Censorship by RHP "moderators" - Your complai...

Originally posted by slimjim
Apparantly you didn't understand my first post. I'm not complaining to the fact that I was banned. I just feel it was unfair that the other person wasn't banned as well.

The so called "moderators" are selectively banning people.

They're censoring subscribers. Why should I bother becoming one ?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Delmer, you already know my position. We've debated this whole non-sub thing before.

Indeed, Posterboy Freeloader, I already know your position.

Originally posted by slimjim
Apparantly you didn't understand my first post. I'm not complaining to the fact that I was banned. I just feel it was unfair that the other person wasn't banned as well.

I understood what you were saying, and I know how it feels to be banned without a warning or explanation for something neither offensive nor clearly against the rules, while others who post stuff they perfectly know to be offensive or against the rules just have their post deleted and maybe get a warning. And yes, it has also made me wonder whether the moderators, or at least some of them, are biased. That may or may not be the case, but in any case I very much doubt that their bias, if they have one, is based on nationality, as you suggest. The reason why you got a ban while the other person didn't could be a personal bias, it could be because the moderator missed the other post, it could be because your post got more alerts, it could be because the moderator who gave you the ban tends to react very strongly to a specific word you used and the other person didn't, or it could be for some other reason I can't think of right now. I see both Americans and non-Americans (as well as pro-Americans and anti-Americans) getting banned or getting away with stuff, so I really can't see an American or anti-American bias.

Originally posted by Nordlys
The reason why you got a ban while the other person didn't could be a personal bias, it could be because the moderator missed the other post, it could be because your post got more alerts, it could be because the moderator who gave you the ban tends to react very strongly to a specific word you used and the other person didn't, or it could be for some other ...[text shortened]... banned or getting away with stuff, so I really can't see an American or anti-American bias.

The arrangement of banning someone if their post gets alerts by many people is flawed.

Protestors may come from a specific country in question (such as America) and will generally be louder than supporters.

One way to bring some fairness would be to have a page listing people who have received a warning.

If they get three warnings then they get banned.

However, a person can get off the list by having supporters post their support in that page. If the person gets enough supporters then the person gets removed from the page.

Any refinements or other suggestions ?

Originally posted by Sambo69
The arrangement of banning someone if their post gets alerts by many people is flawed.

Protestors may come from a specific country in question (such as America) and will generally be louder than supporters.

One way to bring some fairness would be to have a page listing people who have received a warning.

If they get three warnings then they get bann ...[text shortened]... supporters then the person gets removed from the page.

Any refinements or other suggestions ?

Only subscribers get to vote on the removal of bans.

Originally posted by Sambo69
The arrangement of banning someone if their post gets alerts by many people is flawed.

this statement is flawed.
banning is not a direct effect of posts being alerted.

everyone agreed to the Terms of Service when they signed up.
If they don't like them, they can go elsewhere.

"You agree that RHP may, under certain circumstances and without prior notice, immediately terminate your RHP account,and access to the Service. Cause for such termination shall include, but not be limited to, (a) breaches or violations of the TOS or other incorporated agreements or guidelines..."

"Further, you agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in RHP's sole discretion and that RHP shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account..."

Originally posted by Delmer
Only subscribers get to vote on the removal of bans.

OK

Originally posted by aging blitzer
this statement is flawed.
banning is not a direct effect of posts being alerted.

everyone agreed to the Terms of Service when they signed up.
If they don't like them, they can go elsewhere.

"You agree that RHP may, under certain circumstances and without prior notice, immediately terminate your RHP account,and access to the Service. Cause for s ...[text shortened]... RHP shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account..."

But there's nothing wrong with change that introduces fairness when the TOS can be interpreted by a so called "moderator" how they personally see fit and under the influence of others ... or simply under the influence.

Originally posted by Sambo69
The arrangement of banning someone if their post gets alerts by many people is flawed.

Protestors may come from a specific country in question (such as America) and will generally be louder than supporters.

One way to bring some fairness would be to have a page listing people who have received a warning.

If they get three warnings then they get bann ...[text shortened]... supporters then the person gets removed from the page.

Any refinements or other suggestions ?

Firstly, your first statement is untrue, showing that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fond of distorting the truth. X number of user alerts does not cause a user to be banned fromt the forums. Either gross misconduct (eg. spamming several threads with "f*** you" in a short time frame) or persistantly ignoring warnings to desist with spamming, flooding, swearing etc. over a prolonged period of time. If warnings continue to be ignored bans increase in length. User alerts point moderators to potential issues, but it is the conduct of the individual that determins whether he or she is banned, not how many alerts they accumilate.

Then you contratict yourself. Firstly you say that the current system is flawed because you might get bands people who always alert certain users or types of post. Then you say that whether or not a user should be banned should be determined by whether or not they have bands of supporters. How is one system (that doesn't exist) 'flawed' and the other a better system?

Originally posted by belgianfreak
Firstly, your first statement is untrue, showing that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are fond of distorting the truth. X number of user alerts does not cause a user to be banned fromt the forums. Either gross misconduct (eg. spamming several threads with "f*** you" in a short time frame) or persistantly ignoring warnings to desis ...[text shortened]... upporters. How is one system (that doesn't exist) 'flawed' and the other a better system?

Thanks for correcting me, and others, who had the impression that you were influenced by the number of alerts people make about a particular author.

However, you miss the intent of the proposal, which is to make supposed warnings specific, counted, public and open to judgement by all members rather than individuals called "moderators".

Originally posted by Sambo69
Thanks for correcting me, and others, who had the impression that you were influenced by the number of alerts people make about a particular author.

However, you miss the intent of the proposal, which is to make supposed warnings specific, counted, public and open to judgement by all members rather than individuals called "moderators".

Hey, Stangbo, did you know that you can check the banned list and the reasons for bans at http://www.timeforchess.com/comhub/removedplayers.php

After looking at this list a second time I realize it's not exactly a list of banned players but a list of those whose accounts were actually terminated for various RHP rules violations.

Originally posted by Delmer
Hey, Stangbo, did you know that you can check the banned list and the reasons for bans at http://www.timeforchess.com/comhub/removedplayers.php

After looking at this list a second time I realize it's not exactly a list of banned players but a list of those whose accounts were actually terminated for various RHP rules violations.

Are moderators immune from the TOS. For example, BelgianFreak may come under ...

Section 3(c) : The Time For Chess administration team have concluded that a person has unreasonably harassed another member of this site.

Originally posted by Sambo69
Are moderators immune from the TOS. For example, BelgianFreak may come under ...

Section 3(c) : The Time For Chess administration team have concluded that a person has unreasonably harassed another member of this site.

Evidently you haven't been harassed by BF. You're still posting. I hope I'm not harassing you. I can lighten up if you like. Wouldn't want to keep you awake nights.

Originally posted by Delmer
Evidently you haven't been harassed by BF. You're still posting. I hope I'm not harassing you. I can lighten up if you like. Wouldn't want to keep you awake nights.

I think he harassed STANG. Some sort of power trip to have the guy censored.

Originally posted by Sambo69
I think he harassed STANG. Some sort of power trip to have the guy censored.

You'e only been using RHP for a month. Seems kind of premature for you to make such a decision.