Maybe there is too much 'discretion' being exercised in an attempt to increase the number of people on the site.
I would prefer far less tolerance. The rules are clear. Making racist comments is obviously unacceptable - that one doesn't even require taking a look at the rules page.
Time for the site staff to step up to the plate and make it easier/faster/more common for abusers to be banned!
at the end of the day, who cares, and if you do care,then why do you care? racist people exist, so do rude people. live and let live.
Well, on the one hand, I agree with JonnyJupiter that the world is becoming ludicrously "PC".
Now, having an understanding of psychology, most people who write or say these types of things do so because of the "reaction value". They're looking for people to make a big buzz about it because it makes them feel powerful. They can sit back and laugh and they think to themselves, wow, my one comment sparked 8 pages of replies (or whatever). That's why, in some places ignoring it gets it to stop...however, there are always going to be new people who "test the water", so ignoring it and hoping it goes away is, in my opinion, clearly not a viable long-term solution.
Now, as far as Kupov's comments that just because it's being said on the internet and not in a "respected public forum" makes it somehow better, I personally find that logic incredulous. Honestly, how many people go to public forums anymore? When was the last time anyone here actually went to a public forum? The truth is that the internet is our primary media and communication source of our era. Far MORE people are going to communicate, share thoughts and ideas and formulate opinions based on what they read online.
While I agree that the world is becoming very hypersensitive and certain things can be taken too far or out line, wishing death upon anyone, as far as I am concerned, is not funny or a joke. And it's very offensive.
From my experience the chess.com staff seems to be very good at dealing with situations like these and I'm sure that they will have a viable long-term solution in place before too long. But, they cant fix things if they don't know that they are broken, so, my kudos to CRShelton for bringing this up. And I respect and applaud the neutral-mannered approach that he worked so hard to maintain, despite all of the people going off-topic and not really helping the situation.
Am I curious about one thing though, Kupov has stated that the comments in question were meant as a joke and that he refuses to believe that they were made seriously. How could anyone possibly come to this conclusion unless: A) They actually know the person who made the comments, or B) They are the person who made the comments. As an outside party I have absolutely no way of knowing what another person is thinking in their head. The only thing that I have to go on is the printed communication which they use. And, to be completely respectful to the other person and not discredit them completely, I must therefore also assume that the person is completely serious in whatever they write, otherwise they would have said that they were kidding or not bothered writing it at all. I think, sadly, that some people like to just convince themselves that everything is "a joke" so that they don't have to take things seriously or deal with the situation.
There is a lot of talk about free speech in this thread as well. I am all for free speech and the freedom of speech. I have no doubt that some of my own personal viewpoints people will find offensive or, at the very least, engage in a heated discussion supporting the opposite view. And that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions. However, this is CHESS.COM, not "saywhateveriwanttotrytopisspeopleoffandmakeascene.com". Topics discussed here should be chess-related or kept private, out of public view. If I "wanted" to read posts about Hitler, then I would go to Nazi.com. I'm Chess.com, so I am expecting to read posts about...god forbid, CHESS. Secondly, as was already pointed out, Chess.com is NOT a democracy. They have a "Terms and agreement" policy, which we all agreed to when we created our accounts here. The specific terms of this policy give chess.com the power and ability to override the "freedom of speech" act legally, and we all agree to it.
I direct your attention here: www.chess.com/legal.html
"Interacting with Members
Chess.com is a safe place for people to come and enjoy. There should be no abusive language, personal attacks, threats, or any other unkind behavior."
Weather or not the comments are "offensive" or not is up to personal taste, but they are definitely, at the very least, "unkind", and therefore constitute a breach in the site's policy and should not be tolerated by anyone. Simply ignoring the problem encourages this type of behavior.
"Keep It Clean
You may not post any offensive content on Chess.com including your username, avatar, or personal description. You may not add any offensive comments or other content. Here is an example list of what is considered offensive: swearing, sexual talk, toilet humor, name-calling, and spamming. Chess.com also does not allow political or religious debate in the forums. "
Again, as above, I would argue that the comments in question violate this section of the site's rules as well.
