If letting the clock run out is OK, then it should not be considered shaming to call people out on h
Sort:
Zardorian
Sep 1, 2018
0
#1
If I’m playing a three minute game against someone and they let the clock run for the final two minutes, presumably because they’re upset with the move I just made, is that OK? For them to let me sit there for the final two minutes? If it’s OK, then it should be fine for me to name them on here every time it happens. It should not be considered shaming. I am playing people do it to me.
Sep 1, 2018
0
#2
For that final sentence, I meant to say I don’t mind if people do it to me. (That was voice dictation).
You are wrong
Sep 1, 2018
0
#6
How about, “Relax, they’re just getting named on the general forum. No big deal.”
How am I wrong?
How am I wrong?
Sep 1, 2018
0
#7
Wanmok All I am seeing in the rules is “Treat others with respect and expect the same!”
https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444774-what-are-the-rules-for-playing-
Can you show me the rules you’re referring to?
https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444774-what-are-the-rules-for-playing-
Can you show me the rules you’re referring to?
Sep 1, 2018
0
#10
Law 72.8 You can call people out on the d and f files, but never on the h.
Sep 1, 2018
0
#11
Save the sanctimony, Wanmo, It’s abusive when people make me sit there and wait for the clock to run out. Do you have a link to these rules you talk about?
chesstenor2018 wrote:
If I’m playing a three minute game against someone and they let the clock run for the final two minutes, presumably because they’re upset with the move I just made, is that OK? For them to let me sit there for the final two minutes? If it’s OK, then it should be fine for me to name them on here every time it happens. It should not be considered shaming. I am playing people do it to me.
The clock is considered part of the game of chess, for a player to use as they please. Is it annoying when your opponent lets their time run out instead of resigning? You betcha. Does it call for a witchhunt with torches, pitchforks, and public shaming? Absolutely not. You see, contrary to common belief, when you are "slandered", which is a stretch of a word to use in this situation, it does not give you a free ticket to slander them back.
What, EXACTLY, do you consider shaming to be if it is not publicly accusing a member of committing a breach of the rules? If you have a problem with a user, report them.
Sep 1, 2018
0
#14
You can run your mouth all you want and there’s no one stopping you. But sooner or later it will catch up to you and a mod will mute you (or perhaps ban you)
Sep 1, 2018
0
#15
He makes a compelling argument. If allowing your clock to run out is acceptable behavior then it must not be shaming to point it out. It would only be shaming if it were something bad
staples13 wrote:
He makes a compelling argument. If allowing your clock to run out is acceptable behavior then it must not be shaming to point it out. It would only be shaming if it were something bad
Come on, surely you've realized by now that the citizens of chess.com are not logical or intelligent. Simply because he "means no offence" (which I very highly doubt), doesn't mean others will not hunt the target. Best to deal with the "offender" anonymously.
Apples & Oranges. You could let the clock run out long before this site existed......but naming & shaming is still frowned upon.
good argument. you can avoid this by just resigning. of course, you have to sacrifice some points. but I'd rather lose points than time.
Sep 1, 2018
0
#19
William, If letting the clock run out is OK (as I stated in the title of this post), then calling someone out on doing it is not slander. If it makes you feel better, I can add “nobody breached any rules.”
WilliamShookspear wrote:
staples13 wrote:
He makes a compelling argument. If allowing your clock to run out is acceptable behavior then it must not be shaming to point it out. It would only be shaming if it were something bad
Come on, surely you've realized by now that the citizens of chess.com are not logical or intelligent. Simply because he "means no offence" (which I very highly doubt), doesn't mean others will not hunt the target. Best to deal with the "offender" anonymously.
^^^^^^^