Paranoia strikes deep . . .

Recently a member made a posting concerning a game he played in which he, with a reason, accused his opponent of cheating afterwhich his opponent denied the charge and resigned that game as well as another game they had just begun. The poster was remorseful about having accused his opponent without conclusive proof and wanted somehow to make amends.  That was the nature of the posting as I understood it. 

The thread was qickly locked along with the admonition that cheating has been discussed ad nauseum and, basically, it was in the best interest of chess.com not to discuss such things in the forums.  Along with giving a link to FAQs on cheating, it was added:  "it [cheating] has minimal impact on the site and shouldn't be a concern for 99.9% of players. Unfortunately, there is much more paranoia about the topic than it actually deserves."

Ok. While allowing that chess.com has the right to operate things as it sees fit and that postings on cheating do generate inordinate attention, I found this action inappropriate for several reasons.
First, the posting wasn't about cheating per se, but about the peril to one's sense of honor in hasty accusations of cheating (an angle I found somewhat fascinating), so the entire argument about this being one more thread about cheating was nonsense. Second, suppose the thread had been about cheating (a topic I am heartily tired of seeing), so what?  Does the admin plan of locking any thread whose topic it's tired of seeing?  Nonsense.  Third, the argument about the minimal impact is even more nonsensical, and, in fact, strikes me as self-delusional to express it with the hope that any clear-thinking individual will simply accept it. The paranoia seems more on the part of those who lock topics for no good reason.

PS. Please don't read any of this as a personal attack on any member of the admin, or on the admin as a whole, all of whom I have my greatest respect.  But this particular reaction was ill-concieved and it disturbed me enough to express my honest opinion.

I think what happens is a cycle... a catch 22, if you allow multiple forums about cheating, then more people will suspect it, which means more reporting, which means that more time is spent on fake cheaters vs. detecting the actual cheaters lol.  But there has to be a better way to control the dialogue than censoring it.

I happened to see the topic you were posting about right around the time it got locked. It really was about cheating, which is a broad issue. It was NOT about what constitutes cheating, etc. as has been developed ad nauseum. It was the other kind of way overdone cheating topic - someone accused the opponent of cheating, and posted some reasons as to why they thought so, and there was some question about what constitutes proof. The biggest problem I noticed was that the OP named the suspected cheater to the public at large. You bring up an interesting point in that (s)he said (s)he was sorry about that later, but then again, the accusing posts weren't edited to remove the name.

About the paranoia... I think that a lot of members are really paranoid, based on the threads that I'm reading where people think that cheating is going on in tons of cases, where quite usually the evidence is not very compelling, certainly not proving, and often it's pretty clear that there wasn't cheating. Having said that, I tend to think that it's a more frequent thing at top levels than staff really lets on, but there's really no way to prove this, there's no perfect solution, and even though it's going on some, it's not that much of a problem, and the vast majority of people will only be very rarely affected by it.

"The biggest problem I noticed was that the OP named the suspected cheater to the public at large."

He did??

I never saw that. Here's the thread.

I'm sorry, had this referenced thread half-confused with another.

The thread in question actually does seem to be a classic case of paranoia to me.

People are basically nuts. Never met anyone who was not a nut. No matter how wonderful their mind. The world is a huge nut house. Paranoia, pride, honour, envy, love, racism, fox news- nuts nuts nuts. Imagine the wardens of a nut house (who are also nuts) telling us that those inside are acting nuts. Would we be suprised? The best we can do when someone loses it is to remember our common bond of nuttiness, and give them a hug. Which is also a bit nuts. Like a zoo, or nut house, the gates are locked, someone else has a key and they wont be back for a long long time. . . .

whew ! you had me worry for a moment there, I thought you were talking about Dr_Doc_MD that creating paranoia to the community (he usually does but he pretty harmless though) ! so is he safe for now ?

Paranoia strikes deep . .

Considering the thread is not locked and no admonition appears, I would have to agree.

Well, gg, what policy does this thread violate that could warrant being locked? 

I have no idea. I honestly wouldn’t know what the policy of this site is except perhaps the no cheating policy but that’s hearsay.

I rarely read any eula or terms of service pages but I’ll take a look.

Hmm.. well, it appears that the thread doesn’t really have to violate anything-

“You acknowledge that Chess.com may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Chess.com and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, Chess.com and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable.”

 Basically, you are at chess.com’s mercy . This is quite normal.

 What I find  amusing is the appearance and disappearance of chunks of posts.  I would think that when a post is made with such conviction, it would be hard to have removed ( not that it was your intention to remove it) . However a word from the batgirl and it disappears.

It just reinforces the notion that superheroes have super influence.

“You acknowledge that Chess.com may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Chess.com and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, Chess.com and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable.”

As long as they recognize the fact that I [or anyone else] can, and will, go elsewhere, if treated in a way, at my sole discretion, I deem unwarranted, we have a mutually satifactory agreement that reinforces the notion that love is a two way street.

It just reinforces the notion that superheroes have super influence.

Maybe. I hope that's not the case.

Wandering. I assume you're thinking of that post where the guy accused another of cheating in like a 10 move game. Saying how all the moves were exactly what the engine played. Let me reiterate, it was a 10 move game.  That was pretty much definitive paranoia.

I read that thread, as well as the thread this thread was referencing, but neither of those were the thread I had in mind, which I'm not going to name here because it contains a direct accusation of cheating on a member (who hasn't been banned at this point, and who I don't have great reason to believe will be banned, though of course (s)he may be), something I don't want to bring back into the open.

The thread you linked us to isn't locked!??!??

Maybe gg was right about super-influence?  (and maybe that's what he was talking about?? )  shug...

There are so many threads on cheating that it's easy to get confused which thread is meant without a link which is why I belatedly and hesitantly provided one here. Politicalmusic feels the effect of so many threads is cumulative in the minds of forum-readers and maybe he has a point. I tend to think that over-kill has a numbing effect and peoples' eyes start glazing over with each new (c)posting, while at the same time such postings allow luft for some frustration. I agree with WanderingWinder that naming names is a dangerous, libelous and, possibly, insipid policy that should be avoided.  But let me reiterate that chess.com has every right, and in fact a duty, to proceed in whatever manner it feels is in the best interenst of its members.

so, what do I do if I feel like someone's cheating on me?

I could just be paranoid or what, but I really don't know what to do if this happens (though it never happened to me, I believe)

Correct me if I'm wrong but  I was under the impression that Chess.com has not forbidden the discussion of cheating but has merely limited it to a specific group, ironically called, "Cheating forum."  Perhaps this fascinating discussion could have been carried on there.

"Cheating forum."  Perhaps this fascinating discussion could have been carried on there.

Shrug . . . this thread isn't at all about cheating and I have no desire to talk about cheating either here or in some dedicated forum.