I think Mr Chair has proved whatever points he wanted to make with this thread? It may be time to delete it? If he or anyone else which to start a new one on a general topic like why people lie and misrepresent themselves online, I will be happy to contribute. I do not understand why a blog like this has to be about another named individual? Name and Shame.
Fake photos on profiles
Sort:
Will he voluntarily delete it? I doubt it. (more likely he will be soon writing an angry rebuttal)
have you talked to staff/mods about your concerns about this thread? my experience is that its hard for mods to keep up with hot threads- and even ones with content that is clearly unacceptable sometimes stay up for many hours.
on the broader question, it is another overdone and overly repetitive topic. The TOS is clear on the matter.
You should take comfort the the 'target' of the thread has not been named in many pages. moreover, though I haven't looked recently I think a lot of content you found offensive has been deleted.
[edit] ok, there is no deleted posts, but where is the post that clearly harasses a member? the OP deliberately stopped short of saying who he meant and the pics themselves no longer apply to the supposed "target"... it appears that the thread turned into a trollish "why don't people use real pics of vegetables as their avatars" shortly after the thread was posted.
IMHO. this thread Isn't about anyone. its not personal.
Mar 31, 2016
0
#344
If not deleting the entire blog, maybe remove the photos which many recognize as well as the personal message which identify the target with chess.com username and which was published without consent?
If that is done, well, yes, we could say blog is about general issue of online misrepresentation as well as the usual random insults and innuendo…?
If not, this blog for me, judging from the first post in particular, is just a personal attack, name and shame, with the usual noises and joke posts mixed in ?
thegreat_patzer wrote:
Le pepette pour Toujours! C'est merveilleux!!
purpose is "to open people eyes". hmph. I don't know about you Mr chair. Anyways, I never believe that a sweet looking avatar is actually a pretty lady. (well unless said avatar is a pretty looking potatoe!)- Instead I suggest an attitude of cynacisma and skepticism.
its genuinely a great thing in the chess.com forums....
and... if you have problem with a serious, well liked and rarely heard lady, what do you make of the "Absolute Best"/"ALIVE" person that sometimes Haunts these forums.
That guy/girl/it takes "girl trolling" to a new level.
No, you don't know about me. We are strangers to each other here, and as such are obliged to adopt the skeptical position by default, and judge each other on our actions. This is the consequences of internet anonymity; we can create the personas we wish to project, and it is up to us to judge who is being honest with us.
Did you actually read the message sent to LadyoftheKnight? If you have, I would ask you to read it again, carefully. What at first glance may appear to an apology is actually a slyly-worded statement of the "I'm sorry you feel that way" variety, ie, not a real apology at all. And this is intentional, because a real apology would imply real guilt, and this writer is too clever to actually admit to having done anything wrong. And the rest is a thinly veiled threat of reprisal by proxy ("silent enemies"), disguised with a mask of concern for LadyoftheKnight's wellbeing. This is the kind of language used by gangsters and sociopaths, albeit ones smart enough to know that their words may be repeated in public, and therefore containing a built-in degree of plausible deniability. LadyoftheKnight was furious to receive an attempt at intimidation like this, and rightly so. It comes from someone who is confident in their ability to manipulate others, and to get their "friends" to do their dirty work for them, so that their own hands remain clean. And so we have seen, with Joakim being the latest lap-dog to come on here to try to silence this awkward and embarassing thread topic.
Unfortunately for them, LadyoftheKnight is made of stronger stuff, and I do not care about my public image on this site. I am therefore not bothered by shaming tactics, since I am not trying to win anyone's approval. So if they think this thread violates TOS, they are welcome to try to get the mods to close it down.
What is most telling is that the subject of this thread is unwilling to come here defend herself (why do we even assume they are a "she"? See, we're all buying into this person's public persona) in person, something rather at odds with her image as a prolific blogger and somebody always willing to argue a position. I am quite happy to defend my position here, so why isn't she? If there is a good reason for her behaviour in posting fake pics, she could have come here when this thread first started and settled the matter in public.
As for characters like ALIVE, they are so obvious in their obnoxiousness that they don't need anyone to point out what they are up to. The most successful con-artists are the ones who keep on getting away with it, and have enough people fooled about their true nature that they continue to get away with it even after their tricks have been exposed.
Mar 31, 2016
0
#346
Mr Chair, why do you keep calling chess.com members names? Now you just called me a "lap-dog"? Why continue to name and shame?
hump. thats a lot of verbage. but basically your saying; she's not sorry.
I don't think I want to be further involved.
Girl trolling (ALIVE) is Allowed. so too is any gender/username/information lying that isn't offensive and impersonation. Mods and staff are unlikely to have make any action against "her"; and you have just reinforced the personal nature of this accusation, when I pointed out the thread had meekly devolved to jokes about vegetables.
its Your Accusations and I want any mods to understand that. if you really feel that your greivances are serious, try making the argument to the mods. and not as Jokaim says "name and shame" to all the world. thats my strong opinion.
kayak21 escribió:
Pulpofeira wrote:
Last summer he was using a pic of two horses.
