Please report abusive chat.
Note that action taken may not be visible to you. Depending on the circumstances, action might range from a friendly message providing guidance on what is considered acceptable behaviour, a formal warning, a short mute, a lengthy or permanent mute, or even a ban in extreme cases.
Please report abusive chat.
Note that action taken may not be visible to you. Depending on the circumstances, action might range from a friendly message providing guidance on what is considered acceptable behaviour, a formal warning, a short mute, a lengthy or permanent mute, or even a ban in extreme cases.
What about when a member makes a thread suggesting that another member "should kill himself"?
The fact that @pools2013 isn't banned yet proves that there is an acceptable amount of times that Chess.com will allow this behavior.
How many times is a Chess.com member allowed to tell other members to kill themselves before they get banned?
Please report abusive chat.
Note that action taken may not be visible to you. Depending on the circumstances, action might range from a friendly message providing guidance on what is considered acceptable behaviour, a formal warning, a short mute, a lengthy or permanent mute, or even a ban in extreme cases.
What about when a member makes a thread suggesting that another member "should kill himself"?
The fact that @pools2013 isn't banned yet proves that there is an acceptable amount of times that Chess.com will allow this behavior.
How many times is a Chess.com member allowed to tell other members to kill themselves before they get banned?
Support is unwilling to give me an answer to this question so maybe you could help us out and give an explanation?
@MGleason?
Look again. That thread is gone. And it has been for almost two weeks.
You can tell if someone is muted by checking to see if their content is all hidden.
Look again. That thread is gone. And it has been for almost two weeks.
You can tell if someone is muted by checking to see if their content is all hidden.
You need to look again and reread my first post because your response doesn't answer my question.
I already know the thread is gone. I was the one that reported it.
My question is:
How many times is a member allowed to to tell other members to kill themselves before Chess.com will bann them.
The fact that @pools2013 isn't banned yet proves that there is an acceptable amount of times that Chess.com will allow this behavior. So I'm gonna ask again.
How many times is a Chess.com member allowed to tell other members to kill themselves before they get banned?
Everything is handled on a case by case basis.
If you are highly abusive to other members, you are likely to get muted, and depending on the severity of the offence it may be a lengthy mute. Bans are only for cases that are particularly extreme or where repeated mutes have not solved the problem.
Additionally, we don't have a 5,000-page rulebook spelling out how every possible situation should be handled. Rather, we have general guidelines, and then mods and staff are supposed to apply those general guidelines to specific situations. Sometimes one person might make one decision and someone else might make a different decision, but we talk to each other and discuss cases where we're not sure, so we shouldn't generally be too far apart.
If you want to know how many times someone has to commit a particular infraction before getting a specific consequence - there isn't always a single, straightforward answer. Some things are so severe that they will lead to an immediate ban.
The goal, whenever possible, is to get someone to change their behaviour. A ban and a second chance account can be part of that, or a ban without a second chance can be a last resort for when all else fails.
How many times is a Chess.com member allowed to tell other members to kill themselves before they get banned?
If I were king for a day? Just once and they would be gone.
Everything is handled on a case by case basis...
...The goal, whenever possible, is to get someone to change their behaviour. A ban and a second chance account can be part of that, or a ban without a second chance can be a last resort for when all else fails.
@MGleason I always appreciate your measured responses to the users here, however I will stand with @Sir_TrashPanda on this one.
Suicide, the suggestion of suicide, bullying, dog-piling, etc. has gone too far in our world today. It is one thing to ask a person to cease using four language. It is something completely different to suggest that a person cease to use the words and phrases associated with self-harm or suicide. If that type of language is part of their vernacular, I don't think they should be part of a social experiment that requests them to adjust their behavior and language.
Totally unacceptable in my book.
I would like to see Chess.com adopt a Zero-Tolerance for these people, and that should be on Page-1 of the rule book, no matter the number of pages.
Personally, I don't really see the need for censorship, since it simply restricts access to information. I find that the problem lies not in what you learn, but how you apply it. We all have a desire to learn different things, to experience new aspects of life. I do not see how restricting some of these aspects is beneficial to that person. Perhaps there is a point I am missing here, but I do not see why it is necessary to restrict information, especially information that may be useful, or at the very least, is communal. I should also point out that I do not find this cause for disrespect, as this simply is destructive on a spiritual level and does not help anyone to learn anything that could be beneficial whatsoever.
