krapp wrote:
Your very name is an incitement. No doubt you gesticulate with thesbians in public.
Automatic kick from Live chess
Sort:
krapp wrote:
I understand that this is a family site and that bad language has to be controlled somehow. But what excuse is there besides laziness or indifference for not making an optional filter for users who want to speak (and be spoken to) naturally with an acquaintance (or stranger)? Do the site's owners object to customizability and free communication between consenting individuals? Or is it just easier not to care?
The most discouraging comment in this whole discussion (and which sheds light on the preceding paragraph) is Erik's conclusion: "It's my site, so I make the rules." Erik, that's the same kind of short-sighted solipsism that ruins so many other sites: a founder who refuses to soften his grip on the project and ends up only pleasing himself. For the good of the site, try to think of us (Chess.com users) as members of a community and not just grateful visitors to "your site."
A dictatorship is much more efficient than a democracy;)
Nov 2, 2009
0
#64
I think that the following quote from a user's post 'says it all'.
"I understand that this is a family site and that bad language has to be controlled somehow."
The decision on precisely "somehow" to control language rests solely with the site owner who, most likely, has consulted with several others of his staff before making any decisions on exactly what sort of penalties to exact on violators of the standards established and clearly stated in the terms of service.
Holding users accountable for their actions seems to be a trait that isn't well liked - by a few who, for their own reasons, want to continue to argue against intelligent application of good sense, common decency, and reasonable respect for other folks of all ages.
In contrast to that user, who went on to denigrate Erik for having and holding to decency standards, reading the comments posted here, it is easy to conclude that most users are in favor of removing objectionable chat, and removing those who insist on exposing the entire population to their vulgar/rude rants.
Keep up the good work Erik.
Use the language found in Chess books and related materials. It's so easy to follow a system of decorum around Chess. What's so hard about that?
you have to remember though that it is a computer that is preprogrammed and it is not a human. so a computer it can't tell if you said it in a sort of kind way as it just recognizes it as a load of numbers so the quicker we make an A I computer then the quicker chess.com will become more developed
I agree with Erik's approach on several fronts. The first being as owner he chooses what type of site he wants and also feels will be most commercial. Also people seem to be forgetting this is a chess site. The objective is to play chess. I doubt many people would say things if their opponent was OTB. I think it is a good sign that they are taking language and spamming more serious. It will make the site a better site for chess.
Thank you Erik!
Nov 2, 2009
0
#68
I'm a HUGE proponent of Free Speech, as well as Freedom of Speech. This issue doesn't encroach in the least upon that civil liberty. Hearing crass language doesn't bother me, but, to be honest, is does lower the establishment that allows it to the level of the least common denominator. Since it bothers some people, and since many parents prefer to shield their children from the attitude that such things are publicly appropriate, NOT to disallow crass language, to me, would be irresponsible and, in itself, inappropriate. One can communicate just as easily using commonly, and locally, acceptable words, so absolutely nothing is lost by disallowing a certain few words.
See what happens when parents no longer wash their kids mouths out with soap ?!! 
Erik, I have absolutely no objection to using filters (and in fact the foul language was one of my main complaints in the previous live chess). I am however very curious how can you implement an efficient filter. I mean, besides known words, how do you take into account intentional doubling of the letter, spaces between the letters or "innocent" phrases like "go duck yourself"?
Nov 2, 2009
0
#71
costelus wrote:
Erik, I have absolutely no objection to using filters (and in fact the foul language was one of my main complaints in the previous live chess). I am however very curious how can you implement an efficient filter. I mean, besides known words, how do you take into account intentional doubling of the letter, spaces between the letters or "innocent" phrases like "go duck yourself"?
you can't. it's the same effect though as what was experienced in new york city over the last several years: when they cracked down on small crimes like graffiti and people jumping turnstiles, overall crime went down - including larger crimes.
krapp wrote:
I understand that this is a family site and that bad language has to be controlled somehow. But what excuse is there besides laziness or indifference for not making an optional filter for users who want to speak (and be spoken to) naturally with an acquaintance (or stranger)? Do the site's owners object to customizability and free communication between consenting individuals? Or is it just easier not to care?
The most discouraging comment in this whole discussion (and which sheds light on the preceding paragraph) is Erik's conclusion: "It's my site, so I make the rules." Erik, that's the same kind of short-sighted solipsism that ruins so many other sites: a founder who refuses to soften his grip on the project and ends up only pleasing himself. For the good of the site, try to think of us (Chess.com users) as members of a community and not just grateful visitors to "your site."
Again...when you joined this site there were rules you agreed to. If you dont like those rules then you have the ability to leave and go somewhere else. What i absolutely dont understand is why so many "must" cuss when typinig. I can understand blurting something out due to anger, stress, or hitting your thumb with a hammer. But taking the time to type out a cuss word when there are so many other words that work just as well is inexcusable.
CPawn wrote:
krapp wrote:
I understand that this is a family site and that bad language has to be controlled somehow. But what excuse is there besides laziness or indifference for not making an optional filter for users who want to speak (and be spoken to) naturally with an acquaintance (or stranger)? Do the site's owners object to customizability and free communication between consenting individuals? Or is it just easier not to care?
