samxyx wrote:
The real question is does chess.com have access to the chats after the game ends?
could you imagine how much time that would take to review every single chat message?????!!!!!
come on... be serious dude
What happens when you Report an Opponent?
Sort:
BoardMonkey wrote:
The_Krieg wrote:
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
What happens when you report an opponent?.......well, then they go on report of course. Unless the're already on triple secret probation,....then they REALLY go on report.
Seriously... what does that mean?
You have to see the movie Animal House to know what triple secret probation is. It just means it's your last chance after already being given two chances and you're being closely watched.
"Assume the position. SWAT!! Thank you sir may I have another?!" Also from Animal House. It's a very strange movie.
What is Animal House?
ninjaswat wrote:
Sometimes action is taken, sometimes a warning is given, and sometimes I’m wrong.
what percentage of the time do you think something is done by Chess.com when you Report?
1%?
.5%?
.25%?
.15%
.1%
0.005%?
Whatever algorithm Chess.com is using... it obviously isn't working.
So the question is... is the Report feature just like Blocking feature meaningless??? Have you ever tried to block an opponent only to see that opponent who was created within the last 30 days appear in Live Chess as your Opponent. Then when you try to abort the game, chess.com sends you to purgatory where it takes forever to generate games and you are limited to other players currently in purgatory.
speaking of purgatory... Does everyone know that Chess.com has a purgatory for players in Live Chess? It's a secret that isn't anywhere in the site or the site descriptions to members but it exists. Chess.com doesn't describe what triggers it or how you can get out of it, but it sometimes arbitrarily puts players there for attempting to avoid players when you don't want to play them online.
It's true. ask the mods.. chess purgatory is real on chess.com. no one knows about it... but call them out on it because it exists.
weiberrobert wrote:
Hola
sorry no habla
Mar 11, 2023
0
#28
The_Krieg wrote:
samxyx wrote:
The real question is does chess.com have access to the chats after the game ends?
could you imagine how much time that would take to review every single chat message?????!!!!!
come on... be serious dude
Well most reports are filed after a single game. Reading through the chats of a few games wouldn't be that difficult. How much are you really typing throughout the course of a game? Anyways I bring it up because if the chats don't get saved then there is no actual evidence for chess.com to go after. Just your word vs theirs.
I know some other sites restrict accounts based solely off of the number of total reports they receive about and individual in a given time period. No clue if that's how chess.com operates though. The few times I have had to submit a report on here I seem to remember getting messages stating that "chess.com took action" but they didn't say exactly what that action was.
samxyx wrote:
The_Krieg wrote:
samxyx wrote:
The real question is does chess.com have access to the chats after the game ends?
could you imagine how much time that would take to review every single chat message?????!!!!!
come on... be serious dude
Well most reports are filed after a single game. Reading through the chats of a few games wouldn't be that difficult. How much are you really typing throughout the course of a game? Anyways I bring it up because if the chats don't get saved then there is no actual evidence for chess.com to go after. Just your word vs theirs.
I know some other sites restrict accounts based solely off of the number of total reports they receive about and individual in a given time period. No clue if that's how chess.com operates though. The few times I have had to submit a report on here I seem to remember getting messages stating that "chess.com took action" but they didn't say exactly what that action was.
you need to review what you wrote
reviewing the chat from a single game is possible. However, multiply that by 10s of thousands of games. who has time to review that much chatting????? that is ludicrous.
so how is it done? an algorithm of catch phrases or language learning system that highlights certain phrases? even that is a waste of time. how often would it detect something? 2% 1%
standard detection rates in other forms is considered worthwhile at such levels... so does that mean that only 1% gets detected? or less? OMG right?
I seriously doubt that chess.com is detecting more than 2% of activity Reported because it can't
it simply doesn't have the resources. Do you think the mods are going to sit there reading everything??? come on. they block thread topics just because they think that it could lead to a discussion of certain topics. what makes you think that they are going to take the time to read everything that you or anyone else says in chat?
