" I don't know how you'd effectively screen people...."
With blackjacks to the head and kicks to the groin.
Honor System
Sort:
I dont have any problems in my games
I cant remember. Why is it they dont make a system where you can give a quick thumbs up or down to an opponent after a game. A thumbs up will give you honor points and a thumbs down will cost you points. The more honor points you have, the more weight your thumbs will have. If you loose too many points your account gets blocked for a while and if it continues you get your account deleted.
There's a (good) reason they call it circle jerks.
Settle for forming a "group," and get on with it. Yawn.
bukerchi wrote:
'
An honor system can be enforced.
Isn't a forced honor system an oxymoron?
batgirl wrote:
bukerchi wrote:
'
An honor system can be enforced.
Isn't a force
if you dont like people trash talking on the internet, then log of your compueter
Sounds like an oxymoron, but actually honor systems have featured both. West Point, for example, requires all cadets adhere to an honor system. If the honor code is violated there are harsh consequences. Many years ago some cadet athletes cheated on a test and when caught were dismissed from the academy. My home town university (U of Kansas) enrolled one of those West Pointers (Gill Reich) who starred in football and basketball.
That's not an enforced honor system, but a rules/punishment system. You break the rules, you get punished. I think maybe there's a different between an honor system and a code of honor.
Yeah, honour in that context is just the rationale for the rule, not the means of enacting it.
TheGrobe wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
bukerchi wrote:
Gold Star members pledge:
No Cheating, no trash talking, no intentional disconnects, accept a rematch or state why unable to do so. No running out the clock.
Let's see, a Johns Hopkins study of high school teens who signed a "virginity" pledge found identical rates of sex among the signers as among the non-signers (except those who signed were less likely to use contraception).
Sure, set up an honor pledge. Especially the part about people being required to give a reason to decline a rematch. What could possibly go wrong?
There used to exist a community here that attempted exactly this. It was a group called "Circle of Trust - Over the Board" and members added (CoT-OTB) to their names on their profiles so they could easily identify each other:
http://www.chess.com/groups/view/circle-of-trust-otb
I don't know if they're still active, but it could easily could be done again with a group and doesn't require a change to the site or any permission from the site administration.
To Cystem_Phailure's point, though, I'll warn that the group was pretty thoroughly infiltrated by cheaters, and a number of their members ended up getting their accounts closed as they were caught. I don't know how you'd effectively screen people....
Yeah, that gentleman dude, who got banned for cheating, started it.
Honour amongst sockpuppets? I like that idea.
I like the idea of a group.
I'd join, I think.
(Hope that would not put off too many others. :( )
Or, after you get a sense of how it actually works in practice, The Lesion of Honour.
Now we are getting somewhere.....an Honor Legion...
bukerchi wrote:
I'd like to see an 'honor system' members could join. Members take a pledge. Upon taking the pledge the member receives an icon by their name.....a blue star, or...? All Blue Star members promise to play using the rules of the pledge.
Gold Star members pledge:
No Cheating, no trash talking, no intentional disconnects, accept a rematch or state why unable to do so. No running out the clock.
There are probably more principles....ideas?
Perhaps the 'Blue Star' members could have special tournaments....perhaps some exclusive benefits
To play witho
No one needs to say why they don't accept a rematch. This gets old after awhile.
Of course there is no need to accept. Only those who volunteer to play by a code would do so. This is really aimed at "White Only" players who win playing white and then run.
Oraoradeki wrote:
Just like they identify FIDE titled players, I think we should adopt a name verification, i.e. in order to create an account here, you have to give your real name.
I believe anonymity causes dishonorable acts. Would you let the clock run out when you are in a losing position in an OTB game?
I would, and have, when I am in time trouble and don't have time to stop the clock.
bukerchi wrote:
Of course there is no need to accept. Only those who volunteer to play by a code would do so. This is really aimed at "White Only" players who win playing white and then run.
There's no fall from grace for those who "run" after having won with White. Some people just like to play a game and call it a day. They are unconcerned with those who feel they should have a right to attempt to settle the "score," recognizing that the opponent's feelings over losing are hardly relevant. I just think such considerations have nothing to do with honor.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Gold Star members pledge:
No Cheating, no trash talking, no intentional disconnects, accept a rematch or state why unable to do so. No running out the clock.
Let's see, a Johns Hopkins study of high school teens who signed a "virginity" pledge found identical rates of sex among the signers as among the non-signers (except those who signed were less likely to use contraception).
Sure, set up an honor pledge. Especially the part about people being required to give a reason to decline a rematch. What could possibly go wrong?
There used to exist a community here that attempted exactly this. It was a group called "Circle of Trust - Over the Board" and members added (CoT-OTB) to their names on their profiles so they could easily identify each other:
http://www.chess.com/groups/view/circle-of-trust-otb
I don't know if they're still active, but it could easily could be done again with a group and doesn't require a change to the site or any permission from the site administration.
To Cystem_Phailure's point, though, I'll warn that the group was pretty thoroughly infiltrated by cheaters, and a number of their members ended up getting their accounts closed as they were caught. I don't know how you'd effectively screen people....