26 Jun 08
Originally posted by KorchOnly one per day.
If you believe [b]your opponent has breached the site Terms of Service 3(b) then please raise a ‘Fair Play’ ticket below. Only 1 ticket can be created every 24 hours.
Does it mean that you have right to complain only about person you have been played? 🙄[/b]
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThat does seem to be the case.
It seems to be an important feature of the new system that it provide little, if any, information about what is actually to be done to the community.
Seems like that is by design.
Maybe we're suppossed to be more scared of something we can't see.
26 Jun 08
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Thanks for shedding some light on what happened to the brief ressurection of the game mods.
I think one of the biggest problems with the game mods as they are now (or I guess were) was that we never really got set into a routine and cleared out all of the other crap that we had to get done before we could just straight up look at all of the suspects. If the 5 game mods could have just focused on doing all of their work, we could have probably look ...[text shortened]... got through very little because we never really got to cover all of the initial "fixed costs".
28 Jun 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyBasically Russ' plan is to slowly eliminate game moderation, the 1st step is to get people further out of the loop. The elimination of the removed players list was a big step in that process, in order to keep asses in the seats he will throw out a couple bones to show the new system still works by banning some well known players, and than slow eliminate that process as people wont know if they're banning or not.
So is this the end of the official announcement? There is a way to report suspected cheats via a "Fair Play Ticket", but no indication of how they will be checked, and no feedback given to the person who reported them? That's a bit fecking poor.
29 Jun 08
Originally posted by NorrisBI think the removed player list was eliminated for legal reasons and connected with the departure of Arrakis.
Basically Russ' plan is to slowly eliminate game moderation, the 1st step is to get people further out of the loop. The elimination of the removed players list was a big step in that process, in order to keep asses in the seats he will throw out a couple bones to show the new system still works by banning some well known players, and than slow eliminate that process as people wont know if they're banning or not.
29 Jun 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWell yes; just think if a very high profile player who uses their real name on this site was under investigation & later banned.
I think the removed player list was eliminated for legal reasons and connected with the departure of Arrakis.
It would potentially have serious implications if the player decided to take action.
I think you are perhaps wide of the mark with Arrakis though.
29 Jun 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchPlayers on other sites who are banned for engine use are routinely publicly outed; you see them all the time on Playchess. If that's the reason for getting rid of the "Removed List" (since the Site Admins won't tell us why they did it, it's speculation), it's a foolish one. The Player Profile still gets tagged with a "Banned from the Site", so I don't see what possible difference it makes.
Well yes; just think if a very high profile player who uses their real name on this site was under investigation & later banned.
It would potentially have serious implications if the player decided to take action.
I think you are perhaps wide of the mark with Arrakis though.
29 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThis sort of thinking:
Players on other sites who are banned for engine use are routinely publicly outed; you see them all the time on Playchess. If that's the reason for getting rid of the "Removed List" (since the Site Admins won't tell us why they did it, it's speculation), it's a foolish one. The Player Profile still gets tagged with a "Banned from the Site", so I don't see what possible difference it makes.
"They may be sure that A is a comp cheater, but they don't want to be sued by A for defamation or have their cheat detection staff hauled into court to explain their methods on the witness stand. The ICC may have enough information to satisfy them - and of course it's written into the user agreement that they can tag you as a (C) if they want, or deny you rated-game privileges - but it might not have enough information to satisfy a judge or jury. And it's not written into the agreement that they can publicly label you as a crook in statements to the chess world as large. So the ICC ends up trying to resolve these things silently, without public noise."
Source:
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/03/hasbun_no_hasbeen.htm
You may laugh and say "this is hardly the ICC" but the player with a high profile who gets banned using his real name here... I could see the word getting around.