Why does chess.com give such extraordinary control over the thread to the OP? - Chess Forums - Page 2

DefinitelyNotGM

Sep 30, 2013

0

#21

QuantummKnight wrote:

george_jetson5 wrote:

BigDoggProblem wrote:

Of course, there is also an unlimited edit policy, so even if someone makes you look like an idiot, you can just change the content of all your posts and make it look like they are insane to have drawn that conclusion.

The system is ready-made for pranksters and trolls. They can start up a thread about something ridiculously controversial or extreme, wait for the flood of replies, then change the thread title and OP to be something incredibly benign. Then they make mocking posts wondering what all the fuss is about.

Ouch - I didn't know that. So you post some outrageous opinion, get mauled, and then change the original post to "The three greatest chessplayers of all time are Loyd, Short, and Saavedra" and then pretend that you have been deeply maligned.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

Even if you change your post, it's still quoted in mine.

You can change the content of quotes on your comments. See how I edited george_jetson's post when I quoted it. It is only different in the quote, though

DefinitelyNotGM

Sep 30, 2013

0

#22

BigDoggProblem wrote:

chiaroscuro62 wrote:

Once a thread is posted, IMHO, it becomes community property. If you post something silly and get mauled, that's life in the big city, and is probably useful for the you and the chess.com community (even if it probably stinks at the time).

But if you say something I don't like on this thread, I can block you from future comments (right after saying that you are obviously wrong and imply that you are likely a pedophile). Then I can get the staff to lock the thread if I think I have been berated enough.

Does that seem right?

Of course, there is also an unlimited edit policy, so even if someone makes you look like an idiot, you can just change the content of all your posts and make it look like they are insane to have drawn that conclusion.

The system is ready-made for pranksters and trolls. They can start up a thread about something ridiculously controversial or extreme, wait for the flood of replies, then change the thread title and OP to be something incredibly benign. Then they make mocking posts wondering what all the fuss is about.

When the title is changed the URL isn't...

macer75

Sep 30, 2013

0

#23

The system is ready-made for pranksters and trolls. They can start up a thread about something ridiculously controversial or extreme, wait for the flood of replies, then change the thread title and OP to be something incredibly benign. Then they make mocking posts wondering what all the fuss is about.

For the most part I agree with that, except that posting something "ridicuouisly controversial or extreme" in not necessarily trolling - the OP could be serious. Only in cases similar to the one you just mentioned is it actually trolling.

Also, I think that if someone blocks you you should still be able to post in threads, just not on their profile wall. On that note, I have never blocked anyone (though I find myself blocked by a couple of people, which I'm not complaining about), I never edit my comments afterward except to fix typos (and if you see COMMENT DELETED on one of my posts chances are it was deleted by a mod), and I never try to regulate threads I start in any way whatsoever.

MSC157

Sep 30, 2013

0

#24

I prefer this option: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/should-chesscom-implement-the-like-button

ivandh

Sep 30, 2013

0

#25

Tronchenbiais a écrit :

I think that on the other hand, giving the OP that much power can be helpful when he is honest and trying to keep a serious discussion.

Then it becomes a matter of finding out if the OP is a troll (which is generally pretty easy), and then you can make the difference between a honest thread and a troll one. Maybe that never happens in reality but that may be the reason why they give power to the OP.

If the discussion is interesting to more people than just the OP, it is rare for disruptive spam or abuse to occur. What more often happens is that someone points out that the OP is wrong on one or more counts and the OP then bans that person for being "disruptive". The solution is less, not more.

Tronchenbiais

Sep 30, 2013

0

#26

ivandh a écrit :

Tronchenbiais a écrit :

I think that on the other hand, giving the OP that much power can be helpful when he is honest and trying to keep a serious discussion.

Then it becomes a matter of finding out if the OP is a troll (which is generally pretty easy), and then you can make the difference between a honest thread and a troll one. Maybe that never happens in reality but that may be the reason why they give power to the OP.

If the discussion is interesting to more people than just the OP, it is rare for disruptive spam or abuse to occur. What more often happens is that someone points out that the OP is wrong on one or more counts and the OP then bans that person for being "disruptive". The solution is less, not more.

Seen from that point of view, it's indeed no good at all. My point was that in an ideal world, this kind of power could be good.

I guess the chess.com forums is not an ideal world.

macer75

Sep 30, 2013

0

#27

Tronchenbiais wrote:

ivandh a écrit :

Tronchenbiais a écrit :

I think that on the other hand, giving the OP that much power can be helpful when he is honest and trying to keep a serious discussion.

Then it becomes a matter of finding out if the OP is a troll (which is generally pretty easy), and then you can make the difference between a honest thread and a troll one. Maybe that never happens in reality but that may be the reason why they give power to the OP.

If the discussion is interesting to more people than just the OP, it is rare for disruptive spam or abuse to occur. What more often happens is that someone points out that the OP is wrong on one or more counts and the OP then bans that person for being "disruptive". The solution is less, not more.

Seen from that point of view, it's indeed no good at all. My point was that in an ideal world, this kind of power could be good.

I guess the chess.com forums is not an ideal world.

