Attention Everyone: an important announcement. - Chess Forums - Page 2

Roaming_Rooster

Nov 2, 2020

0

#21

Martin_Stahl wrote:

marhales wrote:

Martin_Stahl wrote:

marhales wrote:

No, mods do not close accounts casually. Two of the first post accounts were closed by staff. And @david has nothing to do with it.

Question: did you need to ban them. There is a mute option.

I could only check three of the accounts, one wasn't a username that resolves. Staff apparently decided a closure was the best option on two, and the other looked like a valid closure as well.

Ok since staff likes muting and closing accounts randomly you can mute me for a month but u must bring back herakies

Martin_Stahl

Nov 2, 2020

0

#22

Itude wrote:

I do, and I will thank you

What I think is that someone who has a vested interest, in whatever, cannot be relied upon to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Yes, that means you !

And that's your prerogative, of course. I have no vested interest. I say what I mean and mean what I say. My having a status as a moderator has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of my posts. I can't always post everything I know about, but I'm not being untruthful.

I might self regulate my content and not post sarcastically as much as I might otherwise due to that. Other's inability or unwillingness to tell the truth, doesn't mean I suffer from that malady.

TheBestBeer_Root

Nov 2, 2020

0

#23

Itude wrote:

I do not know the exact details, but on looking it appears that none of them were paying members ?

This most certainly means that you are far more liable to get banned, muted or whatever.

That is the reality of a business.

A really naughty person might suggest they open up 2 new accounts in response, and if necessary get a free VPN.

Any further bannings should then be met by again doubling the amount of new accounts.

I of course would never even suggest such a thing !!

Lmao 😂 you of course roflmao just did

TheBestBeer_Root

Nov 2, 2020

0

#24

marhales wrote:

Oh I thought they deleted this thread. Anyways I think that the disappearance of @david has to do with this.

wait.... you saying something regarding Cryysis and David?🤷‍♂️

TheBestBeer_Root

Nov 2, 2020

0

#25

.....David shortly after chatting with him, Cryysis, the next day actually David left and has yet returned.

Roaming_Rooster

Nov 2, 2020

0

#26

Itude wrote:

You have no vested interest ?

I see, so you do not work for chess.com in ANY capacity whatsoever then ?

The two things almost always go together, that is human behaviour per se.

I know very well you regulate certain parts of your behaviour, in particular what you would like to really say to me.

That however is part of your "job" and it does not relate to the unconscious bias you and other "employees" will inevitably possess

Everyone has bias whether we like it or not and sometimes u don’t notice.

TheBestBeer_Root

Nov 2, 2020

0

#27

hvenki wrote:

marhales wrote:

23Dragons wrote:

the dude has been an active forum member for some time . I have never seen him curse, or do anything against the guidelines.

You know who banned him. Mods do it causally nowadays. Back then they took the job seriously without bias or influence( I am not saying u r drunk I am talking about a different influence)

ikr, it's rlly just unfair, but if itude is right about the whole membership thing, that shouldnt be the case as well, just because someone is a paying member doesnt mean they should have extra rights, this situation should be treated with equal punishments, I got off easily from a 1 year mute that I managed to change in 1 day, they should too.

agreed

Martin_Stahl

Nov 2, 2020

0

#28

Itude wrote:

You have no vested interest ?

I see, so you do not work for chess.com in ANY capacity whatsoever then ?

The two things almost always go together, that is human behaviour per se.

I know very well you regulate certain parts of your behaviour, in particular what you would like to really say to me.

That however is part of your "job" and it does not relate to the unconscious bias you and other "employees" will inevitably possess

Any status I have with chess.com has no bearing on my truthfulness. I'm not going to lie to protect any standing I have, regardless.

I regulate some of my posts; some of it due to the moderator status, some due to a high tolerance to dealing with things others might not handle well. I didn't really post any differently before I was a mod than I do now, so the status change didn't really mean much in that sense.

TheBestBeer_Root

Nov 2, 2020

0

#29

.....yes.. tude has been in the conscious business for quite some time now and naturally to analytically solve what appears to be represented one’s responses.

ABlazingBishop

Nov 2, 2020

0

#30

You don’t know that they did not do anything wrong - but I do like your old McDonald song lol

TheHarbingerOfDoom

Nov 2, 2020

0

#31

This is all very funny. The only one that makes any real sense is Martin stahl. Any member who gets banned and says I was innocent is probably lying.

There are more reasons for getting banned than what you write on the forums. Terms of service cover a variety of infringements that can be made. You don’t know what people say in private messages, during games etc. You don’t know if they are multi accounting or cheating. It’s not in the interest of chess dot com to ban anyone wether a paying member or free loader(like me). All members are valuable and the more they have the better it is for business as regards advertising revenues etc. Banning someone would be a last resort as it is not good for business.

I have to say itude as much as I like you I think a lot of what you said is personal opinion and conjecture.

Roaming_Rooster

Nov 2, 2020

0

#32

Martin_Stahl wrote:

marhales wrote:

Martin_Stahl wrote:

marhales wrote:

No, mods do not close accounts casually. Two of the first post accounts were closed by staff. And @david has nothing to do with it.

Question: did you need to ban them. There is a mute option.

I could only check three of the accounts, one wasn't a username that resolves. Staff apparently decided a closure was the best option on two, and the other looked like a valid closure as well.

If this was the first time herakies did this then a ban is too far. If he did it multiple times MAYBE it was fair.

Roaming_Rooster

Nov 2, 2020

0

#33

TheHarbingerOfDoom wrote:

This is all very funny. The only one that makes any real sense is Martin stahl. Any member who gets banned and says I was innocent is probably lying.

There are more reasons for getting banned than what you write on the forums. Terms of service cover a variety of infringements that can be made. You don’t know what people say in private messages, during games etc. You don’t know if they are multi accounting or cheating. It’s not in the interest of chess dot com to ban anyone wether a paying member or free loader(like me). All members are valuable and the more they have the better it is for business as regards advertising revenues etc. Banning someone would be a last resort as it is not good for business.

I have to say itude as much as I like you I think a lot of what you said is personal opinion and conjecture.

I know him. He told me the entire story.

Roaming_Rooster

Nov 2, 2020

0

#34

Timothy8738 wrote:

You don’t know that they did not do anything wrong - but I do like your old McDonald song lol

I know what he did. If he did anything wrong then it is hypocritical because the person that reported him has a history of breaking ToS

Martin_Stahl

Nov 2, 2020

0

#35

marhales wrote:

If this was the first time herakies did this then a ban is too far. If he did it multiple times MAYBE it was fair.

Severity of a violation also comes into play, though continued violations can influence things as well.

TheHarbingerOfDoom

Nov 2, 2020

0

#36

Its nice that you want to believe your friend marhales.

The innocence and nativity you show is actually quite sweet

TheHarbingerOfDoom

Nov 2, 2020

0

#37

Autocorrect naivety that should say. Lol

jibblejabble

Nov 2, 2020

0

#38

Their name is Toxic_ness_2 which may indicate thats not the first account as such. And right in the name is probably indicates that they are perennially toxic.

TheHarbingerOfDoom

Nov 2, 2020

0

#39

I did say probably because I can’t prove anything one way or another. And as I said it’s not good business to ban anyone. But I don’t believe they are going to allow members who clearly breach the rules, cheat, etc to remain on the site for the sake of a few quid. There is enough money made from well behaved members so as not to be need to bend the rules to get a drop in the ocean from the morons.

23Dragons

Nov 2, 2020

0

#40

monkaHmm....