do you like REDHOTPAWN ?

Originally posted by woadman
I just started a new tournament on Chess.com ..the players there are much less "chatty" . Chess24.com is great for up to the minute news and tons of videos for paying members. I check into 2700chess.com daily to check the ratings..they have the split-tails rating list, too. And links to live streams..

I got kicked from chess24 on-line chat for mentioning Kashmir - seriously, the kicked me without a warning and despite the fact that the chat was being trolled by noobs trying to predict the result of the game. I was also kicked from chess.com online chat for using the word, 'sucks', as in, man that move sucks. I tried to point out that it was a valid American colloquial term, but the moderator was obviously inhabiting a different dimension. The problem with chess.com is that all their premium features that they offer can be had for free elsewhere with the exception of videos and chessmentor.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think that it's technologically difficult to provide clickable links, Russ could probably provide a tag which works like this:

[url]text="click on this" url="www.nastysite.org"[/url]

the problem is the possibility that the site linked to could have all sorts of nasties. Lists of undesirable sites are always incomplete as internet fraudster ...[text shortened]... rt playing. I'm happy with the number of features, there's a lot of merit in keeping it simple.

I have heard this argument before, all that one needs to do is provide a warning that you are being redirected to another site and that RHP is not responsible or held accountable for its content. That settles the legal issue. Secondly, forum moderators can quickly remove material which is inappropriate, as they do already and ban the miscreants instantly. Many other forums provide these features as standard and in my opinion, they enhance the experience. If moderation is good then i fail to see much in the way of problems.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Good. I'm here to play chess, not Facebook.

and that is your reason for opposing forum features like clickeable URL's or the ability to embed a video? Wow.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it works. Probably the greatest and most innovative site is lichess.org, new features and ideas are being added all the time. chess dot com is broken, it functions but is so buggy and its almost impossible to penetrate their bureaucracy. I find that simple forum features like the ability to include a clickeable URL or post a youtube video, introduce graphics are severely lacking at RHP. RHP is like a retro site from the early nineties.

What does the li stand for in lichess.org ?

Originally posted by woadman
What does the li stand for in lichess.org ?

Live/Light/Libre. Lichess is pronounced 'lee-chess.'

Live because games are played and watched in real-time 24/7; light and libre for the fact that lichess is open-source and unencumbered by proprietary junk that plagues other websites.

Similarly, the source code for lichess, lila, stands for li[chess in sca]la, seeing as the bulk of lichess is written in Scala, an intuitive programming language.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Live/Light/Libre. Lichess is pronounced 'lee-chess.'

Live because games are played and watched in real-time 24/7; light and libre for the fact that lichess is open-source and unencumbered by proprietary junk that plagues other websites.

Similarly, the source code for lichess, lila, stands for li[chess in sca]la, seeing as the bulk of lichess is written in Scala, an intuitive programming language.

Ok thanks for the info...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have heard this argument before, all that one needs to do is provide a warning that you are being redirected to another site and that RHP is not responsible or held accountable for its content. That settles the legal issue.

Erm... no. No, it really, really doesn't.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Erm... no. No, it really, really doesn't.

ok then how does it not settle the legal issue? isn't that what a disclaimer is for? Your text seems to be devoid of reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I got kicked from chess24 on-line chat for mentioning Kashmir - seriously, the kicked me without a warning and despite the fact that the chat was being trolled by noobs trying to predict the result of the game. I was also kicked from chess.com online chat for using the word, 'sucks', as in, man that move sucks. I tried to point out that it was a va ...[text shortened]... ures that they offer can be had for free elsewhere with the exception of videos and chessmentor.

I've said a lot worse than that on chess24 and not been booted--just blind luck I guess...they need to chill.....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok then how does it not settle the legal issue? isn't that what a disclaimer is for? Your text seems to be devoid of reason.

You can write as many legal disclaimers as you like and still find yourself liable, it depends on what the law actually says. Depending on which jurisdiction is relevant Russ could have to put a "reasonable effort" into preventing links to other sites being to sites which will not damage his customers machines. The relevant jurisdiction could be the U.S., where I think the servers are. It could be the country where the users computer is and people play here from all over the world. The jurisdictions could disagree about who has jurisdiction. What is defined as a "reasonable effort" will vary and it might mean ensure no link can be posted to any site containing illegal material (such as piratebay) or malware. Site's that allow this may employ a team to keep up with it - meaning Russ would have to put his prices up. Since I'm hoping to be able to resubscribe in a month or two I really don't want him to. It's really much simpler like this. As things stand all you have to do is copy and paste the URL people post into the browser bar.

It won't enhance my browsing experience one bit having vast numbers of videos all being downloaded because RJHinds has inserted a video per post into three consecutive posts in one of the threads in Spirituality. Especially as the stupid things always start playing. Various websites who get overexcited about features render themselves virtually unusable to people with low end equipment. My notebook is brought to its knees by some websites. Russ is right not to have included this feature.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You can write as many legal disclaimers as you like and still find yourself liable, it depends on what the law actually says. Depending on which jurisdiction is relevant Russ could have to put a "reasonable effort" into preventing links to other sites being to sites which will not damage his customers machines. The relevant jurisdiction could be the U. ...[text shortened]... book is brought to its knees by some websites. Russ is right not to have included this feature.

Can you cite a single case where a website that has utilised a disclaimer has been held liable for and prosecuted for the external content of links on its site by its users posting in online forums? You say it happens, where is your evidence?

First of all you do not need to have an automatic replay feature, this renders your assertion that they will automatically play, redundant.

Employ a team? are you serious? you could simply have a volunteer who is a regular user to moderate the forums. People would be happy to do it. How many links have you had to illegal sites? how would making the link clickable ploriferate this, you have not said. How would it proliferate the number of video links posted, again you have not said, All in all its a pile of conjecture, doom and gloom and references to R J Hinds behaviour as some kind of substantiating evidence.

Low end equipment? wow what are you referring to, a ZX 81 or a computer powered with a mouse and a running wheel? what evidence have you that making links clickeable or embedding youtube videos will make THIS site unusable as your scaremongering suggest?

Not a single valid argument have you produced, no not a single one. Nothing but mere opinion masquerading as fact. Fine if you want a retro site form the 90's with no forum enhancements, meanwhile the rest of the net moves on.

I think YouTube links might be OK, with the following precautions taken:

1) Videos don't ever play automatically. They all start with a black screen and a play button. The audience can decide if they want to view the video, given the reputation of the person posting it.

2) The default setting is just to show the YouTube link. If people want embedded video players, they can change this setting. This allows people who don't want to bother with videos to ignore them entirely.

As for the rest, we already had a guy link STANG who posted links to offensive websites, and we handled him fine. The same can be done with anyone who posts inappropriate video content.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I think YouTube links might be OK, with the following precautions taken:

1) Videos don't ever play automatically. They all start with a black screen and a play button. The audience can decide if they want to view the video, given the reputation of the person posting it.

2) The default setting is just to show the YouTube link. If people want embe ...[text shortened]... and we handled him fine. The same can be done with anyone who posts inappropriate video content.

I don't want youtube links. They spam.

Originally posted by bikingviking
I don't want youtube links. They spam.

No, they're not always spam. Some might be highly relevant to the thread topic, actually.

People can spam using only text. We have ways of dealing with them. Those same ways would work against vid spammers.