Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. Standard member Nemesio
    Ursulakantor
    07 Mar '03 04:44 / 1 edit
    Recently, a person who obviously wanted to cause trouble joined the site, made two moves then
    complained about how bad the site was. This person clearly had no interest in learning about the
    site and, I would guess, simply wanted to cause trouble, which he did.

    This raises the question: who should be allowed to post. People in the past have suggested that
    only paying members should post, but I think that is too extreme. What about the possibility
    of making only players who have made at least 150 moves (3-5 real games) having posting
    privileges? Using a move count (which is already being calculated) rather than a game count
    seems the better solution since people can create games and resign with ease, but making
    150 moves would be irritating enough for most pesty people.

    What do you think?

    Nemesio
  2. Standard member thire
    Xebite
    07 Mar '03 08:03
    I know the posting you mean, but I think this is not a (big) problem. But I find you suggestion good!
  3. Donation bbarr
    Chief Justice
    07 Mar '03 09:00
    Originally posted by nemesio
    Recently, a person who obviously wanted to cause trouble joined the site, made two moves then
    complained about how bad the site was. This person clearly had no interest in learning about the
    site and, I would guess, simply wanted to cause trouble, which he did.

    This raises the question: who should be allowed to post. People in the past have suggeste ...[text shortened]... ng
    150 moves would be irritating enough for most pesty people.

    What do you think?

    Nemesio
    I think that's an exellent suggestion. If we implement that along with a code of conduct for moderators, which I've posted on in the general forum, I think we could avoid many of the recurring problems we've experienced.
  4. 07 Mar '03 11:26
    The problem with this idea is that the kind of people it's designed to deterr, will simply join up under several nicknames and play lots of bogus games against themselves. We have too much of this sort of thing going on already, without encouraging it.

    Or imagine a couple of kids joining at the same time, They could play a blitz match and knock out 150 moves in a few minutes, as Vaknso and Luck demonstrated, a short while ago. They could join up, start a few blitz games, and get themselves a license to spam - all in less than an hour!

    What's wrong with my idea of making people wait at least a month before they can post?


    Dave
  5. Donation Dr. Brain
    Wizard of Darkness
    07 Mar '03 14:02
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    The problem with this idea is that the kind of people it's designed to deterr, will simply join up under several nicknames and play lots of bogus games against themselves. We have too much of this sort of thing going on already, without encouraging it.

    Or imagine a couple of kids joining at the same time, They could play a blitz match and knock out ...[text shortened]... 's wrong with my idea of making people wait at least a month before they can post?


    Dave
    I am with Dave on this one.Also check the suggestions in the general forum.Bennett certainly started an interesting and much needed thread.Well done Bennett.
  6. Donation belgianfreak
    stitching you up
    07 Mar '03 15:31
    What's wrong with my idea of making people wait at least a month before they can post?


    Dave[/b]
    as I said before dave, that would deter the one time spammer, but not the determined flammer. I was tempted to create a character called "sleeper" and post an (obviously fake) flame one month later to show that anyone could get around this if they were determined enough. If that character gets banned, suddenly sleeper 2 & sleeper 3 appear. Plus this would deter newbis from joining the community. Plus, a lot of the trouble isn't caused by newbis coming and and casting stones - it's old timers picking fights with each other over long help grudges.

    At least having to make 150 moves would take more effort & planning. Your'e right - it could be done in a few minutes, but it requires more effort than leaving sleeper nicks.

    OK, so I've answered you as to the flaws I see in your plan. Can you answer me as to mine? Why not have everyone start with restricted posting privelages. 12 months ago, when you first joined you could post, but your post would not appear until it was OK'd by a moderator. That would stop both newbis spamming and people creating nrew nicks to flame anonamously. After a time, if your posts were found to be clean, you would be given instant posting rights. If you later started flaming I guess you could have your instant rights revolked for a time, or even ALL your rights to post revolked.
    The major downside I see right away is the extra work for mods, but there are plenty of people who'd be willing to moderate.

    I also agree with the thought that the way mods are chosen should be reviewed. Not that the mods we have are bad, but without a clear selection procedure and clear guidlines about what is an unacceptable post, then people will always be able to say "but why does he have the right to..."
  7. 07 Mar '03 16:00
    My original suggestion was that everyone should pay a fee or subscription, if they wished to continue using the site after a one month free trial period.
    During the trial period, joiners would not be allowed to post.
    This means that the determined flamers would have to pay for each nickname they activated.
    Ok, it wouldn't deter flamers with unlimited financial resources, but 99% of them would be deterred.