That was way back. It's a bit tricky when you first join to know how it all works.
When I opened my account I used my mobile phone and made a typo error with my username. I could only change it once to correct it. If I want to change it now I have to close it and open another.
Probably you could ask for an exception, there are precedents (a kid who changed it for fun to a weird name without being aware of this rule if I remember well).
I think I should change mine, too. Some people has mistaken me for a woman. Pulpette, maybe?
thegreat_patzer wrote:
hump. thats a lot of verbage. but basically your saying; she's not sorry.
I don't think I want to be further involved.
Girl trolling (ALIVE) is Allowed. so too is any gender/username/information lying that isn't offensive and impersonation. Mods and staff are unlikely to have make any action against "her"; and you have just reinforced the personal nature of this accusation, when I pointed out the thread had meekly devolved to jokes about vegetables.
its Your Accusations and I want any mods to understand that. if you really feel that your greivances are serious, try making the argument to the mods. and not as Jokaim says "name and shame" to all the world. thats my strong opinion.
Yes, many things are allowed here, but that does not mean they should have our approval, either by passive acceptance or by actively trying to silence objectors.
I opened this thread with the intention of it being a public debate on false identities on this site. This may not be against TOS, but that does not mean we should all just quietly accept the status quo. And I reopened it following an attempt by the member who first inspired it to intimidate into silence another member and friend of mine. I do not think that is acceptable behaviour, regardless of what TOS may have to say on the matter. If you do, and you are willing to let something like that pass by, then you are welcome to do so.
And, Joakim, calling someone a 'lap-dog' is a very mild form of rebuke for somebody prepared to defend someone like that. Believe me, I can think of quite a few more choice names for you.
well just so you know it isn't clear around post 203/204 What re-ignited this post.
but it looks like you bumped it.
you can say all this to the mod. its a Big thread and it'll be hard for them to quickly catch onto what was said.
but if they ask me, you have made a crime out of something that isn't that big of deal, and shamed someone for something trivial. I Know you Don't accept that POV. and I know that your bristling to attck this certain person and all her lap-dogs.
and I can only say I haven't met Babs. haven't even said hi. so I'm not her lap-dog. but this back and forth has surely got to stop.
lets make this photographic-
mods, will you please? its no longer jokes about veggies...
Mar 31, 2016
0
#353
Mr Chair, so you do not approve of people using photos which are not their own? What about if the photos are from when they were younger or thinner? Or in a favorable lighting? Or posed in front of a house you do not own or some art you did not create? ... Could any such behaviour in your view justify a public name and shame blog? ... with added insults and innuedo.
What I really do not understand is the need to single out one individual; identity her and publish her private message without consent? Could you not make a public debate on mis-representation online (or on chess.com) without naming and shaming one specific individual?
Mar 31, 2016
0
#355
Joakim it was not the case of using A Photo! It was stealing a models Face and body, pretending that this is what they looked like and glorying in all the adulation, love messages and valentine trophies that came her way!
Mar 31, 2016
0
#357
If I were sad and lonely my avatar would be Angelina Jolie, I bet you'd still be mad enough to believe she was on chess.com playing chess sheesh!
Chair and kaynight will never admit it...
Let’s compare two scenarios:
(1) One person uses some photos which are not her owns. Maybe to conceal her identity, maybe to see which kind of response a person with a different look will get. Maybe for some other reason.
(2) Another person starts a blog full of innuendo, accusations and insults. The whole blog is targeting another person. The member targeted is identified with chess.com username and one of her personal messages to a 3rd party is published without permission. Other members respond to the blogs and add to the insults. The innuendo and insults includes:
"Con-artist", "predator", "sock puppet", "deliberately deceive those around them" , "real bully" , "fooled a lot of vulnerable people", "build a false persona", "capable of cheating in their games" ,"fakes and the cheats" , "sleaze" and "creep"
Now, which of the two people acted most worst? Try to think about it a bit? Why do some here have such a desire to shame and attack others and never introspect? Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone.
Here is some news for you. Pretty much everyone lies or re-invent themselves online at least to some extend. Key examples which are commenly mis-represented includes: “personal assets, relationship goals, personal interests, personal attributes, past relationships, weight, and age”
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/27/1/117.abstract
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/close-encounters/201407/can-you-really-trust-the-people-you-meet-online
Start with that assumption and you will not so easily be “shocked” when you learn that the real person behind the screen is slightly different.
If you want to meet a real person, ask for Facebook, work email and phone number… then meet in real life.
Yes I agree that can happen and it does. People put their own spin on things you say. However, it depends on your reasons for being here. Personally, I enjoy the banter. I don't care about your age, weight, or wealth. I do however, like to know if I'm talking to a man or woman.