I am not sure which member (or former member) you are referring to, but you do make some good points, and if he is half what you are making him out to be, then you are quite right that this is a loss for the community. Well said.
Banning criteria and post deletion
Sort:
Last I knew, cheaters were banned, and abusive member accounts were closed.
In the former case forum content is lost while in the latter it should remain.
At least, this is how it was lately and still is, absent a change.
Aug 26, 2011
0
#4
goldendog wrote:
Last I knew, cheaters were banned, and abusive member accounts were closed. As far as I know, this was a banning from forums, not from the site, and therefore was not for cheating. The moderator (or whatever they're called) wouldn't discuss it with me, even to the extent of giving a general reason, so I can only guess at the reason. I know one of the thin-skinned types who contributed nothing of value to discussions was complaining in the forum about him, so I'm guessing that he found a moderator (or whatever they're called) who agreed with him about abusive language.
In the former case forum content is lost while in the latter it should remain.
At least, this is how it was lately and still is, absent a change. You mean, the loss of forum content indicates that he was banned from the *site* and not merely from *forums*?
I mean if his status isn't "cheater" his content ought to remain.
Have you checked his old posts?'
Are they altogether gone or marked as [deleted]?
Aug 26, 2011
0
#6
I have discovered that a member search doesn't show him as still a member. So, I suspect I was wrong and that he was banned from the *site*.
Very good points MindWalk.
I'm working on gettin you the information you wanted, btw, and will message you when I have more information.
I think you misunderstand the OP. MindWalk has a very thick skin and is against people getting banned and is against their posts getting deleted. He was particularly bothered by this poster being banned/deleted but is not arguing for others to be banned or deleted.
Oct 2, 2011
0
#9
Ballcrusher1 wrote:
MindWalk wrote:
The banning of a particular member whose posts I have enjoyed, together with the deletion of his posts, has stimulated me to begin this thread.
First, are deleted posts still viewable somewhere? This particular member's posts are often instructional, and it would be a shame were they simply lost forever.
Second, he is one of a few people on the forums I've read whose posts are substantive. Some people pop in and make one-line comments, or write posts that are obviously contrary to fact, or that simply contribute nothing of value to the discussion. This user, on the other hand, contributes well-thought-out posts, often supported by graphs and other supporting data, based on facts--he consistently contributes substantive posts. Such a user is a valuable member of the chess.com community and should be banned only with the greatest reluctance and for really good reason.
Third, I can only imagine that his banning was the result of what some people would think of as abusive language. It is true that he does not suffer fools gladly, and he calls a spade a spade. But he does not go out of his way to call people names; he does not pursue vendettas; he does not adopt a nasty attitude toward another poster simply for disagreeing with him. Such name-calling as he does indulge in is entirely earned, to the extent that name-calling is ever earned, by posters' failing to pay any attention to facts, by their writing one-line responses that register their disagreement but say nothing about why they disagree, by their apparently willful failure to engage in meaningful debate, and by their use of the same sort of language toward him. While I would understand a banning for randomly calling people names, calling a spade a spade is something different, and it should be treated differently.
Fourth, some people are simply thin-skinned, and the people who do the banning should recognize that. Perhaps it would be a good idea for them to ask the users of a forum what they thought before banning someone because of one of the thin-skinned users' complaining.
I most ask What does it matter if "his/her" post are anywhere else? It matters because, as I said, some of his posts were quite instructive, and it would be a shame not to be able to view them. I for one would like to be able to. So, if they are preserved somewhere on the site, I'd like to know it, and I'd like to know where.
Why does it matter if you or anyone else likes the post! (Do you and the people you know have some ability to judge merit?) In fact, I do, but that is not quite the point. If you have spent any significant amount of time reading forum posts, you will have noticed that some people reasonably consistently make posts that really *say* something, that are based on *facts*, or that show a reasonable degree of *thought*, while other people do not. It is not a matter of *liking* his posts; it is a matter of their quality as contributions to the discussion and as rational posts supported by facts rather than as irrational posts unsupported by facts. I wouldn't ban the ones who make absurd posts or whose posts are just one-liners contributing nothing of substance, either, but I most *certainly* would have the greatest reluctance in banning the ones who contribute something of value to the site.
