23 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyI have yet to see any foul mouth abuse either. I don't know why anyone would let a "one bad apple" thing, ruin fun for everyone. It seems that the "one" example, would simply be trying to get such to happen.
Strangely enough, I never see these posts you guys are bitching about nowadays.
Meaning the mods did their work effectively.
What is it that such heavy handedness really benefits?
I don't think that the issue is rubbish being posted, its to do with malicious people signing up as a non-subscriber, and attacking the forum, either through spam or cheating allegations. Its just too easy at the moment for people (even subscribers) to sign up and attack the forum with no risk to themselves.
I am fairly new here, and thought it was quite cool to be able to converse and interact with other chess players... yes, I am a "non-subscriber" but such is due entirely to budget constraints. With such measures, I don't know that I would pay for it if/when I have the money... to pay to be subject to such is silly, in my opinion.
Aren't the "attacks" fairly self evident? Obvious even? Easy to ignore? Why give them that sort of power in making such decisions as restrictions, you have empowered those that were upset to begin with... you have rewarded their attempts.....again, in my opinion.
23 Mar 05
You know.... when I log in, and am shown my "home page," it even suggests "why not start a conversation in the forums?" Even being a "non-subscriber."
I can understand loathing the pesky, hack work.... but hacks are everywhere in life.... if people let decisions be made based on the actions of hacks... all you are really doing is limiting yourself... which in allot of ways is exactly what hacks want in the first place... basically because they are hacks and can't stand to watch someone else that isn't.
I've dealt with hacks in kitchens..... and speaking from experience, hacks put more time and energy into such hack work just to keep someone else from enjoying the benefits of not being a hack.... than it would take to simply put some effort into their own lives.
Yeah, hacks like that suck.... but why shackle yourself and others as is their want, in the effort to stave their efforts? That in itslef is a form of social sabotage that you are driven to do to yourself.
Sabotage(sab-e'-täzh) n.;
Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by xsI don't see why the bad apple should spoil the whole bushel. If the oranges weren't so "fruitist", they'd realize that most of the apples were good.
At the height of spammer/non-sub ICHtP's posting, there was over a page and a half foul mouthed lunacy before the mods got to it. Sometimes one bad apple spoils the whole bushel, but the problem will not be solved by whining to the oranges.
My e-mail does in fact filter spam (thanks to Qurb) and limits incoming e-mail to a whole bunch of 'acceptable' senders , a forum non-subs filter (or an individual mute button) would be useful.
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by RavelloYeah! That's the only reason anyone would take such a position! 🙄
I wonder why you say this.................maybe because you aren't a subscriber?
Perhaps you missed it, but there's a few subscribers in this very thread that have come out against banning non-subscribers...
23 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou opinion is a means to an end, unfortunately the only real solution, other than to just put up with it, is to throw the babies out with the bath water.
I don't see why the bad apple should spoil the whole bushel. If the oranges weren't so "fruitist", they'd realize that most of the apples were good.
23 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWhy the big bruhaha?
Yeah! That's the only reason anyone would take such a position! 🙄
Perhaps you missed it, but there's a few [b]subscribers in this very thread that have come out against banning non-subscribers...[/b]
As far as I can see, you have enough invested in this site to care about your handle. As such, any limitations on non-subscribers should not effect you.
My only objection to the freedom of non-subscribers in the forum is the simplicity of people being able to set up accounts on a whim, and then spam or maliciously attack the site via the forums and then either a) take off, or b) sign up a new nick and repeat ad nauseum. You can surely see the sense in trying to prevent this.
I would like a 100% ban on 0 games/0 moves people. Why would u sign up on an internet chess site if not to play chess. The only other reason would be to attack the site. I would also like non-subscribers to be limited in their posting rights until they have invested an arbitrary number of moves (100? ) in the site.
[EDIT] I would not support a total ban on non-subscribers rights to post.
D
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by xsSolution A please. "Just put up with it". Excellent idea. It's not all that bad. The spam comes off the board within a day, and life goes on. Great idea.
You opinion is a means to an end, unfortunately the only real solution, other than to just put up with it, is to throw the babies out with the bath water.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by RagnorakWhile we're ascribing various nefarious motives to the 'site attackers', let's give them credit for playing a few fake games against dupes to get past the move count limitation. Like you said, some are doing it for revenge; this would barely slow them down.
Why the big bruhaha?
As far as I can see, you have enough invested in this site to care about your handle. As such, any limitations on non-subscribers should not effect you.
My only objection to the freedom of non-subscribers in the forum is the simplicity of people being able to set up accounts on a whim, and then spam or maliciously attack the si ...[text shortened]... ) in the site.
[EDIT] I would not support a total ban on non-subscribers rights to post.
D
The site owner has a vested interest in allowing users to try before they buy. This means everything from playing some games to making forum posts. Take away too many rights and the newbie will get the impression that the site isn't all that special, and certainly nothing worth paying for.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI hate to say it,but you put the point very well.
The site owner has a vested interest in allowing users to try before they buy. This means everything from playing some games to making forum posts. Take away too many rights and the newbie will get the impression that the site isn't all that special, and certainly nothing worth paying for.
This is exactly what Russ,and any other business man,thinks and that's why I know that he'll never put limitations to subscribers posting in forums.
By the way I'll continue my personal crusade against non-subs posting drivel in forums!😉
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI'm not happy to pay to "just put up with it".
Solution A please. "Just put up with it". Excellent idea. It's not all that bad. The spam comes off the board within a day, and life goes on. Great idea.
Don't believe I should have to.
And the customer is always right.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by xsThe customer isn't always right; in fact, he's often wrong. This is a bad cliche that needs re-writing.
I'm not happy to pay to "just put up with it".
Don't believe I should have to.
And the [b]customer is always right.[/b]
Customers here may face moderation of posts, forum bans, and site bans if they abuse their privileges. The site authorities show by those actions that they don't believe your cliche.
The site should not go so far to appease existing members that they stifle their own growth.