Personally, I don't really see the need for censorship, since it simply restricts access to information. I find that the problem lies not in what you learn, but how you apply it. We all have a desire to learn different things, to experience new aspects of life. I do not see how restricting some of these aspects is beneficial to that person. Perhaps there is a point I am missing here, but I do not see why it is necessary to restrict information, especially information that may be useful, or at the very least, is communal. I should also point out that I do not find this cause for disrespect, as this simply is destructive on a spiritual level and does not help anyone to learn anything that could be beneficial whatsoever.
@DragonGamer231 I am with you when it comes to censoring books, information, access, and etc.
However, I think there are two users in this thread who expressed concerns that do not relate to censorship. One person was subjected to anti-Semitic comments, while another is dealing with subjects that suggested death by killing and/or suicide.
It is unfortunate that we have people in the chess community who want to come here and share those thoughts and beliefs under the banner of "free speech".
There is a time and place for these subjects, but at the end of the day, I do not believe that Chess.com users should be subjected to anti-Semitic comments or encourage to kill themselves or others.
Just my .02 cents. Your mileage may vary.
If you want to suggest changes in policy, I would recommend contacting the Support team. The Suggestion feature under the help menu can be used too, although that's intended more for suggestions about site features.
@MGleason and @squid, it's kinda hard to believe that any user would be asked to make a suggestion to Chess.com to limit the amount of anti-Semitic comments and suggestions for a child to commit suicide.
It is beyond my understanding how these comments can exist on an international platform that encourages players of all ages, genders, and religions to play chess – unless the purpose is to drive Jews and children away from this platform.
If a Forum Administrator, Moderator, or Volunteer must consult a policy manual to seek guidance on allowing the perpetration of anti-Semitic comments and suggested child suicide, then this entire platform is a disgrace to the chess community and the entire world.
If you want to suggest changes in policy, I would recommend contacting the Support team. The Suggestion feature under the help menu can be used too, although that's intended more for suggestions about site features.
Contacting support doesn't always work. Most of the time I receive vague evasive responses with a couple of insincere "I'm sorry this happened" apologies thrown in. This is the reason I finally asked this question publicly.
I appreciate your response. It was a lot more than I got from "support".
The thread I am referring to was directed towards me. So call me biased if you want. However I think @Boone2023 is right.
"Suicide, the suggestion of suicide, bullying, dog-piling, etc. has gone too far in our world today. It is one thing to ask a person to cease using four language. It is something completely different to suggest that a person cease to use the words and phrases associated with self-harm or suicide. If that type of language is part of their vernacular, I don't think they should be part of a social experiment that requests them to adjust their behavior and language."
The content from @pools2023 was not spur of the moment comments posted during a heated exchange. They were thought out targeted threads that had escalated over the course of 3 days.
One titled "Sir_TrashPanda is annoying".
One day later: "Who is the biggest douche bag of the forums" with Sir_TrashPanda as the first post.
Then the next day it was "Sir_TrashPanda should kill himself"
At the time the community had voiced their concerns about this member. (ignored by staff and mods)
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/petition-to-have-pools2013-banned
Thankfully after I reported the last thread directly to @Pianojames all 3 were removed. Kudos to the Piano Man.
@MGleason Is this really the type of member that Chess.com wants in their community?
"Totally unacceptable in my book.
I would like to see Chess.com adopt a Zero-Tolerance for these people, and that should be on Page-1 of the rule book, no matter the number of pages." - Boone2023
Adar Avisar, Lana Shelley, Haim Romano, feat. Guy Ron - Rise Up
https://youtu.be/Y7JNt42uovY?si=CY-BFBzRgfa1s60d
Personally, I don't really see the need for censorship, since it simply restricts access to information. I find that the problem lies not in what you learn, but how you apply it. We all have a desire to learn different things, to experience new aspects of life. I do not see how restricting some of these aspects is beneficial to that person. Perhaps there is a point I am missing here, but I do not see why it is necessary to restrict information, especially information that may be useful, or at the very least, is communal. I should also point out that I do not find this cause for disrespect, as this simply is destructive on a spiritual level and does not help anyone to learn anything that could be beneficial whatsoever.
Just one minor issue. Censorship on Chess.com is meant to reduce toxicity. When either a thread goes into a censored topic, it becomes a lot more toxic.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
.