Forums

what will chess.com be like in the future; an omimous warning about trolling

Sort:
thegreat_patzer

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/guys-its-time-for-some-troll-theory/521046/

 

this fine artlcle lays out the possibility even probability that chess.com will get more and more trolled.  why?

"“Very often, hate, anxiety, and anger drive participation with the platform,” said Frank Pasquale, a law professor at the University of Maryland, in the report. “Whatever behavior increases ad revenue will not only be permitted, but encouraged, excepting of course some egregious cases.”

 

basically ; increasingly. you are here Not to get taught or even to ask questions

 

but to either

*Be mad

*Get mad

*Be mean

*mock people

 

and one wonders, should I want to do that? is the forums already too toxic (NO)... but how much further before they ARE toxic.

 

I'm not sure how much more I should say.  but I'd be interested if they are others that think about when and if they are ready to disengage over the trolling.  and what yall think you SHOULD do about the very real possibility that future participants of chess.com will be meaner, gnarlier and trollier than they now.

 

*just don't personally attack people and/or specifically accuse people of trolling or I will have kick you out of the thread.

is that rant enough to get to the "hot topics" list?

GodsPawn2016

Lets bow to the allmighty dollar!

Bonsai_Dragon

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

GodsPawn2016
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

Ownership has to decide wether they want a clicks/dollars, or a decent site to play chess.  

Cherub_Enjel

I think the forums are not bad.

ClemsonTiger

I for one have grown more weary of the term "troll", than of the behavior which spawned said term. If i see posts of that kind in forums or wherever i simply ignore them. The only other word i hate more these days is selfie.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

Ownership has to decide wether they want a clicks/dollars, or a decent site to play chess.  

Businessmen, like Erik, didn't get into business for the chess lol happy.png

ArgoNavis

You misspelt "ominous". Your argument is invalid.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
thegreat_patzer wrote:

 

I'm not sure how much more I should say.  but I'd be interested if they are others that think about when and if they are ready to disengage over the trolling.  and what yall think you SHOULD do about the very real possibility that future participants of chess.com will be meaner, gnarlier and trollier than they now.

As the article said, it's just human nature. I think intellectually and emotionally most people aren't up for civil discourse. I mean, just look at our recent election. Were people debating policy and facts? Or was it like a high school popularity contest on a national scale?

If (or as it says when) the internet becomes toxic, then reasonable people wont participate, and it will be left to fester. That's my, I suppose pessimistic, opinion. There's nothing we can do about it, but also there's nothing that needs to be done.

GodsPawn2016
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

Ownership has to decide wether they want a clicks/dollars, or a decent site to play chess.  

Businessmen, like Erik, didn't get into business for the chess lol

Oh no doubt.  Erik is here to make money first and foremost.  Chess is secondary.  

ArgoNavis
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

Ownership has to decide wether they want a clicks/dollars, or a decent site to play chess.  

Businessmen, like Erik, didn't get into business for the chess lol

Oh no doubt.  Erik is here to make money first and foremost.  Chess is secondary.  

Thou shalt not take the name of Erik in vain

ANOK1

that would really mess up my income source , im about to release my latest novel "Erik the 99 year old virgin goes bangkok "

shellman211

[Political commentary removed - David]

Martin_Stahl
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
GodsPawn2016 wrote:
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

Increased activity = increased ad clicks. Increased ad clicks = Increased revenue. Trolls = Increased activity. HOWEVER there is an event horizon at which the number of trolls change the premise of the site and thus reduce membership and therefore, activity.

Ownership has to decide wether they want a clicks/dollars, or a decent site to play chess.  

Businessmen, like Erik, didn't get into business for the chess lol

Oh no doubt.  Erik is here to make money first and foremost.  Chess is secondary.  

 

There is more money in other endeavors than chess. Based on the bio he has out there, chess certainly was a passion and being able to turn it into a business (he had a chess business before chess.com too) and be successful, certainly counts for a lot. So, I seriously doubt it was about the money.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
Martin_Stahl wrote:
I seriously doubt it was about the money.

?

Didn't he get an MBA from some expensive college? He bought the domain for cheap and made a ton of money. Ok, so maybe he also likes chess. I don't understand why you would seriously doubt a businessman isn't in it for the money.

Cherub_Enjel

He obviously likes chess too, and he's a club level player.

But business cones first.

thegreat_patzer
ClemsonTiger wrote:

I for one have grown more weary of the term "troll", than of the behavior which spawned said term. If i see posts of that kind in forums or wherever i simply ignore them. The only other word i hate more these days is selfie.

I think the biggest problem with the word is that its misused

some people call their brand of humor "trolling"

but for most.  trolling is not about joking.  trolling is about getting people mad.

 

since its misused and usually said as a general insult; I understand the feeling.  on the other hand.  people DO act poorly online sometime and there needs to be a word for describing insults, mockery,etc.

RussBell

back on topic....

Trolls are like weeds.....weeds need water...without it they will die, dry up and wither away....

Trolls seek attention, they need someone to respond to them, if they don't get that, they will briefly say their piece and soon go away....

Solution....don't respond to a troll....at all....no matter how much you may be tempted to.....s/he will then dry up and wither away...

snakey77

I bet most of these trolls are admins under a sock puppet wanting to increase the ad revenue collected

Goram

may be real troll's does not exist,it's a term invented to promote what kind of posts are not encouraged.