No point in posting here
Sort:
Read again, if further confused on what some of the words mean tell me which ones and I'll try and explain.
We'll take your suggestion into account, have a nice day.
I won't say anything about the mods of chess.com because I would probably be banned. But I guess it's obvious whether they are doing a good job or not.
Feb 23, 2018
0
#6
Ant9x wrote:
Just had another message that I posted here removed by a MOD
I was really out of order asking why paying members get no support, when they suggest that they should be allowed to choose whom they play, instead of their accounts being restricted and points removed from their ratings for declining to play apparent cheaters.
Have the guts, manners and the honour to reply giving your reasons for lack of support and removing a comment from a PAYING MEMBER
Do you mean your post in the following topic? Post #11? Or did you post it somewhere else as well?
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/game-abandonment-2
h4_explosive wrote:
I won't say anything about the mods of chess.com because I would probably be banned. But I guess it's obvious whether they are doing a good job or not.
We do as much as we can, sometimes more. Thanks for your opinion, we don´t ban people for that.
Ant9x wrote:
Read again, if further confused on what some of the words mean tell me which ones and I'll try and explain.
You seem like someone who doesn't play well with others.
mecuelgalapieza wrote:
h4_explosive wrote:
I won't say anything about the mods of chess.com because I would probably be banned. But I guess it's obvious whether they are doing a good job or not.
We do as much as we can, sometimes more. Thanks for your opinion, we don´t ban people for that.
as far as I can see, there is a staff member of chess.com posting in this forum that is not particularly a fan of criticism and free speech 
Feb 25, 2018
0
#10
I'm not staff and I have no problem with free speech or criticism.
However, free speech only applies to governments restricing speech, not to private entities, such as chess.com, limiting what they are willing to host. There are posting rules here, and not that many even.
VintagePawn wrote:
I'm not staff and I have no problem with free speech or criticism.
However, free speech only applies to governments restricing speech, not to private entities, such as chess.com, limiting what they are willing to host. There are posting rules here, and not that many even.
I haven't violated any rules and still I was attacked by said staff member, just because he didn't like my profound criticism of chess.com. I know that you are not responsible for that, and you might probably do a good job yourself... just sayin
It appears members are not valued or supported on this site, which is very disappointing.
Ant9x wrote:
I think you need a Snickers bar, kid.
Just had another message that I posted here removed by a MOD
I was really out of order asking why paying members get no support, when they suggest that they should be allowed to choose whom they play, instead of their accounts being restricted and points removed from their ratings for declining to play apparent cheaters.
Have the guts, manners and the honour to reply giving your reasons for lack of support and removing a comment from a PAYING MEMBER
Just had another message that I posted here removed by a MOD
I was really out of order asking why paying members get no support, when they suggest that they should be allowed to choose whom they play, instead of their accounts being restricted and points removed from their ratings for declining to play apparent cheaters.
Have the guts, manners and the honour to reply giving your reasons for lack of support and removing a comment from a PAYING MEMBER