Is it worth trying to discuss Chess on here anymore?

Sort:
VladimirHerceg91

Woah what happened here? 

 

VladimirHerceg91
batgirl wrote:
Caedrel wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
dariuscmk wrote:

You can block them out of your threads and delete their comments.

No, I think blocking is cowardly. 

Then you are choosing to NOT use one of the tools Chess.com provides for you to manage the content of your own threads. Seems similar to complaining about the police and society in general when you refuse to lock your front door and your house is robbed.

I tend to see this quite differently.  Personally, I feel no one should "own" a thread and once posted it should be communal property, not personal property.  Following that same reasoning,, blocking someone from posting in a thread shouldn't even be possible, let alone desirable.
I don't see blocking necessarily as cowardly, though it can be, but as potentially anti-intellectual as it allows someone to squelch dissenting opinions or even perspectives.   Getting rid or perceived trolls should fall on the moderators who are advancing the vision of the site, not on individual members who are advancing there own desires or agendas.

This is a great point Batgirl, thanks for sharing and I am in total agreement. It's good to have serious posters like you on the site. You actually give Chess, and the forums the respect they deserve. I haven't commented much on your posts, but I do read them. I have to say they're extremely interesting, keep up the good work! 

solskytz

A lot depends on HOW blocking is used. 

If it's used to block dissenting opinions / perspective - it's anti-intellectual. 

If it's used to block senseless personal attacks, unwarranted trolling, just plain nonsense or the like - it's more like a cleaning operation, and is much alike weeding out your garden. 

WeakChessPlayedSlow

I think any blocking is cowardly. Trolling, nonsense, and personal attacks are fun to face, at worst, you can just ignore them.

batgirl
solskytz wrote:

A lot depends on HOW blocking is used. 

If it's used to block dissenting opinions / perspective - it's anti-intellectual. 

If it's used to block senseless personal attacks, unwarranted trolling, just plain nonsense or the like - it's more like a cleaning operation, and is much alike weeding out your garden. 

Yes, blocking can be used for different reasons - over which no one has control.  That's one reason why I think individuals shouldn't have that ability. However, this doesn't mean I don't think trolls shouldn't be blocked; rather I don;t feel the OP owns a thread and therefore shouldn't be able to make that determination or take that action. 

RonaldJosephCote

     Post 296--300 is a perfect example. Chessknight779 should be blocked.  He joined 6 days ago. Is this what we're gonna see from him in all threads?meh.png

Bonsai_Dragon

If everybody just blocked everyone, I bet chess games would increase. js

Bonsai_Dragon

2Q1C wrote:

I only blocked bonsai and GP as a condition on being unmuted. You're all unblocked now dudes. Let's all unblock everyone and start a movement!

I still have you and your dad blocked, I was never muted. It'll stay as is.

GodsPawn2016
2Q1C wrote:

I only blocked bonsai and GP as a condition on being unmuted. You're all unblocked now dudes. Let's all unblock everyone and start a movement!

Thanks 2q...while i dont agree with much of what you post, and i believe you do have an alterior motive.  I do want to apologize for anything negative i directed at you.  

solskytz

<Batgirl> Well - we certainly differ on this. I'm really happy to be able to block people out of my threads. It's extremely rare that I have to do it - but it's good to have the ability. 

Most of the people I block, it's because I don't want to ever PLAY them again - because they stalled, disconnected in a losing position, were abusive in chat, played on and on and on in a dead R+2 vs. R+2 endgame with symmetrical pawn structures on the same side, you get the idea...

Blocking someone on a thread - maybe I did it three times since joining chess.com back in 2008...

Cherub_Enjel

Yeah, I said I'd never block anyone, but actually I've blocked some people for one purpose - so I don't play them again.

Usually it's people who just wait for the game to abort and stuff, or who'll take my challenges and purposefully not move, etc. out of spite.

solskytz

Right - you weed them out, then you no longer have to worry about them.

You remain with the more friendly people, those who can win or lose but still keep a playing attitude, those you exchange some words with without insulting or being insulted...

batgirl
solskytz wrote:

<Batgirl> Well - we certainly differ on this. I'm really happy to be able to block people out of my threads. It's extremely rare that I have to do it - but it's good to have the ability. 

Most of the people I block, it's because I don't want to ever PLAY them again - because they stalled, disconnected in a losing position, were abusive in chat, played on and on and on in a dead R+2 vs. R+2 endgame with symmetrical pawn structures on the same side, you get the idea...

Blocking someone on a thread - maybe I did it three times since joining chess.com back in 2008...

I'm only against blocking people on forum threads.  I don't feel the creator of a thread is the owner of said thread and therefore shouldn't be able to control who posts in it.   That just my personal feelings and I certainly respect right of everyone to hold differing opinions.  Blocking abusive or annoying players from contacting you or playing you is something else altogether.

RonaldJosephCote

  Wait,.....The site has a limit on blocking. I think its 200 or 250?  The philosophy behind that is, if you have to block 200 people,    the problem MAY be with YOU.surprise.png  OMG.

solskytz

<Ronald> I don't think I got as far as 200... but who knows?

In case there appear 200 players with a comparable rating to mine (so that I play them), and who then stall, disconnect or abuse - yes, I will reach that limit...

I want to enjoy my games and generally my time here, that's why I block those who won't allow any enjoyment because of their behavior.

RonaldJosephCote

    I'm thinking of "NewEngland7"  He wanted to block everybody. It was outrageous.  Do you remember "Connor".  He was funny.  He would block a lot of people,  then he would unblock them.  Then he would block a lot a month later,  then he would unblock LOL.

solskytz

Yeah, Connor was really funny... I wonder where he went...

RoobieRoo
yes claiming he was in love with a married women. Sado!
Pulpofeira
solskytz escribió:

Yeah, Connor was really funny... I wonder where he went...

He's a Highlander, nowhere to go.

LouStule
RonaldJosephCote wrote:

  Wait,.....The site has a limit on blocking. I think its 200 or 250?  The philosophy behind that is, if you have to block 200 people,    the problem MAY be with YOU.  OMG.

HeHe, Ya, like the guy who gets fired from every job he ever had because "The boss is a jerk" happy.png