Confused

Sort:
erik
Bajoran_Moon wrote:
erik wrote:
Bajoran_Moon wrote:

Taking down Danielle's original thread was outrageous and ill-informed... particularly in light of the fact that we are daily treated to such irrelevant rubbish focused on women and girls who play chess and those threads go on for days and are never deleted. But one woman pointing out bad behaviour by  more than a few men is chastised. Unbelievable. Family atmosphere? There are entire groups on this site dedicated to objectifying women as sex objects and they have dozens of members and they play team matches and vote chess under the banner of hot-lady-love-chess or whatever and no word about why they exist on a "family fun site" -- but a woman starting a discussion asking for more decency is chastised... again... beggars belief.


from what i heard (i didn't read it) it wasn't the message of the thread, but the tone.

i takes these issues VERY seriously. i have 3 daughters and am highly concerned about the view of women and would support any thread in defense of a better viewpoint. however, from what i was told this thread was just abusive in reverse.


Well, I disagree that the original post was bashing in reverse, as all she said was 'dear men stop saying these things to me and other women'. Okay if the point was that she should have made only a private complaint to the moderators, but I completely understand her desire to open discussion on this.

Erik if you are as serious as you seem about the view of girls and women on this site, then I will take you at your word and make an abuse report about the 3 groups (at least) that I have come across that I cannot believe you are aware about as admin, as I cannot see how aparent would either want their daughter a member of or objectified by... certainly if Danielle's thread was deemed iappropriate, these groups cannot be either.


as i stated before, i did not get to read the initial forum. i'm sorry it is gone.

as for the other groups... private groups and public forums are different :( and i'm hardly aware of all of the groups on the site - there are so many - and they are private.

these are really tough calls to make. we are always walking the line between offending people for being too harsh or too lenient. we will never make everyone happy. so we try to be conservative in the public forums and handsoff in the private ones. it's the best compromise we can make. i'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy you. :(

Bajoran_Moon
erik wrote:
...

 it's the best compromise we can make. i'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy you. :(


Well. Nothing more I can say then, as one person cannot affect policy. But don't hide behind the "it's a private forum" please. Just say, We disagree that groups like those you mention pose a problem, we draw the line in a different place than you do, and we won't censure them. That's honest at least. Because I do believe if there was a group that advocated murder or some other crime, your policy would be less hands off. I believe it is uncontionable to turn women and girls into sex objects for the sake of a private chess group - others do not - I am  in the minority, end of discussion, I'm off to play chess for as long as my paid membership lasts and forget about it.

erik
Bajoran_Moon wrote:
erik wrote:
...

 it's the best compromise we can make. i'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy you. :(


Well. Nothing more I can say then, as one person cannot affect policy. But don't hide behind the "it's a private forum" please. Just say, We disagree that groups like those you mention pose a problem, we draw the line in a different place than you do, and we won't censure them. That's honest at least. Because I do believe if there was a group that advocated murder or some other crime, your policy would be less hands off. I believe it is uncontionable to turn women and girls into sex objects for the sake of a private chess group - others do not - I am  in the minority, end of discussion, I'm off to play chess for as long as my paid membership lasts and forget about it.


i don't think that's a fair summarization of my position. if there are groups we should be taking a look at, please use the REPORT ABUSE link and we will look at them. but there is a big difference between sanctioning murder and a group that likes to view pictures of women. one is legal, one is not. and we'll stake one step further, if there is something pornographic or abusive, we'll close that as well.

Bajoran_Moon
erik wrote:

i don't think that's a fair summarization of my position. if there are groups we should be taking a look at, please use the REPORT ABUSE link and we will look at them. but there is a big difference between sanctioning murder and a group that likes to view pictures of women. one is legal, one is not. and we'll stake one step further, if there is something pornographic or abusive, we'll close that as well.


Erik, to be fair to me, you and I just said the same thing -- I just said I firmly believed that if a group advocated something illegal you would take it down, but what I see as the sexual objectification of women is not illegal therefore it is not taken down (I just did report the three groups in question, and was told as they were "private", they stay). I am not being petulant, just resigned.

TheGrobe

Bajoran_Moon, I wonder if it's not this quote that Erik views as unfair -- I know I thought it was:

"I believe it is uncontionable to turn women and girls into sex objects for the sake of a private chess group - others do not - I am  in the minority, end of discussion"

There is an implication there, specifically with "I am in the minority", that he does not, in fact view it as unconscionable.  I personally found the statement to be duplicitous in nature, and absolutely an unfair characterization of Erik's stated position.

TheGrobe

I'd add that it really is a tough line that the site has to walk when it comes to this type of thing -- I don't envy the task at all.

Do you close the groups and risk the spill-over into the forums?  At least now they're contained, and someone has to seek out membership of they want to participate (or complain, for that matter).  Also, if you set a precedent of policing the groups more proactively it takes moderation resources away from the forums which are much more public and if anything could use more moderation.  I'm not condoning anything that occurrs in those groups, but I'd personally prefer to see it left there than spill into here all while the moderation capacity in the forums is undermined.

Bajoran_Moon
TheGrobe wrote:

Bajoran_Moon, I wonder if it's not this quote that Erik views as unfair -- I know I thought it was:

"I believe it is uncontionable to turn women and girls into sex objects for the sake of a private chess group - others do not - I am  in the minority, end of discussion"

There is an implication there, specifically with "I am in the minority", that he does not, in fact view it as unconscionable.  I personally found the statement to be duplicitous in nature, and absolutely an unfair characterization of Erik's stated position.


