Originally posted by BigDoggProblem The worst spammer on the site (by far) is STANG, and he's a subscriber. Your proposal is worthless; most other online chess forums are free, so charging people for access will only reduce participation.
STANG is annoying and has in the past been banned. I am sure he will be banned again.
Maybe the subs (HAHA) should have a vote on who should get a ban. I propose Bowmann and Vivaldi, although the latter has been suspiciously quiet for a while.
Maybe people should only be allowed on the forums after they've completed a certain number of games, to prove they're not here just to post drivel on the forums.
Originally posted by knightwest Maybe people should only be allowed on the forums after they've completed a certain number of games, to prove they're not here just to post drivel on the forums.
Actually, I don't consider Bowmann to be a spammer really. He does have some humerous additions to make. One criteria that I am tend to consider spamming on forums is making new threads. I don't think he has started a new thread, only contributed to existing ones.
Originally posted by Aiko Actually, I don't consider Bowmann to be a spammer really. He does have some humerous additions to make. One criteria that I am tend to consider spamming on forums is making new threads. I don't think he has started a new thread, only contributed to existing ones.
Bowmann doesn't spam, he trolls. Often, however, he makes some good points. His chess lessons are well chosen problems, and generally have been well-received.
Originally posted by Bowmann Yes, I wander around this zoo at my leisure. And, unlike you, I DON'T send PMs telling others what I think of them.
Another false accusation and personal attack.
Are you referring to the PM yesterday, which you invited in a thread on other chess sites, to which you replied with an absurd declaration? Or are you referring to one two months ago when I inquired about one of your unprovoked personal attacks on me?
Originally posted by Wulebgr Are you referring to the PM yesterday, which you invited in a thread on other chess sites, to which you replied with an absurd declaration? Or are you referring to one two months ago when I inquired about one of your unprovoked personal attacks on me?
How could I be referring to PMs I invite? I meant those you sent on 21st, 22nd and 28th October respectively, the last entitled "troll".
Originally posted by Wulebgr Originally posted by Bowmann [b]Chessworld.net do this. Hardly the best site, though.
Originally posted by Wulebgr does
If you have an insight into the best online playing site, please share.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wulebgr to Bowmann
>Which sites do you consider superior to R ...[text shortened]... seful. Most of the time you seem to be a person of intelligence, but too often you are a cretin.[/b]
Originally posted by Wulebgr ...so I call you a troll.
When you asserted in a rather whimsical thread that I was ignorant of the rules of chess, I asked for clarification in the same thread. You offered none, but...
Happy to be one, as I've already indicated.
I have arrived at the conclusion that you take life far too seriously. Your replies are becoming ever more frustrated and confused. And you simply cannot move on from the matter of the 'rules of chess clarification' thread, even though I've answered your questions and laid it to rest. Twice. (Although you've dug it up numerous times, Scooter doesn't seem to mind.)
Originally posted by Bowmann Happy to be one, as I've already indicated.
I have arrived at the conclusion that you take life far too seriously. Your replies are becoming ever more frustrated and confused. And you simply cannot move on from the matter of the 'rules of chess clarification' thread, even though I've answered your questions and laid it to rest. Twice. (Although you've dug it up numerous times, Scooter doesn't seem to mind.)
Best anti-spam idea ever!
18 Nov '05 12:33
Back to Top