I personally think immediate ban should be imposed upon people who use racial slurs or racist insults. If someone is directly insulting someone using racism/ racial slurs and it’s clear as day light, then they should be immediately banned.
Is chess.com too lax on racial abuse?
Sort:
Nov 21, 2021
0
#43
DRTTR wrote:
@Martin_Stahl, I appreciate that, but it isn't the question. The question is: is a temporary or even permanent mute enough to compensate the fact that some of us periodically face racial abuse? Clearly you do not understand the impact it has on people, even if anonymous, it remains a form a bullying. It happened enough times for me to feel disgusted about playing bullet chess on chess.com.
Closure of accounts won't stop it. It is impossible to stop someone from creating a new account and continuing, short of verification of every single member, or maybe only allowing paid members to access any social features. The first option is costly and would eventually lead to the second.
Even then, that does not stop it, just allows the site to more easily tie an account to an actual person and make it easier to prevent the return, though that still is not fool proof. It also would require the draconian method of disabling social features to non-premium.
Instead, the site allows each member to decide how social they want to be, with he ability to report bad behavior. For someone that isn't maliciously abusive, the actual act of warnings/mutes may be enough for them to stop those actions. For the maliciously abusive members, closure will just end up with a new account with no history.
Then there's the malicious accusers, that reports others even without a reason, and can create false screenshots of the abuse. So the site has to investigate, and see how likely the report is actually true. The escalation pathway is a safer way to not close accounts that shouldn't be.
There isn't an easy solution that keeps the site open, accessible, and welcoming at the same time.
DRTTR wrote:
MainframeSupertasker a écrit :
I think chess.com is decent with how they handle reports like these... at least the ones I sent by email. They mostly get overwhelmed with the number of reports but they deal with them pretty fairly with the ones they have the time to review.
This is not a comment on moderators or about how busy they are - this is about the level of sanction being the same for attacks which are different in nature - read my previous posts
I did read your previous posts,
and i was talking about reporting someone who used racist slurs against me. that dude got banned the next day.
Better?
yeah, the way insults are dealt with feel a bit random at times....I mean I've insulted people, pretty badly, and I'm not proud of it but I was never muted or else... some dude the other day had a go at me and got banned in the hour. I gotta say this site isn't exactly best for that, try youtube, facebo- sorry Meta!, twitter, literally any online video game, none of that racist bullcr*p would float and the excuse of abusers reopening accounts woudln't float either - you just keep on closing them. Different sizes for sure... but still felt like someone should point that out
Nov 21, 2021
0
#46
Martin_Stahl wrote:
DRTTR wrote:
@Martin_Stahl, I appreciate that, but it isn't the question. The question is: is a temporary or even permanent mute enough to compensate the fact that some of us periodically face racial abuse? Clearly you do not understand the impact it has on people, even if anonymous, it remains a form a bullying. It happened enough times for me to feel disgusted about playing bullet chess on chess.com.
Closure of accounts won't stop it. It is impossible to stop someone from creating a new account and continuing, short of verification of every single member, or maybe only allowing paid members to access any social features. The first option is costly and would eventually lead to the second.
Even then, that does not stop it, just allows the site to more easily tie an account to an actual person and make it easier to prevent the return, though that still is not fool proof. It also would require the draconian method of disabling social features to non-premium.
Instead, the site allows each member to decide how social they want to be, with he ability to report bad behavior. For someone that isn't maliciously abusive, the actual act of warnings/mutes may be enough for them to stop those actions. For the maliciously abusive members, closure will just end up with a new account with no history.
Then there's the malicious accusers, that reports others even without a reason, and can create false screenshots of the abuse. So the site has to investigate, and see how likely the report is actually true. The escalation pathway is a safer way to not close accounts that shouldn't be.
There isn't an easy solution that keeps the site open, accessible, and welcoming at the same time.
Translation: "We don't want to lose money. And money is still more important than your offense."
I have heard Chess.com has done some IP bans
but only for very serious measures
Nov 21, 2021
0
#49
PILOTOXOMXD wrote:
I have heard Chess.com has done some IP bans
Basically useless, as they are easy enough to get around.
ye but u have to get a new device
i think
idk how ips work. if im being dumb, can u plz tell me how they work
Nov 21, 2021
0
#53
PILOTOXOMXD wrote:
ye but u have to get a new device
Nope...that is why i said they are easy enough to get around.
bruuuhhhh
a google search is enough to get around it
but again, i feel like this could be avoided if u just turn off chat. If they can't chat with u, then a lot of these interactions can be avoided.
Chess.com can't deal with a lot of these things because they would restrict access to ppl that haven't done anything wrong
so ur best bet is to prolly solve the issue urself
Nov 21, 2021
0
#59
IMKeto wrote:
Translation: "We don't want to lose money. And money is still more important than your offense."
My post is my take on the why. However, the site certainly wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if it was locked down or required a minimum purchase in order to cover the cost some kind of verification.
Nov 22, 2021
0
#60
Martin_Stahl wrote:
IMKeto wrote:
Translation: "We don't want to lose money. And money is still more important than your offense."
My post is my take on the why. However, the site certainly wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if it was locked down or required a minimum purchase in order to cover the cost some kind of verification.
Im not blaming you Martin. Im just pointing out the obvious.
insulting random people should just be punished without seeking the reason why that person did that...
This is where I disagree with your arguments. The reasons and manner in which one insults someone matters enormously - if a community allows one to be insulted because of their skin color, faith, sexual orientation, it institutionalizes discrimination - if someone gets insulted because of their bad behavior while playing chess (stalling, trolling, spamming, hiding true rating, cheating...) that is entirely on them and they probably get what they deserve.
well... then you have really another opinion... insult is just an insult for me only what matters is "how much" they would insult somebody... where the "how much" is kinda subjective and hard to qualified... surely is wrong to let anybody insulting others because of their skin color, faith, sexual orientation etc... but it is no different from other insults ad hominem... those are all just silly insultes without actually reason... people use them like that, they try to insult personally you and they simply use just whatever first come in their mind...