My thread was locked and moved here just because I discussed the prevalence of cheating. There was no namecalling, and the only criticism was towards chess.com. I guess I expected this anyway because allowing more conversation on this would lead to less revenue one way or the other, but perhaps it's pertinent to understand that puting a lid on it is not a solution in the long term either. Anyway, I think I've said my $0.02 and the policy of ignoring the complaints and issuing corporate messages would continue, but it doesn't make this loss of trust in online chess less sad.
Not a discussion about cheating
Sort:
Feb 18, 2024
0
#3
Allowing such conversations attracts accusations and makes it look like there's a higher prevalence than there actually is. Most members that claim their opponents cheated, are mistaken.
But this is the chicken and egg problem. Equating "cheating actually happening" with "all cheating we can detect" leads to two problems: it denies the existence of cheating that goes undetected, and it removes incentives to improve the cheat detection. I don't suppose this can just be solved by cheat detection either. I think as it is with every area of life, if you create incentives for cheating, e.g. by increasing gamification of chess through bells and whistles and cups and streaks and so on and so forth, you will inevitably increase the number of people who would want to cheat, as chess itself becomes a secondary achievement. Anyway, this is probably not a good forum to talk about it as you said you don't allow this discussion here, so I'm at a loss on what to do. I guess I would just retreat into my shell and let the universe take its intended course. 
Feb 18, 2024
0
#5
@AghaPerham Join the cheating discussion forum and post there - this is not a thread for discussing cheating itself.
But it is why I think more visibility of what Chess.com does and is doing in this space would be helpful, so that when people search the forums for the topic it would bring them to the stickied post. Like I said, the comments on that post would need to be moderated carefully so that it remained useful rather than different people making the same claims that have already been answered earlier in the thread.
But actually a discussion about the discussion of cheating.
@Martin_Stahl's excellent reply in https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-chess-com-doing-anything-to-prevent-cheating#comment-99953549 led me to @erik's interviews with Ivor Levitov:
https://youtu.be/cZDRrWAx2Rk?si=D17S4Dux0JuQpPDJ
https://youtu.be/gq7eigfV2cA?si=pGESHnjkDSr4pXgI
In those interviews, Erik is clear that public naming & shaming of suspected cheaters is not okay, which I think is perfectly reasonable; however, he also says things like the one that has pinned to the front of the first interview from a month ago: "It has always been completely acceptable for anyone to criticise Chess.com; we're not shutting down any voices."
Technically, I suppose that's true - people don't get banned for talking about cheating in the general forums and there is the https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum that anyone can join and discuss the topic. But longstanding policy has always been that discussion of cheating in the public forums is not allowed and those threads get locked. I suspect this is a largely practical matter - like discussions about politics and religion, perhaps any given thread may start off with good intentions but hard won experience has shown that they inevitably devolve into name calling and accusations and Chess.com would rather just not have to deal with that hassle and proactively says "Nope".
In that state of Chess.com video, though, @danny also acknowledges that Chess.com wants to increase the transparency of what it is doing about cheating to help prevent the sort of paranoia that can develop around the topic in the absence of good information. I am wondering then if a part of that increased transparency could include perhaps not a total relaxation of the general forum ban about discussing cheating but at least something like a pinned and moderated thread that perhaps operates like Elroch's evolution thread https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion where it is kept on track by the efforts of the OP with the assistance of the mods. The first post could be a link to the latest Chess.com statement about cheating on their site - I believe that's https://www.chess.com/article/view/online-chess-cheating (which was last modified in October 2022 and clearly needs update, since even since then, the Fair Play team has grown from 20+ to the 30+ mentioned in those latest videos). Maybe that post wouldn't even allow comments itself but simply direct people to the discussion on that article, unless it contained updates that Chess.com hadn't made to that article.
Even if we don't go to this trouble, I do think it would be a good idea for any mod who locks a thread on cheating to have Martin's reply in a note somewhere (maybe with additional links to those interviews with Erik that I noted above) so they can cut & paste it readily into that thread.
Just a thought.