No person is banned in CC. Only username and all achievement collected by that username. Fair punishment in a recreational website.
deleted
Sort:
0
#24
bong711 wrote:
And fair policy violation means engine abuse. An engine reported for being abused 😎
Wait, who reported the abuse? Did an engine do that?
0
#26
bong711 wrote:
Probably 😀 CC won't mind if you consult engines for a move or 2 during ongoing game.
So an engine reported an engine?
0
#27
bong711 wrote:
No person is banned in CC. Only username and all achievement collected by that username. Fair punishment in a recreational website.
That can be easily disputed, whether the policy is "fair"or not. Fair for whom ? No two gaming sites deal with the difficult issue in the same manner. Whether the site is recreational or not , is NOT relevant IMO. It is an ethical question that far too often is over ridden by "business priorities."
0
#28
Disconnecting during live games is obvious. I doubt poor internet connection is always the cause.
0
#29
Allowing people to come back (after abuse or cheating) make sense because it's easier to keep track of them. Mods can leave invisible notes on your profile and find all the activity for your IP (even if it's many accounts ago). So asking people to promise to be good and letting them come back is a win-win for chess.com. The most effect for the least amount of effort.
But sure, with unlimited resources, it would be better to ban people for a set amount of time. Just donated a billion USD to chess.com annually so they can keep tabs on every user 24/7 no matter how they try to hide.
Of course people who conflate or confuse revenge and justice, and people who can't think logically will not understand this at all.
0
#30
Ethics is a matter of concern for the minority only. The majority cares for the Law only. Some even dares to break the law if the reward is huge and punishment is not scary.
0
#31
A perspective exists that internet sites are "recreational" and therefore free game to abuse at will, without recourse, is far to prevalent. Of course, enforcement is problematic and difficult. But that should not excuse such behavior by throwing the arms up in surrender.
0
#32
Just ask 2Q whether or not chess.com surrenders, heh.
You make it worth their while, and they'll put a lot of effort into keeping a person gone.
0
#33
*Allowing people to come back (after abuse or cheating) make sense because it's easier to keep track of them.*
LOL !
That policy has worked well ! Over time we have witnessed a dramatic decline in abuse as the abusers are "tracked." Too funny
It is correct it's a "win/win" result for both parties. CC and abusers are both happy. The bills get paid. But it can not be claimed that "tracking" abusers in any way, shape or form deters/reduces abuse.
Clearly, the victims of the abuse are the ones who suffer. But their standing is seldom of concern to either CC or the abusers. They are merely bystanders in the on-going cycle.
0
#34
I knew you wouldn't understand. Shrug*
Same sort of idiots who think a probationary period before posting is a good idea. No sense at all.
unfollowing
0
#35
Am thinking Still_dumitha will get chopped soon.. Charlotte and Autobunny seem to have gone... no great loss.
I'd say the vast majority of forum (especially off topic) users who were active and posted a lot around 2017 are all gone. Only people I can remember being around the forums when I joined that are still here... Well woolensock for a start, Elroch and other users who have been a while In his threads, and if there are many other people still very active then they've either slipped my mind or I never really interacted with them much back then. RonaldJospethCote has been around a while as well. President Max is so one else, but I'm not sure if he is still about.
Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, really.
Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, really.
LewisTu wrote:
FlashyFerrari wrote:
well I came from the other forum and didn't read posts lol
my bad, apologies
It's fine, most people would attack me for "copying" a thread.
Lewis! Stop copying threads!
(#64)
By "that" in the last paragraph, I mean the fact that so many people are now gone.
By "that" in the last paragraph, I mean the fact that so many people are now gone.
Titled_Patzer wrote:
*Allowing people to come back (after abuse or cheating) make sense because it's easier to keep track of them.*
LOL !
That policy has worked well ! Over time we have witnessed a dramatic decline in abuse as the abusers are "tracked." Too funny
It is correct it's a "win/win" result for both parties. CC and abusers are both happy. The bills get paid. But it can not be claimed that "tracking" abusers in any way, shape or form deters/reduces abuse.
Clearly, the victims of the abuse are the ones who suffer. But their standing is seldom of concern to either CC or the abusers. They are merely bystanders in the on-going cycle.
Take a look at the BoboTheFlyingCat67/BoboTheFlyingCat66 case. Over time he got better, much better. I went from detesting him to liking him.
And no, I will not be following this forum.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Quite the wrong "policy" IMO if in fact CC gives 2nd chances for fair play abuse. To start, what ever happened to the idea of deterring such unwanted behavior? A lengthy ban is more in order. Since when has a slap on the wrist ever caused a 2nd thought for abusive behavior? The bottom line becomes that of making the almighty $ by permitting premium members to return in short order.