Thread closed... - Chess Forums - Page 6

polydiatonic · 2010-01-28T16:07:14-08:00

Personally I find it annoying that the thought police here are so overly concerned with where threads should or shouldn't be located. It seems overly controlling to me. The other day I started a thread on whether or not computer chess ought to be considered cheating. It was doing pretty well

KATONAH

Mar 18, 2010

0

#101

What I find more distasteful is the "forum clique" here that think they are the moral ruler of all things chess.com.

Ziryab

Mar 18, 2010

0

#102

erik wrote:

i did all i could for costelus. i tried SOOO hard to work with him, including a personal phone call to him a few months back. but he can't stop whatever it is inside of him that makes him act the way he does. and frankly, i can't stand it anymore. if allowing him to act however he wants makes even 2 people leave the site, then we're going backwards. everyone on chess.com should be a positive influence on other people, not a negative one. and once somebody goes into "negative" mode where they are driving other people away, and can't turn it around after a few friendly and sincere messages, then what more can we do?

Consider temporary forum bans. If a member gets too far out of line with abusive comments, set it so that he or she cannot post in the forums for one month. Most people will reform after one ban. Repeat offenders, after perhaps three forum bans, can be ejected from the site.

orangehonda

Mar 19, 2010

0

#103

IMHO, the things people are complaining about are much easier to deal with than what you're going to run into in every day life. I mean, if this stuff bugs you enough to freak out about, I can't imagine you being able to hold down a job for longer than a week. "Life isn't perfect" or "Life isn't Fair" are phrases used in much more severe cases than when a moderator deletes a comment about cheating and moved it to the cheating forum or some such thing. And from what I've seen the staff actually seems pretty lenient.

On a side note it's funny when people invoke freedoms when they're only ever able to apply it to themselves. In America you're are also free to make a web site and moderate it however you see fit... it's your siteafter all. If Erik warned a thousand users for no reason, and then banned 2000 more for no reason, he's free to do that lol.

And that Erik even posts in the Forum explaining obvious things such as, we try to keep a fair line, you can't please people on both sides, we're only human and try to be fair etc... that's 1000% more than you're going to get from situations in day to day life -- what you're going to see most of is "tough, deal with it, we owe you noexplanation " that is when you get any sort of interaction at all. So seriously, huge props to Erik for all the times he's just chatted about what's going on, not down talking or giving copy and paste responses... that's some great customer service.

As for myself, overall I'm very pleased with the way this site is run. I may not be as emotionally invested or even as active in it as some, but I think the average user feels the same way.

tommynomad

Mar 19, 2010

0

#104

I love this site and I love order, so imo, keep the threads organised! If it inconveniences the odd user, so be it. And I agree with Orangehonda above, kudos to Erik for his explanations and efforts.

millvillage

Mar 19, 2010

0

#105

There are an incredible number of resources / links on this site.

If one thing bothers somebody, they should move on to the next topic.

This is a chess site. If folks are after "social justice" there are plenty of venues in other places.

CPawn

Mar 19, 2010

0

#106

polydiatonic wrote:

CPawn wrote:

polydiatonic wrote:

It seems to me that now that there's this "kids" chess.com thingy maybe the overlords here could mellow out on the moderation activities since the rational has been about how we have to keep it "clean" for the kids who come here.

Its more than just about the kids. There are members here that dont appreciate seeing posts that are in bad taste, disrespectful to others, or are just plain rude. It shouldnt be hard to have enough self control to come here, play chess, have a good time, and be respectful to others.

If you feel the uncontrollable need to act immature go to yahoo chess.

I am sick and tired of "yahoos" like you telling me and others, essentially: "america, love it leave it". You can stuff it buddy. We are at liberty to discuss and opine at our will and you can suck it up and deal with it.

My issue is with the "heavy handedness" and arbitrary nature of the censorhip of some of the staff.

You are correct. You are at liberty to discuss whatever you want. Just as i am at liberty to express my views on what you discuss, and just as the site is a liberty to enforce the TOS that you agreed to.

And again...if you didnt agree with the TOS for this site why did you sign up?

Also...what is it you would like to discuss on here that you cant? Im curious

NM TheOldReb

Mar 19, 2010

0

#107

Did y'all "lynch" costelus ?!

marvellosity

Mar 19, 2010

0

#108

tommynomad wrote:

I love order

You're wearing a hoodie AND a hat. Your statement is clearly false.

marvellosity

Mar 19, 2010

0

#109

erik wrote:

AfafBouardi wrote:

I feel bad for costelus. I think he was very emotionally invested in this site and I wish Erik had not said adios. Maybe there's more to it than this TOS thing. I don't really know.

i did all i could for costelus. i tried SOOO hard to work with him, including a personal phone call to him a few months back. but he can't stop whatever it is inside of him that makes him act the way he does. and frankly, i can't stand it anymore. if allowing him to act however he wants makes even 2 people leave the site, then we're going backwards. everyone on chess.com should be a positive influence on other people, not a negative one. and once somebody goes into "negative" mode where they are driving other people away, and can't turn it around after a few friendly and sincere messages, then what more can we do?

This is in no way an analogy to chess.com, but if one dude who believes in equality for man and woman drives away two people who believe women are inferior, then this is not a bad transaction.

i.e. there's a balance between quantity and quality.

KATONAH

Mar 19, 2010

0

#110

So many sycophants here I can barely see the forest for the trees!

Atos

Mar 19, 2010

0

#111

orangehonda wrote:

On a side note it's funny when people invoke freedoms when they're only ever able to apply it to themselves. In America you're are also free to make a web site and moderate it however you see fit... it's your siteafter all. If Erik warned a thousand users for no reason, and then banned 2000 more for no reason, he's free to do that lol.

Are you sure ? There is legislation that pertains to how websites are supposed to operate. I am not very familiar with it but I reckon that it's probably a little more complicated.

Atos

Mar 19, 2010

0

#112

erik wrote:

AfafBouardi wrote:

I feel bad for costelus. I think he was very emotionally invested in this site and I wish Erik had not said adios. Maybe there's more to it than this TOS thing. I don't really know.

i did all i could for costelus. i tried SOOO hard to work with him, including a personal phone call to him a few months back. but he can't stop whatever it is inside of him that makes him act the way he does. and frankly, i can't stand it anymore. if allowing him to act however he wants makes even 2 people leave the site, then we're going backwards.

Even if these two people are cheaters who leave because they get scared of being caught ?

Conflagration_Planet

Mar 19, 2010

0

#113

What's a "distracting" post?

xqsme

Mar 19, 2010

0

#114

Similar to detracting ?

an_arbitrary_name

Mar 19, 2010

0

#115

orangehonda wrote:

And that Erik even posts in the Forum explaining obvious things such as, we try to keep a fair line, you can't please people on both sides, we're only human and try to be fair etc... that's 1000% more than you're going to get from situations in day to day life -- what you're going to see most of is "tough, deal with it, we owe you noexplanation " that is when you get any sort of interaction at all.

I like all the Chess.com staff, but I do believe you're comitting the "because things are like X, X is morally acceptable" fallacy (or at least a version of it). When we're discussing ethical behaviour, it is irrelevant that cruelty (or whatever) can be found in life.

Also, I would guess you are right in saying that Erik could ban 2000 users for no reason, in the sense that there would be no legal consequences. But how is that relevant here? Morality is not about "what you can legally get away with". :)

polydiatonic

Mar 19, 2010

0

#116