Being Banned Threats

I think you make a really good point Reb, and one that I'm having some trouble with.  I teach in a high school as my day job, and one of the problems that I've run into is a near majority of students are unable to navigate the difference between discussing some frank subject matter and making inappropriate jokes or comments during class.  This is way of the OP's original topic, but I'm curious as to whether we learn to change our vocabulary usage according to social situations at a later age (which I kind of doubt) or whether this is indeed something that we learn from our parents (no fart jokes at the dinner table, etc.)

 Your subject is actually more interesting than my original post. Thanks.

We are verging on one of the old arguments Suggo would take the part that tradition and manners and custom meant nothing, and whatever was within the rules/laws was acceptable--and he would add that it was to the contrary rude for us to suggest the offending party observe decorum and resign/stop swearing/whatever the behavior was.

We haven't got a good politeness thread going since he left.

Suggo ?! arrgghh, him politeness ? *shudder*

Individual nouns and verbs and the odd inventive adjective have never bothered me, especially if they are not arranged in such a way as to be targeted toward me personally.  I do tailor my own language to the audience and situation, but I've always considered those who were easily offended by language to be childish and a nuisance.

However, even being of that opinion, I think a venue like chess.com should keep the forums clear of words that are known to drive the overly sensitive around the bend, because of the presence of kids in chess.com .   I don't feel this way because I think kids' young precious ears and eyes are too sensitive for such words, but rather because I would hate to think some uptight parent banned his kid from accessing chess.com simply because s/he was worried about the language the kid might encounter.

--Cystem

I always enjoy when someone is being offensive, and so in response, the offended person becomes offensive himself.  Sheer genius working, there. 

When I was young you couldn't even say icehall

An expletive put to good use can be terribly effective, but they should be used sparingly so that they retain their impact.  Dropping one every second word just undermines their value.  They are, after all, a legitimate part of the language.

yep, Ret, I agree that typing vulgarities is a far more deliberate act than uttering them and there really is no excuse for it (unless, occasionally, for emphasis or humour) my contention is that those that are offended often pretend that the use of such language is universally offensive, which is not the case I doesn't like other people speaking for me and being somehow included in their all-encompassing 'we'

I agree entirely - 'xept i has seen the most amazin' 'outbursts' (I would call 'em 'tantrums') at tournament venues - even got physical one time between two IMs who were neither of 'em in any sort of condition for any kind of physical encounter (except maybe with each other !! )

Chessdweeb .. I'm not trying to repeat what fireworks said.  I'll say that calling someone a sore *** loser isn't over the top but I'd just suggest that you save that kind of language for people you know personally and remember that we don't know who the people behind the avatars and screen names are so just be proper when playing strangers.  Your opponent might indeed be a sore *** loser or they might be young and impressionable and you wouldn't want someone to address your child that way.  Have tact k

Yeah, he could just be 7! Who knows?

Well, you've failed. The chat censor does not make Chess.com more user friendly - it makes it more annoying. Your implementation is absurd, and far beyond *any* other site I have ever seen. You don't publish the list of words, you give one warning and you don't say why, and you ban on a word and again don;t say why.

It is the most childish immature manner of censoring I have ever seen. 

What is most amusing to me is that language is moderated but bad behavior is not (and is incredibly prevalent in live chess here.)

I agree.

chat censor is absurd to the point of sheer idiocy.

There is no public list of what is disallowed, and they way you mute and ban people *without explanation* is uncalled for.

Your chat sensor does not and cannot tell context, and wrongly warns/mutes/bans for things that are not even close to derogatory.

At the same time, you do nothing about players that go around telling people they suck, and calling people jerks, morons, and idiots.

The chat censor does not make Chess.com more user friendly - it makes it more annoying. Your implementation is absurd, and far beyond *any* other site I have ever seen. You don't publish the list of words, you give one warning and you don't say why, and you ban for some innocuous word and again don't say why.

It is the most childish & immature manner of censoring I have ever seen. 

Try talking about "shitake mushrooms", or "Matsushita" (the company that owns Panasonic) and you'll get banned. Use the word "assume" and you'll get banned.

You can say sex, but you get banned for saying porn. You can talk about flying an airplane but you get banned for saying cockpit.

Who came up with this ? It's a joke, really. I'm certainly not going to pay to upgrade until you fix this policy. Here are the improvements you need to make:

1) Publish a listing of all words that are banned, so it can be understood.

2) Fix the censor so that it tells you WHY you are getting a warning.

3) Give the user an opportunity to edit and re-write the message, instead of the insta-mute or insta-ban.

4) Understand that many disallowed words are legitimate parts of other words. Even the most incompetent programmer in the world should be able to figure out how to parse one from the other.

5) Stop treating the users like children.

Alternate: Instead of banning do what EVERY OTHER site ion the net does, and replace the word with either a line of asterisks  *******  or the word [censored].

So that when someone writes something innocuous they aren't then banned, which is a gross over reaction.

Regards,

Andy

PERFECT!!!!

I'm an assman.  

Dark_Knight_50 wrote:

A topic that hasn't been added to in 7 years hardly needs locking unless some twit reopens it with a post.