I see your point, and I apologise Erik for that -- I had just received my response after reporting those 3 groups and had just checked their number of members, that is actually what I was referring to when I said I was in the minority, as i was shocked they had that number of members between them. I felt outnumbered and powerless after scanning the members list... it was not a dig at Erik. Again, apolgies for that. I really am not trying to be petulant about it, I am genuinely saddened and resigned to it -- it's not illegal, it's a free site generated in a free country, I'm going to ignore it as best i can.

erik
Bajoran_Moon wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

Bajoran_Moon, I wonder if it's not this quote that Erik views as unfair -- I know I thought it was:

"I believe it is uncontionable to turn women and girls into sex objects for the sake of a private chess group - others do not - I am  in the minority, end of discussion"

There is an implication there, specifically with "I am in the minority", that he does not, in fact view it as unconscionable.  I personally found the statement to be duplicitous in nature, and absolutely an unfair characterization of Erik's stated position.


I see your point, and I apologise Erik for that -- I had just received my response after reporting those 3 groups and had just checked their number of members, that is actually what I was referring to when I said I was in the minority, as i was shocked they had that number of members between them. I felt outnumbered and powerless after scanning the members list... it was not a dig at Erik. Again, apolgies for that. I really am not trying to be petulant about it, I am genuinely saddened and resigned to it -- it's not illegal, it's a free site generated in a free country, I'm going to ignore it as best i can.


no worries. i'm extremely concerned about the state of the world, and chess.com as a microcosm of it. that said, when put in the position of steward, choices become more difficult. do we ban people talking about smoking, for example? or if i personally think xyz is evil, do i then become the dictator to stomp it out? i can't do that, even if some of the things go against my personal belief system. it's painful to me. we live in a diverse world and there is good and bad with that. i sometimes wonder if my own country would be better or worse off if things like smoking, alcohol, pornography, etc (as examples) were banned. and then i think of countries that DO ban those things and the consequences of it (think iran?). i'll take freedom. some might choose differently.

:|

ozzie_c_cobblepot

That looks like a sideways Mr. Roboto smilie.

TheGrobe

If a decision can be explained it's not arbitrary.

Diabeditor

Some of the women here are better players than the men. This is true not only of this site, but in every OTB tournament I've ever played in, and I've played in my fair share since 1996.

The best player at chess.com is OccasionallyGood. She is my toughest challenge every time! She is superior to me in every way.

Sorry, I lost a bet so I had to say that :(

ozzie_c_cobblepot

paul211, it's worth noting that site administrators, site moderators, helpers, etc. are all humans and so a decision by one can be different than a decision by another.

DanielleSurferGirl

Just so everyone knows....

There seems to be a lot of comments about my bashing men, which I found really funny, since many did'nt even see the originall post. Obviously I can't re-post the original, but just so you know I did write in it that most people on here were very nice & the post was directed at the very few men & boys who felt it was okay to say anything to a woman just because we are online & not playing in person. it just had to do with the respect they should show us (& believe me the guilty ones were VERY graphic in they're talk). I have a very good sense of humor & know the difference between playful kidding & really really REALLY crude remarks. Hope that clears it up. -Dani

SchuBomb

so your post was deleted. boo hoo. It wasn't exactly about chess, now, was it? There's an off topic forum for a reason.

876543Z1

I wonder who will have the last word here the boys or the girls.

Note to self, in gender battles you may try and win arguments but the war continues.

Bajoran_Moon
DanielleSurferGirl wrote:

Just so everyone knows....

There seems to be a lot of comments about my bashing men, which I found really funny, since many did'nt even see the originall post. Obviously I can't re-post the original, but just so you know I did write in it that most people on here were very nice & the post was directed at the very few men & boys who felt it was okay to say anything to a woman just because we are online & not playing in person. it just had to do with the respect they should show us (& believe me the guilty ones were VERY graphic in they're talk). I have a very good sense of humor & know the difference between playful kidding & really really REALLY crude remarks. Hope that clears it up. -Dani


Just to back Dani up on this. I don't know where ther rumour that she was bashing men came from. I don't recall her bashing anyone. She made a list paraphrasing things men/boys on this sight have said to her and made it clear she and many other women on here aren't interested in hearing such things and we are not on this site to feed wayward fantasies. Then a male poster pointed out she may have cast too broad a net with her forum thread title being direct at "all men" -- Danielle then corrected that and made it clear she only meant a subset of the men on here not all of them... then people chimed in with their own opinions and statements. The OP did not bash anyone to my recollection.

876543Z1

putting the merits of the argument aside, my monies on the girls having the last word.

SchuBomb

Sure, they'll have the last word, but they'll just use it to nag or gossip or complain about their PMS or some crap. Amirite guys?

(I normally wouldn't have to say this, but on these forums, some unbending minds seem to take everything literally. I'M BEING FACETIOUS!)

ozzie_c_cobblepot

Facetious has all vowels, exactly once, in order.

Nytik
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

Facetious has all vowels, exactly once, in order.


As do abstemious and arsenious.

*Nytik's Daily Fact Will Return Tomorrow*