Besides... if you can type it shouldn't that in some way convey that it is permitted? many words and slang phrases are not allowed so there is a list of words that you cannot use and that are egregious. If you're being playful or competitive, then should you be punished because someone Reports that you're offending them?
Some people take offense that women are allowed to play chess.. did you know that???? did you know that in some parts of the world where there is a lot of sand that women are not allowed to play chess against men? its true. such "men" sit on chairs in the middle of a desert and complain about women or girls learning and playing chess. They are offended that chess.com even allows such girls and women to play chess online against each other and chat. they consider it offensive that our generation encourages females to play chess.
when these sand antagonists complain or Report female chess players for their very existence, is chess.com supposed to ban those females???? because it is sooooo offensive?
I have a friend a classmate and she was harrassed by guys from the places with a lot of sand who found her picture offensive as an avatar because she was wearing a mid cut shirt that showed her abdomen. She doesn't even live in the same country as them and they are sooooooo offended by it that they complained to the mods and guess what.... some actually agreed it was offensive. showing female abdominal muscles skin online is offensive to some... OMG. can you imagine? so offensive that they have to Report it.
truthfully, I doubt that Chess.com really does anything when there is a Report
less than 1% of activity Reported is addressed by Chess.com .. that is likely the answer
that is wholly unacceptable
The_Krieg wrote:
As a matter of fact, it seems like Reporting an Opponent on Chess.com is meaningless. That's not a good thing at all.
As it stands, I believe many members of our chess community are fed up with the lack of any real sense that Reporting an Opponent does anything. There is no evidence to the contrary.
If anyone has real numbers on this, then please share it with us because it is very important to the well being of our chess community. The current automatic reply format isn't working & it really just seems like nothing is done.
With the mass number of "daily use activity" (discussed in depth in my other thread topic), Chess.com likely uses an algorithm based program to siphon through the many Reports. However, what does that actually do?
Has anyone seen that it does anything? I believe it is doubtful and that it is merely a feature that is window dressing to be able to say that there is a Reporting feature but it doesn't really address anything that you raise. How could it? After all, there are likely so many different issues that are raised each minute or every second of the day.
Best thing to do is not take things to heart. especially on somewhere like this. Everyone just needs to grow up
What do you think, that they don’t do anything, that they are lying to you?
Are you trying to warn us about something?
Are you trying to warn us about something?
Mar 5, 2024
0
#33
They do absolutely nothing. It's purely algorithmically ran, and a weak one at that. With the few resources the site and its employees have, little to no reports are actually looked into by a person unless it flags the algorithm.
Mar 5, 2024
0
#34
For paying members, you only get more features to use to assist in your chess journey, but little to no protection from those who violate the Fairplay policy. Best way to look at it is mere training for OTB play, and accept that the site will not be successful in stopping Fairplay violators by any meaningful level despite them saying so.
Mar 5, 2024
0
#35
First opponent I played was a sandbagger, and then the second almost took a minute to make their first move. Here is what support did when I posted about this.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-is-going-on-with-this-server
Mar 5, 2024
0
#37
Art-of-War-TX wrote:
They do absolutely nothing. It's purely algorithmically ran, and a weak one at that. With the few resources the site and its employees have, little to no reports are actually looked into by a person unless it flags the algorithm.
That is incorrect. There are staff that handle abuse and fair play related reports.
Mar 5, 2024
0
#38
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Art-of-War-TX wrote:
They do absolutely nothing. It's purely algorithmically ran, and a weak one at that. With the few resources the site and its employees have, little to no reports are actually looked into by a person unless it flags the algorithm.
That is incorrect. There are staff that handle abuse and fair play related reports.
When I created this account, I am pretty sure I clicked beginner. With FIDE changing ratings from 1000 jumping to 1400 as the rating floor, does this mean people should be choosing intermediate who picked beginner before? If I had mistakenly left it at "New to Chess", would that have brought me down to 400 and less with 2 initial losses?
