Is there any way to report a person who is abusing the chat when no mods are online?
I signed in today to see some messages that were beyond disrespectful and bordering on "You could get arrested for hate speech".
It seriously made me sick to my stomach to hear the things I did, and I feel we need some protection from the people who would act with such blatant disrespect, or at least some way to know that they won't get away with it.
Ignore option works for me.
Yeah, I am happy to minimize the chat window and use the ignore feature, but there is no way to minimize the chat window as a default.
I work at a school, and the first message I saw today when I signed into live chess was an absolutely disgusting one. I am not exaggerating when I say that if you said these things in public, you would get arrested.
yeah, it's really stupid. what are they getting out of it?
What's stupid is, why you're bothering to complain about it or even bother to write a post about it. People say things, some of them can't control themselves, others don't care, others are just mean, others have sharp tempers...
Ignore them, block them, or whatever... but wasting moderator's times and other people's time by making posts like this is BEYOND STUPID.
Try the report abuse link at the bottom of the screen. I don't know if the chats are logged or not (although I suspect they are, at least for a short period), but the staff will ultimately be able to hand out any consequences for such disrespectful behaviour if they deem it appropriate.
Its to bad when a game such as chess which is rich in history, honor, respect, and good manners is now falling victim to the "gangsta" crowd. You know...those young wannabe kids that think they are "hard".
But i guess even chess will end up a victim of society.
Whoa. I'm not stupid, and I'm not trying to waste anyone's time. I am trying to work with the staff and members of the site to develop a solution to what has been identified as a major problem.
I pay for the services on chess.com, and if I can't use the features because I feel threatened and because it could get me fired from my job to have those things on my computer screen, then I think that is not a waste of the moderator's time. In fact, I think dealing with those situations is what the moderators volunteered to do.
If adressing the issue just gets earns me more derision, then this really isn't the right site for me. I'm sorry you felt like your time was wasted, and I'm sorry you wasted your time trying to make me feel bad about it.
[EDIT] I had a paragraph about what I actually heard this afternoon, but I am posting with a hot-head. I've cut the offensive stuff out, and I'm just going to take a break for a while. I'm sorry I got so worked up and posted in such a state. It's not worth forcing the rest of you to read this junk.
The community is the thing that makes chess.com worthwhile. Like any community, we have some bad apples. Thank you, CRShelton, for helping to maintain the healthy community that we have by calling attention to those who do not treat this site with respect and decency. Please stay.
You can't please everyone, frequently when these claims of racism come up on the forums what was actually said is actually pretty tame and the problem is the hypersensitivity of some of the people who use the site.
I think we need a happy medium where we have people on each end of the scale not getting what they want. Real racists shouldn't get to tell us about it, and real pussies shouldn't get to make us all live in a happy bubble.
Or it was just a joke.
Try not to take it personal, you just can't stop hate in any forum. The best thing to do is ignore them, they probably don't even fully understand what they are saying anyway. If it helps, I sorry you had to hear that.
I don't see how the First Amendment applies here. Maybe because you live in Canada you were never taught the full extent of that law, but it does not mean that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it's basic law. Anybody who has ever been a student in the USA is aware of the limitations of the First Amendment.
The very article you linked does an excellent job of giving a history of how free speech has been limited to protect the citizens of our country.
In any case, you give up the right to say whatever you please when you agree to the Terms of Service on the site. I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the USA such contracts are legally binding.
What I heard today was not a joke. I can ignore a racist joke. This was hate speech in it's worst form.
I suggest that everyone who complains of content in a chat room familiarize themselves with the following words.
a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter
A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. ...
Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant; Pleasantly humorous, jocular
facetiously - not seriously; "I meant it facetiously"
References to the First Amendment are misguided. Did you even read the link? What section do you think applies to a website monitoring and filtering content?
I would think that the right thing for the site operators to do is to run a trained bot which recognizes a variety of things the mods deem to be inappropriate. There could be an elaborate warning system, points, or something else. It's pretty easy to make the penalty system only penalize the truly offensive people.
Ozzie, I did not really link that article as a serious rebuttal.
Alright Kupov, if you want to hear it. Tell me which one of those headings this falls under:
I hope all blacks and gays get AIDS and die a slow painful death
If I saw a man in a turban in my town, I would punch him in the face, douse him in gasoline, and light him on fire
I wish Hitler won the war
Those aren't anecdotes, they aren't satire, and the person writing them took great efforts to ensure us he wasn't being facetious.
This is also misguided. The issue is that mods will filter when they are on - but what should happen when they're not. The policy is clear. And clearly you do not understand it.
Then why don't you try adding to the conversation, instead of subracting.