"Terms of Service
Put simply: respect others, respect the law, and enjoy yourself! "
...and I certainly fail to see how the comments made respect anyone. It certainly doesn't respect "gays" or "blacks" or "Arabs" or "Jews" to say the least.
"Member Conduct
You agree to not use the Service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"
....otherwise objectionable...I think that would definitely apply here.
As to weather or not you personally agree or disagree with the comments posted, the fact of the matter is that, for THIS site they are completely out of line and should not be tolerated.
My personal recommendation to the staff, if they uncover who made the comments, is to ban the member permanently. ...but that's just my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, (again my opinion here)...if people are "offended by censorship" or want to invoke their "rights of speech" and they aren't going to take the chess.com terms of service seriously, please leave. I'd like to think that we're all adult enough and mature enough to keep our comments on this site restricted to chess-related topics.
And for those of you who think that words aren't powerful or motivating, something that is said can hurt and scar emotionally far more deeply and for much longer than any physical abuse can ever do. Try actually reading a psychology book or two. Emotional abuse cuts to the bone.
Amazing how many posters in this thread just don't get it.
Roger that. Any community that does not punish bad behavior will wind up with bad behavior as the norm. Those who don't like the behavior will wind up leaving and the site will be much the worse for it.
That would be a shame since chess.com is generally a pretty friendly and inviting place to hang out.
These arguments are pretty hollow:
"The world is too PC"
"Some people are obnoxious, deal with it"
"It wasn't intended the way you're taking it"
"Stop being so sensitive"
"The problem is too difficult, so we shouldn't try to solve it"
"This is the internet. People are going to be obnoxious."
"People have a right to say what they want (First Amendment!)"
They're hollow, because they don't address where the line should be drawn. They just say "the line should be drawn further in this direction". The thing is, people are good at relative judgements, good at comparing. People are bad at absolute judgements. It's easy to say "the world is too PC". It's a lot more difficult to say "of all the potentially objectionable content, I draw the line exactly here, to account for all of the points made above"
To be clear - it's not that I disagree with the ideas I wrote above. It's that they don't make any sense without context. I agree that we (the site) shouldn't restrict all potentially objectionable content. But the people on the other side of the discussion don't propose where the line should be - they're just kibitzing.
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.
I really hope this does not come accross as rude, as that is not its intention.
This is the internet people will say really retarded and really hateful stupid whatever all the time. I dont know how long you have been using the internet but I work in the IT field so i have been around it a long time. Basically I am saying you should not get offended so much by something you see written online. its a proven fact people think they are faceless on the internet so they will say all sorts of crazy things.
Kupov is 17 years old, according to his profile. So, why is anyone arguing with him?
The ugly remarks that CRShelton has noted above have no place here and should earn the offenders an exit from the site. I assume by now that the staff here are aware of the matter and that they can be trusted to act.
Neil
So, because Kupov is 17 years old, his ideas are worthless? At what age do your ideas gain value? I'm now 34, and I think I was sharper when I was 17.
These arguments are pretty hollow:
To be clear - it's not that I disagree with the ideas I wrote above. It's that they don't make any sense without context. I agree that we (the site) shouldn't restrict all potentially objectionable content. But the people on the other side of the discussion don't propose where the line should be - they're just kibitzing.
but, Ozzie, to take the devil's advocate side of this for a second;
A "lost game" could be termed "hollow"
a. Taking a lost game (hollow argument) and turning it into a win by swindling your opponent is typical behavior for chess players.
and:
b. Isn't kibitzing what chessplayers excel at and aren't they just exercising their best efforts in the only way they know - to kibitz ?
now, if only they would all turn their minds to self-improvement and achieving either better grades (if in school) or higher chess skills from study and leanring - or to get higher pay (if in the working class), and not to attempting to take over the chat in live chess main chat room......
and No, I do not agree with those who advocate total anarchy in the public chat room. just thought to post a rhetorical question.
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.
I really hope this does not come accross as rude, as that is not its intention.
