LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:
Whether you agree or disagree with the site censorship. When you signed up you agreed to the site rules.
Can you tell me something I don't know. Are you sure you are Lieutenant Frank Columbo?
The absolute state of chess dot com censorship
Sort:
LOL, it's a bot
Gr33nPawn wrote:
LOL, it's a bot
Who?
Colombo
4 days ago
0
#28
RoobieRoo wrote:
justbefair wrote:
Chess.com wanted to encourage civil postings in its forums. That seems like a reasonable goal to me.
Having some kind of automated filter catches a lot of the problems and is a minor annoyance at worst.
The examples you have posted aren't very convincing. I don't think that the automated censor is stifling intelligent debate. I doubt that there are many art students or armorers who have been censored.
What is it about censoring perfectly acceptable words that you are having difficulty with? What is it about being prevented from posting links and references to fine art that yet evades you? It does not "catch" problems it creates them where none actually exist. Why you think that is acceptable is known only to you.
If it stops 10,000 or even 10 cruel utterances but keeps you from sharing your art history knowledge, I think that most people would think that a fair trade.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Yeah, sure...
Not being able to quote a United States secretary of defense is just no problem at all.
Then, it's impossible for me to list all the cases where one can't use a term or a name (like in French, the bottom of a bottle https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/cul-de-bouteille or a dead end (Also the French name of Bilbo's home in LOTR) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cul-de-sac).
You decide it's all details, but no it's not, it's lazy automated censorship that leads to impoverish the vocabulary, but also makes one live in fear of mutes and bans having to continually think hard about the terms they use, or give up on posting anything into a forum that is a minefield for no good reason.
4 days ago
0
#30
RoobieRoo wrote:
Try to be less articulate and limit our expressive language to conform to chess dot coms sanitised soulless Dalek
Kind Sir Roo,
Your comparison is unfair to the Daleks.
1. The Daleks are honest, straightforward in their hostility.
They do not hide their intentions.
There is no hypocrisy in their world.
They do not disguise their intentions as virtue.
Their credo - "Exterminate!" is crystal clear and unburdened by lies.
They do not create the illusion of friendship or care.
2. The Dalek will never pretend to be your friend and then strike.
Its hostility is immediately obvious, predictable and therefore it can be fought, it can be defeated.
3. Dalek does not justify his actions by "the good of the users" or protecting the community."
He is the embodiment of total xenophobia, and in this purity there is some respect for the opponent.
1. Chess.com positions itself as a friendly, open community for everyone.
However, their censorship algorithms operate behind the scenes, without explaining clear reasons, there is no clear, understandable and open protocol for which words exactly cannot be used and why.
This creates a feeling of injustice and deceit.
2. Dalek's motives are clear, he wants to destroy you, he does not hide it, he clearly says it.
Chess.com claims: "We care about your safety and convenience."
However, their actions say the opposite.
This is heartlessness, covered by bureaucracy and good intentions.
3. With Dalek, everything is clear, he is an enemy.
You can fight him, you can defeat him.
With the censorship system chess.com dialogue is basically impossible.
You are not dealing with a living being, but with a faceless, mute algorithm,
which is impossible to fight, which is impossible to defeat.
This is an impersonal algorithmic soullessness, which is much more hopeless and disappointing😼
This thread makes doubleplusungood crimethinking happen with its unsmart oldthink and ungood oldspeak!
4 days ago
0
#33
This kind of censorship makes any one of Philip K. Slang-term-for-a-generative-organ's fictional dystopias look tame by comparison.
LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:
You agreed to the site rules when you joined correct?
The thread is not about my acceptance of site rules. How this could have evaded your keen powers of observation I cannot say.
What it actually about is overt censorship of perfectly normal and acceptable terms due to the employment of a low effort system that has zero contextual understanding and which actually creates censorship where none is needed robbing users of the ability to discuss and express themselves without resorting to evasive strategies.
ivan_m5 wrote:
RoobieRoo wrote:
Try to be less articulate and limit our expressive language to conform to chess dot coms sanitised soulless Dalek
Kind Sir Roo,
Your comparison is unfair to the Daleks.
1. The Daleks are honest, straightforward in their hostility.
They do not hide their intentions.
There is no hypocrisy in their world.
They do not disguise their intentions as virtue.
Their credo - "Destroy" is crystal clear and unburdened by lies.
They do not create the illusion of friendship or care.
2. The Dalek will never pretend to be your friend and then strike.
Its hostility is immediately obvious, predictable and therefore it can be fought, it can be defeated.
3. Dalek does not justify his actions by "the good of the users" or protecting the community."
He is the embodiment of total xenophobia, and in this purity there is some respect for the opponent.
1. Chess.com positions itself as a friendly, open community for everyone.
However, their censorship algorithms operate behind the scenes, without explaining clear reasons, there is no clear, understandable and open protocol for which words exactly cannot be used and why.
This creates a feeling of injustice and deceit.
2. Dalek's motives are clear, he wants to destroy you, he does not hide it, he clearly says it.
Chess.com claims: "We care about your safety and convenience."
However, their actions say the opposite.
This is heartlessness, covered by bureaucracy and good intentions.
3. With Dalek, everything is clear, he is an enemy.
You can fight him, you can defeat him.
With the censorship system chess.com dialogue is basically impossible.
You are not dealing with a living being, but with a faceless, mute algorithm,
which is impossible to fight, which is impossible to defeat.
This is an impersonal algorithmic soullessness, which is much more hopeless and disappointing😼
I humbly apologize to all Daleks everywhere!
3 days ago
0
#36
"But it ain't no contribution / to rely on the institution / to validate your chosen art / & to sanction your boredom & let you play out your part." - It's Too Late by The Jim Carroll Band.
3 days ago
0
#38
RoobieRoo wrote:
LieutenantFrankColumbo wrote:
You agreed to the site rules when you joined correct?
The thread is not about my acceptance of site rules. How this could have evaded your keen powers of observation I cannot say.
What it actually about is overt censorship of perfectly normal and acceptable terms due to the employment of a low effort system that has zero contextual understanding and which actually creates censorship where none is needed robbing users of the ability to discuss and express themselves without resorting to evasive strategies.
If you have an issue with the site then you should address the site owners/developers/etc directly.
Past experience has taught me that you get much better results that way as opposed to just venting in a public forum. Even after all of that. You agreed to the TOS when you joined.
Not saying you dont have a valid complaint. Just better ways of handling it.
Just my .02
Whether you agree or disagree with the site censorship. When you signed up you agreed to the site rules.