    The problem with your plan is, as you admitted, that it places a greater burden on the moderators, and assumes they will be able to do an effective job.
    I don't think I'm alone in believing the moderators don't know how to do their job properly at present - so giving them extra powers and responsibilities is not likey to help the situation.
    We need to simplify the moderators tasks, not complicate them further.
    There definitely should be clear guidelines for moderation, and greater transparency about what they do.
    Everytime a post is removed, we should be told who removed it, accompanied by an explanation.
    There should also be a right to appeal.

    Just my thoughts.

    Dave


  8. Donation ChessNut
    Lightly Salted...
    07 Mar '03 17:28
    I think we can all see that most solutions cause 'law' abiding members as well as Chris and Russ problems. I like the simple solution... only pawn stars can post. If they want to pay to spam, let em, then kick them out. Most spammers don't want to spend money to spam. So it's restrictive, big deal! It's a priviledge on this site not a right.

    There's always a way to spam I they want to bad enough. At least this way there is a monetary loss involved for them.

    Bryan
  9. Standard member thire
    Xebite
    07 Mar '03 19:22
    Originally posted by ChessNut
    ... only pawn stars can post. Bryan
    No! When you are new and you want to be perhaps a pawnstar one day you'd like to read the postings... then you want to answer a posting. or you want to wish something (as I like to do in this forum ) or you simply want to ask and know something. There should be a least some forums open: Help / Site ideas ...
    th
  10. Standard member schweigi
    Member of Gonzo Clan
    07 Mar '03 19:32
    I like the system the way it is ...

    Okay ... sometimes there are people posting that don't seem to be very clever... but I just ignore this i.... . Schliemann should have done that as well ... and you can always alert a moderator, if you don't like what you see.

  11. Standard member thire
    Xebite
    07 Mar '03 19:47
    Originally posted by schweigi

    ... and you can always alert a moderator, if you don't like what you see.

    In fact this is a featur I don't know how to use: If there is somthing I want to bring to Russ' mind, I can send an email or hope he reads it. Just a click is "too easy" for me: if everybody does so, then he recives perhaps 1000 mails in one hours when the guy (above) posted...
    when is the ALERT to use??
  12. Donation Rhymester
    and RedHotTed
    07 Mar '03 20:07
    Originally posted by thire
    In fact this is a featur I don't know how to use: If there is somthing I want to bring to Russ' mind, I can send an email or hope he reads it. Just a click is "too easy" for me: if everybody does so, then he recives perhaps 1000 mails in one hours when the guy (above) posted...
    when is the ALERT to use??
    If you see a post which you find offensive you can click on the Alert Moderator button. Nothing will happen as far as you can see but any moderator that is logged on or when one does log on will see that a post has been alerted. They will then look at the post and decide if it needs to be removed. Often there doesn't actually seem to be anything wrong with alerted posts... we suspect that this is because people are clicking the button by mistake.

    Rhymester
  13. Donation ChessNut
    Lightly Salted...
    07 Mar '03 20:08
    Originally posted by thire
    No! When you are new and you want to be perhaps a pawnstar one day you'd like to read the postings...
    No? I didn't say they couldn't READ the post. Hehehe...

    How about we forget the whole thing and enjoy life as it is now? Sometimes I think people complain too much and think about how 'good' it could be 'if only'...

    This is a great site [period] and if someone doesn't like it and wants to express their opinion that's fine by me. If it's offensive then they need to be warned once then [DELETED]... for a small price I know some guys who will pay them a visit and....
  14. Standard member royalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    07 Mar '03 22:04
    I may not be too experienced, as I haven't been here long, but I don't see why spamming is a big problem as long as a consistent pattern of moderating regulations is in place.
  15. Standard member Nemesio
    Ursulakantor
    07 Mar '03 22:36
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    My original suggestion was that everyone should pay a fee or subscription, if they wished to continue using the site after a one month free trial period.
    I have to confess that I respectfully disagree with Mr Tebb on this point. I think that while we have
    people able to play long-term without paying, it is important to allow them to speak what they think
    about the site; Russ and Chris have been very good about this. At this point, I do not think
    everyone should be obligated to pay, as long as Russ and Chris can make ends meet with the
    subscription fees that are coming in.

    Mr Tebb said that his solution would deter 99% of spammers, and I believe he is right. However,
    I think my idea would deter 75% of spammers and have very very little impact upon the sincere
    RHP community.

    Yes, people can blitz chess, but how many spammers want to go through that process? They want
    the easy situation: Enter in a fake Email, send an imflammatory message, disappear. They don't
    want to have to sit and play with a friend, mor often than not.

    I repeat, posting privileges should be enabled only after 150 moves; after all, how much could you
    possibly contribute when you are that new to the site? Or, how much help could you need that
    isn't addressed in the Help Files?

    My opinion, of course.

    Nemesio