This is the internet people will say really retarded and really hateful stupid whatever all the time. I dont know how long you have been using the internet but I work in the IT field so i have been around it a long time. Basically I am saying you should not get offended so much by something you see written online. its a proven fact people think they are faceless on the internet so they will say all sorts of crazy things.
I understand that; I really do. I am aware that I harbor a great amount of sensitivity regarding issues like this, and that it is sometimes seen as "oversensitivity". I think that's just not relevant in this situation.
I wasn't asking how to avoid being offended, I was inquiring whether there is a way to contact a moderator if none are online when site policy is breached.
The decision to ignore hateful speech online is a personal one that I have chosen not to make. I know that means there are some places on the internet that I cannot visit (Yahoo Chess, for example). I am willing to put in the effort to find sections of the internet that are friendly and sites I can use without giving up the empathetic aspect of myself which I value.
I think Chess.com is one of those friendly places, and I base that belief on the steps that they already take to keep the chat and the forums civil. I saw the system fail yesterday, and I wanted to know what I could do in the future to alert the people at the site who care, as I do, about keeping chess.com a fun and non-threatening place to play chess.
Kupov is 17 years old, according to his profile. So, why is anyone arguing with him?
The ugly remarks that CRShelton has noted above have no place here and should earn the offenders an exit from the site. I assume by now that the staff here are aware of the matter and that they can be trusted to act.
Neil
So, because Kupov is 17 years old, his ideas are worthless? At what age do your ideas gain value? I'm now 34, and I think I was sharper when I was 17.
I agree, I am 16 years old and probably at my most aware. If a 17 year old should be ignored, then why shouldn't a 54 year old be ignored, are they too old for the discussion?
I think that comment was out of order. I tend to agree with CRShelton and ozzie_c_cobblepot. I have done things wrong here on chess.com and I have taken the punishment but this is out of order, they should be taken straight off chess.com and I also think they should have their names published in a public forum for the world of chess.com to see.
I hope you understand my point, if I am too young for this convosation or if you think I'm too young, then fine, you can completely ignore this post.
JohnPaladin wrote: "And for those of you who think that words aren't powerful or motivating, something that is said can hurt and scar emotionally far more deeply and for much longer than any physical abuse can ever do. Try actually reading a psychology book or two. Emotional abuse cuts to the bone."
Nope. Sharp, hard things cut to the bone. Perhaps instead of reading a psychology book or two, you should engage with the natural world outside of the cushy, easy, warm and dry environs produced by civilization.
There is only room for psychology when your belly is full and you're warm and dry. A starving person will listen to any kind of abuse with a smile on his face for a bite to eat and he won't give a damn as long as his hunger is eased.
Furthermore: I will give up safety and my psychological well being for a bit of liberty. I don't know about death, as I'm no Patrick Henry.
These arguments are pretty hollow:
"The world is too PC"
"Some people are obnoxious, deal with it"
"It wasn't intended the way you're taking it"
"Stop being so sensitive"
"The problem is too difficult, so we shouldn't try to solve it"
"This is the internet. People are going to be obnoxious."
"People have a right to say what they want (First Amendment!)"
They're hollow, because they don't address where the line should be drawn. They just say "the line should be drawn further in this direction". The thing is, people are good at relative judgements, good at comparing. People are bad at absolute judgements. It's easy to say "the world is too PC". It's a lot more difficult to say "of all the potentially objectionable content, I draw the line exactly here, to account for all of the points made above"
To be clear - it's not that I disagree with the ideas I wrote above. It's that they don't make any sense without context. I agree that we (the site) shouldn't restrict all potentially objectionable content. But the people on the other side of the discussion don't propose where the line should be - they're just kibitzing.
One of your arguments doesn't fit in with the rest, and that is "the problem is too difficult to solve, so we shouldn't try to solve it," because it also offers the only practical solution.
Your argument is that these positions are useless because they do not get us any closer to deciding what is too offensive, and where to draw the line. Maybe that line is far too hard to draw; we are entering grey areas, all the more so because tone can be effortlessly misread on the internet. It is impossible to draw such a line, because such of us have thicker skins than the rest. I know, one of your 'hollow' arguments being used again,but it's true; i might not be offended by an insult that someone else might take offence to. I suppose it's up to you(the site) to draw the line. I don't see how you'll be even close to effective in policing this amount of people, though. Let's try to be practical about it...