The most discouraging comment in this whole discussion (and which sheds light on the preceding paragraph) is Erik's conclusion: "It's my site, so I make the rules." Erik, that's the same kind of short-sighted solipsism that ruins so many other sites: a founder who refuses to soften his grip on the project and ends up only pleasing himself. For the good of the site, try to think of us (Chess.com users) as members of a community and not just grateful visitors to "your site."
Again...when you joined this site there were rules you agreed to. If you dont like those rules then you have the ability to leave and go somewhere else. What i absolutely dont understand is why so many "must" cuss when typinig. I can understand blurting something out due to anger, stress, or hitting your thumb with a hammer. But taking the time to type out a cuss word when there are so many other words that work just as well is inexcusable.
I've been accused of swearing like a sailor. I'm with CPawn on this one. There is something grating about seeing cuss words written on a computer screen. It is wholly different from the spoken word.
Nov 2, 2009
0
#75
This was posted on a new thread by Dr_Doc_MD and moved over to here.
Dr_Doc_MD said;
I severely object to the censorship in Live Chess - the automatic bans despite context, etc. However, there are also people who strongly support such censorship - and both sides of this issue must be respected equally.
Let's look at this from a business perspective: Erik wants to run chess.com as a clean site, but he must also remember that placing an extreme measure may reduce membership and business. It is clear that many members object censorship and would therefore shy away from chess.com to places where they have more freedom to chat however they like. Others would leave chess.com if it became a relatively dirty and unmoderated site.
So, how about we create a chess.com survey addressing this problem and ask the following question:
What is your opinion of chat moderation on chess.com (Live Chess and forums)?
Choices: A) Far too much - abolish it
B) A lot - decrease the moderation
C) Normal - leave it as is
D) Not enough - increase the moderation
E) Far too little - significantly increase moderation
If the sum of percentages voting for A + B is more than C + D + E, then it is clear that the majority prefer less moderation, and if C + D + E is more than than A + B, then more moderation is preferable. If A + B = C + D + E, then we simply leave everything.
Now, a couple of questions come to mind:
1) What if very few people vote? If there are less than 1000 votes, we could discard the survey and either conduct it another time or leave everything as it is.
2) How does such a majority vote relate to business? If the majority of people are satisfied, then they will more likely stay and possibly even invite other people. This is good for business.
So, the conclusion: it is best to try to satisfy the majority of people. Of course, this is doable without going to extremes - if more people want less moderation, then decrease it slightly (not significantly). It will be a positive business choice. And if more people want more moderation, then increase it slightly (not significantly). Likewise, a positive business choice.
It is certainly possible to keep the integrity and values of this site while keeping a majority of people happier and thus more prone to keeping chess.com's business
Nov 2, 2009
0
#76
I wonder if saying "Scunthorpe" (a town in the North of England) could elicit a ban. Or is it just the beginning of words. Perhaps if I mistype country and forget the O?
Of course, it should be noted that not everyone on this site is from the US and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Australian and English view of our "common" language just ain't the same as the American.
Tourism Australia had an ad with a girl on the beach (Lara Bingle for those who care) saying "where the bloody hell are ya", meaning why haven't you come to Australia yet.
Nothing wrong with that we all thought.
Not so. The advertising standards guys in the UK banned the ad. No one saw that coming.
Good job the Irish guy a I work with who uses four letter words as punctuation doesn't come here. He'd never complete a game.
So why not let the reader report it if they're offended, or replace the offending letters with * so the the writer can understand and learn the policy.
Nov 2, 2009
0
#77
it's NOT a business decision - it's a personal, societal, and ethical decision. my values aren't derived from surveys. i value educated, classy language and behavior - especially in public environments with different levels of sensitivities. speak how you like in your house, but this is my house (and it has to be someone's....), so i have to make the rules, and i try to do that as a good steward of this opportunity i have been given as the head-honcho of chess.com. but i realize i can't make everyone happy. bummer.
No because that house doesn't belong to him. Duh.
Well okay, but maybe chess.com is a hotel and he's renting some rooms out. He still sets the standard in the lobby and nothing too crazy can go on in the rooms but if I want to cuss and shout in my room I can.
Nov 2, 2009
0
#80
The typical approach other places take to moderating private messages or private chat is to empower users with tools for which they can help themselves, but to not explicitly regulate private chat.
One can imagine a sanction on a user such that they cannot send any private messages at all, for a period of time.
One can imagine a filter-level variable where all users can set it to whatever they want (a la Google), with some default value.
It's tough for me to imagine that I might receive a redacted version of a private communication, unless I specifically expect this due to my variable settings.
What do y'all think?
I understand that this is a family site and that bad language has to be controlled somehow. But what excuse is there besides laziness or indifference for not making an optional filter for users who want to speak (and be spoken to) naturally with an acquaintance (or stranger)? Do the site's owners object to customizability and free communication between consenting individuals? Or is it just easier not to care?
The most discouraging comment in this whole discussion (and which sheds light on the preceding paragraph) is Erik's conclusion: "It's my site, so I make the rules." Erik, that's the same kind of short-sighted solipsism that ruins so many other sites: a founder who refuses to soften his grip on the project and ends up only pleasing himself. For the good of the site, try to think of us (Chess.com users) as members of a community and not just grateful visitors to "your site."