Yes, it's clear you wanted to talk to some girl who didn't want to talk to you. You were hurt by this, and started a thread about how strange it is that ANYONE wouldn't want to talk to Vance
Terminating a Game
Sort:
Jul 14, 2010
0
#22
I don't recall anyone inviting you into this conversation.
I totally agree Vance! trysts, giving an opinion is fine, but you were very rude..and I find that very sad, that people have to be rude just to make a point. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but it should be stated with dignity.
Jul 14, 2010
0
#25
But the thread is about this guy that is only wanting to play a game of chess. Right? But it's not about that at all. It's about Vance wanting more than a chess game, otherwise, why would Vance care so much to talk to her? And do you, calling this girl, friendless, abnormal, and lonely, qualify as giving her "dignity", peachbelle?
Jul 14, 2010
0
#26
Vance917 wrote:
I don't recall anyone inviting you into this conversation.
Deal with it, or block me. It's a public forum, and not everyone's going to agree with you, Vance
I don't think it matters what we say trysts..you apparently are someone who likes to argue, and I won't give you that satisfaction...have a good life.
Jul 14, 2010
0
#28
peachbelle wrote:
I don't think it matters what we say trysts..you apparently are someone who likes to argue, and I won't give you that satisfaction...have a good life.
You must be use to trashing people without anyone telling you that it's wrong. You already have a "good life"
If I block this loser, then will that make his comments (and him with it) vanish? But alas I am doubly ignorant; I no neither how to terminate a game nor how to block someone. But at least now I am motivated to find out. Thank you T.
Jul 14, 2010
0
#30
I'm not a him. I'm a her. My comments won't disappear from this thread if you block me. But I won't be able to post anymore comments on this, or any other thread you start. But, if you cry enough to Chess.com staff, they may have sympathy for you and delete my comments, having realized that a baby is using it's parent's account
Whatever you say to make yourself feel better. You can pretend whatever you like.
OK.
Vance917 wrote:
Had yet another weird experience here -- I just seem to be a magnet for these. I challenged a player to a game, she declined but sent me a message asking if we could play 14 days per move instead of the three in the challenge I had sent, and she sent me a challenge with 14 days per move. I accepted. The first thing I noticed was that chat had been disabled. Now I have had no prior interaction with this member, so the full extent of my input to her was 1) my sending her a challenge and not with any objectionable game title (I kept the default, "Let's Play"), and 2) accepting her challenge. OK, so she's new, maybe she hit the wrong button. I sent her a message to find out. Only then I got an error message because she does not accept message unless they are sent from friends. I glanced at her page and noticed that she has no place to post notes, either. Obviously, no point in trying to add her as a friend.
So I played a move or two in the game, and realized that I am perfectly capable of taking on a computer, if that is what I wanted to do. The fact that I sent a challenge to an actual human (or at least to someone I thought was human at the time) suggests that this was not my objective, and now I could see little point in carrying on this "witness protection" game. Only I could not figure out how to abort the game. Happily, she did it for me, and so that is the end of that sad saga, but for future reference, I would still like to know how to abort a game while it is still in its early stages. After all, one never knows whom (or what) one will encounter here on Chess.com. Thank you.
I can appreciate that this experience felt weird. However, I do not think it is worth speculating about why somebody only wants to play chess (at a chess site
) and wants to block chat from unknown people. That's within their full right. But I don't understand at all why blocking chat would result in wishing to abort a game, unless chat is more important than chess. Finally, we come in all colors on a site like this - let's accept it!
Everyone starts as an unknown. You are creating quite a catch-22 there, aren't you? Won't chat unless known, cannot become known unless we chat. But regardless, you seem to miss one crucial point, which is the distinction between not chatting (something I do all the time, and think nothing of it, since, as you so succinctly point out, this is a chess site) and blocking chat. The two are not the same. One is normal behavior. The other has to raise all kinds of red flags.
Vance917 wrote:
Everyone starts as an unknown. You are creating quite a catch-22 there, aren't you? Won't chat unless known, cannot become known unless we chat. But regardless, you seem to miss one crucial point, which is the distinction between not chatting (something I do all the time, and think nothing of it, since, as you so succinctly point out, this is a chess site) and blocking chat. The two are not the same. One is normal behavior. The other has to raise all kinds of red flags.
I agree that they are not the same. But let's agree that blocking chat from the very beginning is still acceptable behavior at a chess site. Neither you nor I KNOW the reasons - and they may be good!
I would agree with you that in the grand scheme of things, blocking chat is less objectionable than ignoring chat. I suppose that in the same way, one murder is better than two, so every cloud truly does have a silver lining. I have moved on, but I also feel some responsibility to respond to those members who, like you, want to weigh in. Otherwise, wouldn't I be equally guilty? No, wait, more guilty for ignoring, rather than blocking.
CBA wrote:
Vance917 wrote:
I would agree with you that in the grand scheme of things, blocking chat is less objectionable than ignoring chat. I suppose that in the same way, one murder is better than two, so every cloud truly does have a silver lining. I have moved on, but I also feel some responsibility to respond to those members who, like you, want to weigh in. Otherwise, wouldn't I be equally guilty? No, wait, more guilty for ignoring, rather than blocking.
If you're replying to someone in a thread with several posters, you can use the "quote" button to make it obvious to whom you are responding. Otherwise it could cause confusion. Like, so I've heard, disabling chat can do. But I do agree that disabling chat is akin to murder.
Indeed 
, the comparison with murder is appropriate here . Nevertheless, I think the OP now agrees that when you don't want to chat it is better to disable chat than to ignore the opponent's advances.
CBA wrote:
But I do agree that disabling chat is akin to murder.
Not what I said.
Don't worry, I'd never play you anyway. I have standards.