The first player I played was paired with a 300 during their first game, which would indicate to me that they started at "New to Chess" which doesn't jive with the way they played against me. I have moved up to 983 after beating players who are playing nowhere near this person who is almost now half my current rating. Something is fishy about it.
Mar 5, 2024
0
#39
UnreasonableReasons wrote:
When I created this account, I am pretty sure I clicked beginner. With FIDE changing ratings from 1000 jumping to 1400 as the rating floor, does this mean people should be choosing intermediate who picked beginner before? If I had mistakenly left it at "New to Chess", would that have brought me down to 400 and less with 2 initial losses?
The first player I played was paired with a 300 during their first game, which would indicate to me that they started at "New to Chess" which doesn't jive with the way they played against me. I have moved up to 983 after beating players who are playing nowhere near this person who is almost now half my current rating. Something is fishy about it.
No. FIDE and Chess.com rating pools are different and don't really have any impact on each other. Your rating here will be based on your performance within each rating pool.
There can be low rated players that have good games. If they have a lot of good games their rating will increase. I played an OTB event as a 1500 rated player against an opponent rated 660. Up until move 20, the game was essentially dead even; low rated players can play good chess but may not be consistent.
Mar 5, 2024
0
#40
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Art-of-War-TX wrote:
They do absolutely nothing. It's purely algorithmically ran, and a weak one at that. With the few resources the site and its employees have, little to no reports are actually looked into by a person unless it flags the algorithm.
That is incorrect. There are staff that handle abuse and fair play related reports.
Obviously not enough to make a difference. With current staffing levels it's a logistical impossibility to look into the number of reports submitted daily, whether they're valid cases or not.
Most of us have accepted that paying for services is ONLY about additional features, and little to nothing allocated to fairplay enforcement for the vast majority of users.
We wish you luck, but for obvious reasons staffing doesn't enjoy our full confidence.
If the answer is nothing at all, then why does Chess.com have a report feature???
That's not the answer. Reports get investigated and results depend on what is found.
Really? Is that a true statement?
Think about it everyone... there has been an exponential increase in daily user activity on chess.com right? thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new accounts generated out of the blue by "interested" people who suddenly were compelled to create accounts because some unknown or unnamed something compelled them to do so...
Let's say out of those numbers, 5% are aggrieved by something. That would be tens of thousands of Reports... Let's say a Report takes roughly 1-3 minutes to review and investigate. That's a ton of time and effort. Thats a ton of resources! OMG... it would become overwhelming!! so fast.... so hard... mindbogglingly
it would truly become a bigly problem faster than you could mispronounce the word Chyna. but i digress...
given the shear volume, it is perceivably impossible for chess.com and its mods to effectively address the Reports. That is likely the reason why it feels like nothing is being done.
That is the reason why I proposed that Chess.com should enable our chess community members to filter out accounts that have been created within the last 30 days! By creating a simple toggle switch in Settings, known human members of Chess.com who have been playing here for years and titled players as well as expert level players can toggle the selector to filter out newly created accounts (generated within the last 30 days)
Most of the problems are created by accounts generated within the last 30 days. Upwards of 97% of the Reports are likely generated because of accounts that were newly created. Why? Well, you would have to ask Chess.com that question, but I have my suspicions but I rather not go down that rabbit hole.
By allowing titled and expert level players to filter out accounts that were newly created, it would relieve the stress on the overall Chess.com ecosystem in Live Chess by:
1) reducing the overall number of Reports
2) reducing the time necessary to review such Reports
3) reducing the time necessary to take action on such Reports
4) decrease the frustration level of those filing the Reports against such newly created accounts
5) increase both user satisfaction as well as mod daily duty loads immensely
I encourage chess.com to consider my words carefully & to follow my suggestions. It will improve chess.com and the user experience. it will also result in less server capacity issues & in turn less overall system crashes
5% is too high.
Anyway, I was reported recently and muted, so they do work.
your example is anecdotal ... you represent the mere .5% that is addressed. what if that is the case? then what?