If the definition of chess.com being an "ideal world" is that there r no troll threads, then I'm glad that it's not an ideal world.

ivandh

Sep 30, 2013

0

#28

I agree, a dictatorship is good when the dictator is good. But the problem, whether governing nations or threads, is that you can't rely on any one person to be well-behaved. In that case it's usually better to hedge your bets and not leave one person with all the power.

BigDoggProblem

Sep 30, 2013

0

#29

QuantummKnight wrote:

george_jetson5 wrote:

BigDoggProblem wrote:

Of course, there is also an unlimited edit policy, so even if someone makes you look like an idiot, you can just change the content of all your posts and make it look like they are insane to have drawn that conclusion.

The system is ready-made for pranksters and trolls. They can start up a thread about something ridiculously controversial or extreme, wait for the flood of replies, then change the thread title and OP to be something incredibly benign. Then they make mocking posts wondering what all the fuss is about.

Ouch - I didn't know that. So you post some outrageous opinion, get mauled, and then change the original post to "The three greatest chessplayers of all time are Fischer, Capablanca, and Kasparov" and then pretend that you have been deeply maligned.

Bad...

Sorry to have ever messed with you, BDP. You're the greatest!! Signed, your fanboy.

Aww, thanks.

bean_Fischer

Sep 30, 2013

0

#30

OP is not a moderator so they can't ask admin to close a threat. It doesn't belong to them. OP should not be held responsible for it. OP is the one who starts it. Sometimes it doesn't go as OP wanted, and derails from the main topic. If OP doesn't like it, they just delete the ones they write. And leave a note: Not responsible for the topic.

Admin deletes OP name on the thread, and make it anonymous.

Problem solved, nobody is upset.

indian1960

Sep 30, 2013

0

#31

Hi Mr. Bean !....Did you see #13 of "Mozart" Post ?....hehehe

bean_Fischer

Sep 30, 2013

0

#32

Hi Indiana. lol just saw it. nice, thanks. laughing.

ponz111

Sep 30, 2013

0

#33

Actually I have never deleted someone's elses words in any of my threads.

Did not even know this could be done. It would help to solve situations either way off topic or abuse.

bean_Fischer

Sep 30, 2013

0

#34

Elubas wrote:

Hmm... well, it's like if chess.com wanted to censor certain comments -- you may not agree with such a choice, but the only reason you're even on chess.com is because of them, so the least you could do is respect their right to make such a decision.

The OP is the one who introduced the discussion. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. You are totally free to disagree with the OP's decision, but to complain about them being able to make the decision they want regarding their own creation? I don't get it.

Personally I disagree with Ponz's decision too. Yet as I said above that's irrelevant.

Besides, if someone really wants to continue discussing something, why can't they just make a new forum topic for that?

disagree. see #45.

bean_Fischer

Sep 30, 2013

0

#35

ponz111 wrote:

Actually I have never deleted someone's elses words in any of my threads.

Did not even know this could be done. It would help to solve situations either way off topic or abuse.

It's not particular to your thread.

macer75

Sep 30, 2013

0

#36

bean_Fischer wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Actually I have never deleted someone's elses words in any of my threads.

Did not even know this could be done. It would help to solve situations either way off topic or abuse.

It's not particular to your thread.

The problem is that the OP gets to define what "way off topic" or "abuse" means. The best way for this to work is for nobody to be able to delete or edit anyone else's comments.

ivandh

Sep 30, 2013

0

#37

I've been banned for making an "irrelevant post" when the topic was about missing people on chess.com and I asked about a couple of missing people on chess.com. No kidding.

ivandh

Sep 30, 2013

0

#38

Elubas a écrit :

Hmm... well, it's like if chess.com wanted to censor certain comments -- you may not agree with such a choice, but the only reason you're even on chess.com is because of them, so the least you could do is respect their right to make such a decision.

The OP is the one who introduced the discussion. They should be able to do whatever they want with it. You are totally free to disagree with the OP's decision, but to complain about them being able to make the decision they want regarding their own creation? I don't get it.

Personally I disagree with Ponz's decision too. Yet as I said above that's irrelevant.

Besides, if someone really wants to continue discussing something, why can't they just make a new forum topic for that?

Nonsense. The OP created the first post, and likely some other posts in the thread. They are free to edit those as they please. But most of the content is created by the community, not by the OP.

If you want to have complete control over what other people say, there is the option of starting a blog. But if you want to put it out to the community, you should be willing to let the community say what it wants.

zborg

Sep 30, 2013

0

#39

Threads never rehash old wounds do they?

Nothing ever repeats around here, we are all so original.

If only @Snakes would return. Then folks could cut loose again.

Irontiger

Sep 30, 2013

0

#40

Just to clarify things : the OP cannot delete posts. All he can do is edit his own posts/title (just like other members can) plus block members from posting, but it has no retroactive effect.

I am mildly supportive of the OP's censorship power - after all, there are jerks everywhere, and it's cool to have tools to protect "your" thread.

However, the "free edit" policy is just nonsense. There should be at least something like "last edited on XX-XX-XXXX" beside each post. Plus title edition is kind of weird - who wants to post in "the Nimzo-Indian defense" to find out later than it was replaced by "the best player ever" (or the other way round) ?