ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 633 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-23-13 | | rogge: I believe he's called <NN-1>? |
|
Sep-23-13
 | | Domdaniel: <rogge> Heh. Oh, *him*. But can we really be sure of his departure? It's been about three days, I know, but there have been previous gaps in NN-1's record... |
|
| Sep-23-13 | | rogge: Call it a hunch, (or maybe it's just wishful thinking.) |
|
| Sep-23-13 | | notyetagm: <CG.COM>
Can we please have a forum for the ongoing <BAKU OPEN>?? Thanks
----
TWIC DOSSIER -> http://www.theweekinchess.com/chess... TWIC PGN -> http://theweekinchess.com/assets/fi... |
|
Sep-23-13
 | | chessgames.com: Here you go: Baku Open (2013). A few games are missing. <JoergWalter> Sorry for not responding earlier. I will contact you by email. |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Abdel Irada: Thank you for deleting my exchange of posts with <JoergWalter>. Of course this was not the place for them. ∞ |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Marmot PFL: Paid for premium membership with paypal but still getting only basic. Two messages sent have been ignored so I filed dispute with paypal. Either give me full premium access or refund. |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Boomie: <chessgames.com>
In the Chessgames Challenge game, the votes are case sensitive. BF6 is not the same as Bf6 and is counted separately. This could cause a furor in the current vote which is quite close and some votes have been entered in all caps. |
|
Sep-25-13
 | | Annie K.: <Marmot PFL> there is only one level of premium membership here, and going by your avatar, you have it. What is the problem? Picking your own avatar and (re)opening your chessforum, are things you have to do yourself through your preferences page. |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Shams: <Annie K.> <[T]here is only one level of premium membership here.> Chess.com should take a page out of this site's book. Silver member, platinum, tungsten, blah blah blah. And you get virtually nothing at the 'basic' premium level. |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Marmot PFL: Thanks for fixing the issue, whatever it was. When I bought premium membership before it activated almost instantly, but this took over 6 hours. |
|
Sep-25-13
 | | WannaBe: <Shams> Waddayamean? I get free lunch/dinner, back massage, happy hour drinks with my UltraTitaniumPlatinum membership. |
|
Sep-25-13
| | Annie K.: <Shams> ... which is one of the reasons I don't like chess.com. The greed just hovers in the air there. And smells. :s Wonder when they'll start with the alloys? ;p |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Marmot PFL: <Shams> Chesscube is "free", but to keep playing you have to purchase cubits or else buy "VIP status" (free to titled players) and they can play in VIP only events.
Lots of loser disconnects but they seem a little tougher on obvious cheaters than some other sites. When I read e-mail or check sports scores while it's the opponents turn I get occasional warnings not to switch windows during games. Bad habits anyway as they disturb concentration and affect time usage. |
|
| Sep-25-13 | | Shams: <Marmot> Yeah, I play on chesscube from time to time. I make more cubits than I lose so that's not a problem. I'm not quite sure why I stopped playing there; I'm not crazy about the UI but it's not terrible. <Annie K.> Speaking of greed, did you see why IM Pruess quit the site? http://livingrevolution.co/2013/08/... |
|
Sep-25-13
| | Annie K.: <Shams> No, I hadn't, thanks for posting that! |
|
Sep-25-13
| | chessgames.com: <Marmot PFL: Thanks for fixing the issue, whatever it was. When I bought premium membership before it activated almost instantly, but this took over 6 hours.> Hi Marmot, when you pay via credit card it instantly activates your account but unfortunately our PayPal setup still entails a delay, usually a few hours. We are trying to fix that, and are sorry for the inconvenience. |
|
Sep-26-13
| | Domdaniel: Yeugh. Those are sites for *playing* chess. We are different. |
|
| Sep-26-13 | | kellmano: Only geeks play chess. The cool kids talk about it instead |
|
Sep-26-13
| | Domdaniel: <Shams> Thank you, that's a fascinating link. We hear so much about how difficult it is to raise sponsorship or finance in the chess world -- it's surprising to hear about these 'invisible' profits, and the people who make money out of chess without much publicity.
