It's you who needs a life. Claims of being a "kid" most often simply are not true. One way or another, age is not relevant. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Want to look the other way because kids run about unsupervised? That is your issue. You condone the behavior, simply because you are a participant.
deleted
Sort:
0
#223
1st I am X , next I am Y and next comes the accusation of being 2Q.
Fools, all of you.
0
#225
Titled_Patzer wrote:
It's you who needs a life. Claims of being a "kid" most often simply are not true. One way or another, age is not relevant. Bad behavior is bad behavior. Want to look the other way because kids run about unsupervised? That is your issue. You condone the behavior, simply because you are a participant.
0
#226
Hmmm... It does get redundant. I post "information" about the unacceptable habits of members, scm was a typical example. We try to understand what happened/ why fellow chess players conduct themselves in some cases rather poorly.
What happens? Well, it is typical. The messenger gets "attacked" as being a troll. A cover-up that deflects the real issues of poor sportsmanship. These people have no interest in discussing/recognizing behavior, that once recognized can well be avoided and ignored.
0
#227
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Hmmm... It does get redundant. I post "information" about the unacceptable habits of members, scm was a typical example. We try to understand what happened/ why fellow chess players conduct themselves in some cases rather poorly.
What happens? Well, it is typical. The messenger gets "attacked" as being a troll. A cover-up that deflects the real issues of poor sportsmanship. These people have no interest in discussing/recognizing behavior, that once recognized can well be avoided and ignored.
0
#228
Clearly, the misfits will never change. I post only to educate. Many members likely observe the thread, take the information for what it is, and are never seen nor heard from. Who is most likely to post ? Those who like drama, conflict, and discourse. "The guilty are always the 1st at denial."
0
#229
Instead of reasonable discussion regarding the topic of a member being banned for violating fair play policy, we see immature individuals posting cartoons, making personal attacks.
0
#230
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Instead of reasonable discussion regarding the topic of a member being banned for violating fair play policy, we see immature individuals posting cartoons, making personal attacks.
And as long as chess.com allows it, do you think its going to change?
0
#231
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Instead of reasonable discussion regarding the topic of a member being banned for violating fair play policy, we see immature individuals posting cartoons, making personal attacks.
0
#232
IMBacon wrote:
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Instead of reasonable discussion regarding the topic of a member being banned for violating fair play policy, we see immature individuals posting cartoons, making personal attacks.
And as long as chess.com allows it, do you think its going to change?
Hasn't yet , in it's 10 year+ history. I'm most likely a fool, thinking change could take place. Too much the romantic I suppose. I do play a lot of chess, just not here, And can say the "spirit" of good chess lives on, good sportsmanship does exist. Too often it becomes problematic to weed out the misfits, but it is possible.
0
#233
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Distinctions/ lines are being drawn between what is "cheating" and what is acceptable referencing of chess moves. Cheating online (engine assistance) is a scourge that we all wish to be eliminated.
I would simply like to point out subjective opinions are always transitioning. What one day is accepted, the next day gets banned. Unfortunately, what can be reasonably detected and enforced, is a very sticky wicket indeed. Other sites say to "heck with it." Attempts to monitor correspondence chess are to burdensome and run too many risks. (Alienating as many players as engine users caught.)
Indeed it is admirable CC is making it's best attempt to catch engine users at correspondence. Best of Luck. Keep in mind though, once the responsibility is assumed, expectations are bound to be higher than performance.
This is very true. Where there is doubt, chess.com errs on the side of caution, as the consequences of an unjustified ban could potentially be very significant - especially for a chess professional or serious enthusiast, but even the casual player could lose their online friendships.
Given the large number of bans every day, banning at even a 99% confidence level could easily result in several innocent people getting banned every day. Chess.com requires a much higher standard of proof, sufficient that it would hold up in court.
This has two effects:
1. Sometimes cautious cheaters take a while to get banned. I have a lengthy list of people I believe are probably cheating, and would like to see them banned. But a small number of them are probably clean, and I don't know which ones.
2. When someone is banned, you can have confidence it was deserved. Nobody is banned based on "probably".
Perhaps this. CC is more than 99% sure of it's detection methods and takes every consideration, before enforcement. [ scm was playing correspondence and participating in team events, where most likely complaints were reported. ]
0
#234
Titled_Patzer wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Titled_Patzer wrote:
Instead of reasonable discussion regarding the topic of a member being banned for violating fair play policy, we see immature individuals posting cartoons, making personal attacks.
And as long as chess.com allows it, do you think its going to change?
Hasn't yet , in it's 10 year+ history. I'm most likely a fool, thinking change could take place. Too much the romantic I suppose. I do play a lot of chess, just not here, And can say the "spirit" of good chess lives on, good sportsmanship does exist. Too often it becomes problematic to weed out the misfits, but it is possible.
Aww someone's mad they're alone on Valentines day.
Here:
0
#235
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out Postafi's post in 364. That's quiet a curveball.
What does changes in Correspondence chess rules have to do with SCM leaving?? " Some consistency would be a great help".
Take notice that that is a Clayton Kershaw curve ball :-)
0
#236
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out Postafi's post in 364. That's quiet a curveball.
What does changes in Correspondence chess rules have to do with SCM leaving?? " Some consistency would be a great help".
The guy just gets done with his 203,473,125th mute, and hes muted again already.
0
#237
your password must be between 732 and 942 characters, it cannot be the same as any word in any known language. It must include 3 hieroglyphs, ancient Babylonian text, and the solution to Fermat's last theorem.
0
#238
MrBigBossBrain wrote:
your password must be between 732 and 942 characters, it cannot be the same as any word in any known language. It must include 3 hieroglyphs, ancient Babylonian text, and the solution to Fermat's last theorem.
And you must be able to recite the pledge of allegiance backwards...in Esperanto...while listening to William Shatner's version of Rocket Man.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Oh yeah, that's who he is.
Definitely reminds me of mdinnerspace.
Maybe it was well known, but I forgot.