Define abusive language Please.In some countries they imprision you for critizizing the dictatorship. In others they killed people that were atheists "Free thinkers" etc. who was offended the atheist or the theist. I am certainly aware of that. I am a militant nontheist myself. I am not the one using the charge of abusive language to support a banning; I am merely supposing that the banning in question might well have been for what some people in the forum might have considered abusive language and that it's possible the site's moderators agreed was abusive. I do not know that that was the reason--they wouldn't tell me and the person in question does not know, either.
Some words in the English language were use and defined defferently then is currently used in practice, who is impowered to sit in judgement? You the other admins. You play god I am offended heal thy self I am not one of the site moderators ("admins"?), although I am an admin for one of the forums. It is not I suggesting that anyone should be banned. Perhaps, as Timotheous suggests, you have misunderstood my position.
As long as someone is not cheating or hurting someone (pysically) they do have the human right to their opinion. Grow thicker skin. I entirely agree with you, with the reservation that I do think that striving for a certain degree of sensitivity and plain civility is generally a good thing. Again, I did not perform the banning, and in fact object to it, and I agree that people should strive to cultivate thick skins, with the reservation that civil discourse might minimize the degree of thick-skin-cultivation necessary.
If I am correct about the person you are speaking of, I believe he complained against another player which led to banning (of the other person). I would normally agree that the person in question did nothing to warrant being banned, but I like how bad karma came back to get him. He was complaining over nothing, because he didn't have thick skin himself.
You probably either gathered that from the threads, which were in error if you read kohais response, or else you may have gotten that from the same lier and cheater who also accused me. Much of what you read about a certain person was incorrect and was just from haters of his.(responding to post 12)
Nov 9, 2011
0
#12
I can't see why anyone should be banned merely for speaking, no matter what they say. After all one can turn off the chat, or ignore nonsense in the fora.
So who was it? If he's gone from the site it won't hurt to tell.
I was responding to post 12.
There is a long history behind this thread in threads in other groups.
IMDeviate wrote:
Timotheous wrote:
You probably either gathered that from the threads, which were in error if you read kohais response, or else you may have gotten that from the same lier and cheater who also accused me. Much of what you read about a certain person was incorrect and was just from haters of his.(responding to post 12)
I don't see any response from Kohai in this thread-are you perhaps referencing another conversation?
But hey I don't dispute karma is a factor. I could tell many stories, but I won't. I might get banned.
yeah, Kohai doesn't like it when people disagree with her.
woodshover wrote:
So who was it? If he's gone from the site it won't hurt to tell.
bramdakota, I think, but only MindWalk knows.
The banning of a particular member whose posts I have enjoyed, together with the deletion of his posts, has stimulated me to begin this thread.
First, are deleted posts still viewable somewhere? This particular member's posts are often instructional, and it would be a shame were they simply lost forever.
Second, he is one of a few people on the forums I've read whose posts are substantive. Some people pop in and make one-line comments, or write posts that are obviously contrary to fact, or that simply contribute nothing of value to the discussion. This user, on the other hand, contributes well-thought-out posts, often supported by graphs and other supporting data, based on facts--he consistently contributes substantive posts. Such a user is a valuable member of the chess.com community and should be banned only with the greatest reluctance and for really good reason.
Third, I can only imagine that his banning was the result of what some people would think of as abusive language. It is true that he does not suffer fools gladly, and he calls a spade a spade. But he does not go out of his way to call people names; he does not pursue vendettas; he does not adopt a nasty attitude toward another poster simply for disagreeing with him. Such name-calling as he does indulge in is entirely earned, to the extent that name-calling is ever earned, by posters' failing to pay any attention to facts, by their writing one-line responses that register their disagreement but say nothing about why they disagree, by their apparently willful failure to engage in meaningful debate, and by their use of the same sort of language toward him. While I would understand a banning for randomly calling people names, calling a spade a spade is something different, and it should be treated differently.
Fourth, some people are simply thin-skinned, and the people who do the banning should recognize that. Perhaps it would be a good idea for them to ask the users of a forum what they thought before banning someone because of one of the thin-skinned users' complaining.