28 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by IchibanovAgree. We're looking at nothing more or less than a gradual overhaul of the RHP culture... realistically, anything but an easy undertaking.
I do agree that the "c-word" is part of the problem. And I think Russ has that covered. People are now simply banned, with no mention as to why. Maybe Russ should switch from "banned" to "refunded" (which is the policy, I believe) to completely remove any implied stigma and keep the lawyers at bay.
Of course, that means no post-ban discussions of engine ...[text shortened]... allowed either. Right now, 3b'ers are pretty much fair game after they've been ejected.
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34How do internet correspondence chess site competitors deal with the issue?
post by grumpy bobby
"3. Present RHP Situation: Private suspicions unfounded accusations,
public ill will, voluminous posts on the subject, negative internet press. "
Oh how right you are.
I came here to post another idea and read this thread.
Excellent idea to have this out in the open.
The other poster is pointing out all the diff here on another matter
so I have not thought all this out. But it's on the correct path.
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThey Don't in most instances. Even USCF told me they don't bother unless there is a HUGE outcry and overwhelming evidence... and even then they may not act. I sent them a message about a year ago on the topic and actually heard back to my surprise.
How do internet correspondence chess site competitors deal with the issue?
P-
30 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitInteresting, Phlab. Wonder why... Unable to due to a lack of effective (subjectivity/bias free) tools or Unwilling because
They Don't in most instances. Even USCF told me they don't bother unless there is a HUGE outcry and overwhelming evidence... and even then they may not act. I sent them a message about a year ago on the topic and actually heard back to my surprise.
P-
of the administrative nuisance and/or the litigation risk or because viewed as Unprofitable since the ongoing cost of the
solution may exceed the cost of the problem or some other cluster of perceptions and real world factors. What say you?
😉
30 Jul 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyQuit winking at me!
Interesting, Phlab. Wonder why... Unable to due to a lack of effective (subjectivity/bias free) tools or Unwilling because
of the administrative nuisance and/or the litigation risk or because viewed as Unprofitable since the ongoing cost of the
solution may exceed the cost of the problem or some other cluster of perceptions and real world factors. What say you?
😉
I would say becuase engines are already so ingrained into USCF since their inception. Too late to start bothering? A friend of mine says it is a big problem and there are many who wish something would be done about it.
P-
30 Jul 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitImagine loss of site integrity must be giving internet chess a bad name.
Quit winking at me!
I would say becuase engines are already so ingrained into USCF since their inception. Too late to start bothering? A friend of mine says it is a big problem and there are many who wish something would be done about it.
P-