Then again, some people seem to be motivated by a kind of resentment of the money other people are making -- a condition where jealousy overrides all other considerations. This makes little sense to me either, though I accept that fairness is a worthwhile ideal. |
|
| Sep-27-13 | | Shams: <Domdaniel> What really surprised me from that letter is that chess.com has more than thirty full time employees! |
|
| Sep-27-13 | | Abdel Irada: •When multiple kibitzers post requests to ban <AJ>, some of them quite harsh, and they remain on the page; •When I send you an email, quite moderate in tone, requesting a ban of a raving troll who was blatantly violating site rules, and you never reply in any form; •When I "blow the whistle" about kibitzers in clear violation of guidelines, including some making death threats against other users, and there is no response in any form; •When I post here with a complaint, again quite moderate in tone, about a user who's been maligning me in various forums since 15 July, and the post is deleted without comment; •When I post a question as to why another troll, easily as disruptive as <AJ>, has not been sanctioned, and that post too is deleted without comment: When all of these things happen, I am justified in making certain inferences (one of which is that someone has poisoned your mind against me behind the scenes so that I can't get a fair hearing). And I am not alone in making those inferences; others here have commented on this pattern, and see as clearly as I what's going on. Do you think the logical inferences from all of these actions reflect well on you? Or do you think they begin to leave this site smelling of the same sort of favoritism and suppression of dissent that are now wrecking chess.com? I am sure that this post will disappear within hours if not minutes, but I am no longer willing to remain silent, even if my words have the shelf life of a popsicle in an open-air market in Riyadh in midsummer. ∞ |
|
| Sep-27-13 | | Abdel Irada: Meanwhile, if you want to see the last mentioned kibitzers in action, you need only read the last few pages on either Wesley So or Kenneth Rogoff, which have taken on a new role as the site's <Call Abdel Irada A Liar> forums. How you respond to this will tell me a lot.
∞ |
|
| Sep-27-13 | | Shams: <Abdel> All that you describe is simply standard operating procedure on this site and is in no way specific to you. As a rule: the admins do not respond to banning requests; nor do they explain their decisions to ban, suspend or take no action against individual users; nor do they (generally) tolerate user-specific complaints on this forum; nor do they publicly or privately respond to whistle-blowings (I myself have blown the whistle many times and never received nor expected any personal response.) It has always been like that. If there were record-keeping about these things your recent friction would not rank near the top 100 such disputes in site history. To suggest that someone has 'poisoned the well' against you when the admins haven't treated you any differently than they treat anyone else is silly, and a bit of an implicit insult. (Daniel can and does make up his own mind about these things.) My advice is to stay off the Mos Eisley page, or rather the Wesley So page. As for Rogoff, come on-- you draw a lot of water on that page, and virtually nobody gets any protection there anyway. Just live your life, man. Dogs are gonna bark. ------------
<Tabanus> That's not true; <Abdel> comments on the POTD regularly and makes other chess-related posts nearly every day. He may talk a lot about politics but he keeps it all on the Rogoff page. |
|
| Sep-27-13 | | Abdel Irada: <Shams>: 1) I realize that the admins don't provide feedback on whistle blowing, but when the posts I complain of uniformly remain untouched, over time a sense develops that my concerns are not heeded. 2) I've been told that direct emails from other users are answered, so it strikes me as a bit odd when the one and only email *I've* sent about a problem on this site was treated as though it didn't exist. 3) To rank what I'm seeing from <tolengoy> and <JoergWalter> against similar coordinated, multi-forum attacks on other users would of course be impossible, but in absolute terms it has been substantial. 4) If one can't post on any forum on the site, including <Wesley So>, something has gone wrong. 5) As for the poisoning of Daniel's mind against me, that is of course surmise based on what I've seen. I invite him to correct me if I'm wrong. I do thank you, however, for speaking in my defense.
∞ |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 633 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
