Chess.com attitude to reporting and bannings.

JamesAgadir

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

Potato50012
JamesAgadir wrote:

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

Because sometimes the result is just a warning, a muting, or something else you won't be able to see, and in that case it does protect their privacy.

Also, it allows the site to only use one message for every report, instead of having to change them. It saves time.

Martin_Stahl
JamesAgadir wrote:

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

 

The system is probably automated and just sends out the canned response when it happens.

MainframeSupertasker

Chess.com thinks it's unethical to find someone banned and go on name-shaming him in public. Better not boil the soup. Keep everything private, let the banned member be shamed to the least extent possible. The best way is not disclosing who it is and sending a trigger to the reporter that it has been done.

 

AlCzervik

yeah, no one will ever know! 

the automation and canned response martin wrote about is probably it. more automation and less interaction is what cc is doing. 

autobunny
JamesAgadir wrote:

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

Agree.   The reporter who provided a service to the community should be given the courtesy of the information of the action taken or even not taken.

Vibhav_G
autobunny wrote:
JamesAgadir wrote:

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

Agree.   The reporter who provided a service to the community should be given the courtesy of the information of the action taken or even not taken.

i do agree with both of you 

FlaFlaFoHigh
Just ban everyone from India and most of the coward play and disconnects will end.
autobunny
FlaFlaFoHigh wrote:
Just ban everyone from India and most of the coward play and disconnects will end.

The attack of new accounts from 22 hours ago.  Along with @cuckoobananabread Where do they come from? 

JamesAgadir
Potato50012 a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:

I recently reported and obvious sandbagger on chess.com (100 1 or 2 moves loses in a row). I then got a message a few hours later saying there had been a reaction to one of my reports. I checked the player's profile and the player was banned. 

Here's my question: why not tell me the player was banned? It's not like it's a secret, seen as it's said in the profile so it's not like chess.com is protecting them in anyway. Why not add that info in the message to the reporter when a player is banned so that people see that good reports have an actual impact and not just that chess.com claims to have acted?

Because sometimes the result is just a warning, a muting, or something else you won't be able to see, and in that case it does protect their privacy.

Also, it allows the site to only use one message for every report, instead of having to change them. It saves time.

But a person is doing the banning. So it wouldn't really add a significant amount of time to automate an option where it says the player was banned.

The advantage wouldn't be non existent because it would make people who are doing good reports feel like it matters and works. So it could gain time over all by increasing the percentage of usefull reports.

Martin_Stahl

Unless you are doing a ton of reports, it should be pretty clear what accounts were closed. I have reported four accounts in the past week and so I knew exactly who the emails were referring to. Maybe that is why they don't include any other information?

52yrral

My thoughts precisely!

RonaldJosephCote

       Chess.com just wants to do things the old fashioned way....shock.png                     

IMBacon

Speaking of old fashioned.  I was running low on butter.

52yrral

thumbup.png thumbup.png

JamesAgadir
Martin_Stahl a écrit :

Unless you are doing a ton of reports, it should be pretty clear what accounts were closed. I have reported four accounts in the past week and so I knew exactly who the emails were referring to. Maybe that is why they don't include any other information?

I rarely report people I've played so I generally can't find there accound again easily and I'll sometimes report 2 people in the same day for different reasons and I'd like to know what are the things chess.com react to and the things they don't.

Lavene
FlaFlaFoHigh wrote:
Just ban everyone from India and most of the coward play and disconnects will end.

Slightly off topic but care to elaborate? What's going on in India? Because I used to sometimes play on an app called RealChess (I think it was) that was pretty good. But suddenly 95% of opponents was from India with zero, or very few, games played. And almost all of them played really bad or just left after a couple of of moves. So I just ended up ditching the app. 

I just recently started playing here and have only played three people from India and they seem legit. 

Sanju_1996d

So I reported a account for rating manipulation. That guy went from 2400 (his peak was around 2400 something, ) to 2722 in single day, and next day he was back to 2300 and today he is around 21-2200.. the joke is on chess.com to not find this person as cheater.

52yrral

He had to cheat to get to 21-2200 from 2722?

autobunny
Martin_Stahl wrote:

Unless you are doing a ton of reports, it should be pretty clear what accounts were closed. I have reported four accounts in the past week and so I knew exactly who the emails were referring to. Maybe that is why they don't include any other information?

Just received 3 action taken notices today.   No idea what where who why when how.   But good job guys, I think...