In my eyes, there are only two options; 1. live and let live, only deal with the really serious cases of abuse. 2. radically cut down the amount of activities non-paying members can indulge in, such as live chat and forums.
the former leaves one definition to be explained, namely what is a "serious" case of abuse. My definition would be repeated and/ or prolonged abuse. People can get over passing insults; seriously, just deal with it ( 'hollow' arguments number 4.) Racism, sexism, lechery; it happens- sorry if that sounds callous, but that is the world, and you have my (limited) sympathy. If it goes on for five or so minutes on live chat or for many page sof a forum, ban them. Also understand that this would also mean distinguishing someone too sensitive being teased and bawwing like a girl between someone being abusive.
The latter would punish a lot of people who've done nothing wrong. Plus, the forums would suffer immensely. In my experience the handful of idiotic ,or, worse still, painfully unfunny comments are swamped by the reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful posts that I am constantly suprised by. I am also assuming that most people that use this website are not paying customers as well.
The slippery slope argument is not valid. The site has already made the decision to restrict/filter content. At one end you have content which basically everybody would agree should be filtered. At the other you have G-rated Disney speak.
It's not an intractable problem. When mods are there, great, and when they're not there's a computer there. They can work on it in their leisure time, add to it, improve the recognition.
I also like your suggestion about restricting what non-paying members can/can't do. This is one theme of the entire site, in fact. They kind of already do this, with the 30 second limit in live chat, right?
I don't know, Rich, I looked for it, but didn't see it. what did you say?
JohnPaladin wrote: "And for those of you who think that words aren't powerful or motivating, something that is said can hurt and scar emotionally far more deeply and for much longer than any physical abuse can ever do. Try actually reading a psychology book or two. Emotional abuse cuts to the bone."
Nope. Sharp, hard things cut to the bone. Perhaps instead of reading a psychology book or two, you should engage with the natural world outside of the cushy, easy, warm and dry environs produced by civilization.
There is only room for psychology when your belly is full and you're warm and dry. A starving person will listen to any kind of abuse with a smile on his face for a bite to eat and he won't give a damn as long as his hunger is eased.
Furthermore: I will give up safety and my psychological well being for a bit of liberty. I don't know about death, as I'm no Patrick Henry.
Seriously, what does your post have to do with what we are talking about? Of course if you need food and water then you are not going to care about anything other than food or water. That's called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But, if people are playing on Chess.com, then they are in a position to be able to afford internet access, or transportation to someplace that has internet access. In fact, I would wager that most people on chess.com have already met the bottom three layers of the model. I highly doubt that anyone on chess.com is starving and looking for food. In which case, their brain has capacity to devote to psychology and psychological comments. The post was about how people's ignorant or deliberate comments can emotionally hurt other people, especially on chess.com. Thats what this entire thread is about.
And, for your information, I interact with the world in harsh and realistic way every day. But that doesnt mean that I have to limit my knowledge or thinking to only survival related topics, or even simply just "what is best for me".
Easy, killer. Seriously, my post was a response to your rather hubris-filled statement that others should try reading a psychology book or two, as well as the statement that words can cut to the bone.
Also I've got to bet that there is a user or two on chess.com that does not meet the lower tiers of Maslow's heirarchy, as computer access is readily available at most public libraries.
I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but the ivory tower lads of modernity proclaiming the power of psychological torment rubs me wrong. It's not personal; rather, cultural.
Well, I can certainly see your point about the random users here and there who barely meet the lower levels of the hierarchy. I guess that it's just something of a sore subject for me coming from a childhood where I was emotionally abused by my parents...I dont know. My intention was not to come across as arrogant. I guess the point that I was trying to make was that other people should just take other people into consideration once and while, thats all.
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.
Umm... I always thought that moderators are to take care about things like that... whats so stupid about reporting it to one of them?
Think about that... btw... You are one of those "can't control themselves" guys? Calling other ppl stupid just because they posted on the forum? Odd...
Think about that too.