reads them and uses their position to make the site better. we went over this once before and you locked a topic about site fails and improvements. i seriously doubt your claim that some are only posting these things to try to bring this place 'down' because they like lichess. 

remember andy clifton (aka ghost of pushwood)? he was muted here so many times he finally left and went to lichess. he has had zero issues there, so, your interpretation on what is tolerated is incorrect, in my opinion.

as far as people being "long gone", i know you know how easy it is to make a new account here. itude has had about 50 accounts. banning one doesn't mean they are long gone.

idilis
CooloutAC wrote:

*Snip* For me i'm not coming here for attention.  I'm also not interested in socializing.  *Snip*

Didn't see that coming

David
idilis wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:

*Snip* For me i'm not coming here for attention.  I'm also not interested in socializing.  *Snip*

Didn't see that coming

"I'm on a mission from God" grin

yetanotheraoc

Oh look, another thread becomes the CooloutAC show!

mpaetz

     You know you can see his name and picture at the top of his posts. You can just scroll past those posts--you won't be missing anything.

mpaetz

    I find him annoying enough that I often just pop his balloon to see what he'll do. It's sort of like using a laser pointer to get your cat to run around in a frenzy. It's entertaining for a bit and the cat gets some activity.

mpaetz

     Yeah, but he'll bloviate left and right whether anyone is responding to him or not. He's been doing that since the day he became a member. At first I tried to just point out where he was wrong or contradicted himself or lied about what others said, but now I sometimes feel that some of the nastiest things he says deserve a refutation.

idilis

But first we all need to apologize to Richard. And a magnificent sea bird

sawdof
idilis wrote:

But first we all need to apologize to Richard. And a magnificent sea bird

Please do not blame the bunny for bumping. @justbefair sent me here.