put someone on a Favorites List,

Favorites List

Premium Membership Help Page

Help! EXTREMELY SLOW LOADING- FIVE MINUTES TO GET HERE FROM MY FORUM.

We have been scanning your computer for national security reasons.

Thank you for your patience and understanding

From now on. Call me "Kevin Fuhkwa". Classic English Christian name. Probably a Japanese surname.

No I won't blow the whistle on a certain person. At least not for the time being.

Yes. I am Makavelli. And I have another handle I've only ever used for chess too.

Daniel.. If you're too much of a coward to ask tpstar.. "Hey Tony. That's a very very serious allegation you made about "Kevin". Can I see proof please?" then I'll do what I want, when I want, how I want and you won't do a daymn thing about it. I personally know that 3 people here refuse to buy a premium membership because of <tpstar>. You can now make that 4 because as you well know I was about to buy Jim Bartle one. That's only about $100 but it's because you're a coward and tpstars a <criminal liar>. I've reported him to the AMA. I won't stop until he's working in McDonald's, a place where he can fill his big belly. I personally know that 2 people here are too afraid to stand up for me when I'm serving a suspension because, and I quote one person. "What if N**o stalks me and does to me what he's done to you for the last 3 or 4 years because he knows my real name too!!". So now your laziness has caused you another problem.

All you had to do was delete a post and ask a question. Btw Kevin's not stupid.

First, as I will explain, cowardice does not enter into this equation. Also, know that I fully understand your basis for complaint.

Libel is not against our posting guidelines, for well deliberated reasons. Simply put, we are not in a position to fact check people's posts. Therefore we cannot ever make a policy which somehow hinges on the truth or falsehood of a post, which is your implication above. "Can I see proof please?" soon turns into "Is this truly proof?" and a giant debate commences. The bottom line is that only a court of law can declare material libelous.

I considered a very draconian rule, that members are basically not allowed to talk about other members. (After all, it might be a lie, and we can't have that!) The more you think about it, the more preposterous it becomes.

Bilbao (2016)

<No more emails from you "Dave". We do this publicly from now on!> Then we won't do it at all. But as you see above, I'm happy to discuss general policies.>

What about the gerbils?

I never said or thought it was. Okay "Dave", I Kevin will break it down to you once more and see if you understand Kevin's POV. BJ Silverstein once accused Kevin of the same thing Trevor did. Kevin only told BJ to either put up or shut up once or twice because everyone knew BJ was a liar. Silverstein once said something untrue about you and your words were "surely this is a new low", am I correct? Okay. The difference here is... Trevor is a <real life doctor!> A man who like a Policeman, a lawyer, a teacher is <supposed> to be a respected member of the community, a man you could trust with your life. He's currently on the internet accusing people of threatening his "hamster and gerbils!?". Like I've said about 5 times, words I wouldn't have said if Dave had acted when he had the chance... Do you not think people deserve to know that their doctor is actually a lunatic? Well I do. And they will know. Now I've seen Trevor around here for years, he always pops up every now and then with a gobbledegook comment, never paid too much attention to him until he's said something to me. I've never felt the need to check out if he really was a doctor until last week that I can remember, I've always just taken his word for it because I can tell a liar. Only after the gerbil and hamster allegations did I think "This guy's gotta be joking. He can't be a <real doctor>". Turns out he is!! Now I don't know about you or anyone else here but I'd be horrified if my doctor behaved like him. If he's lying about something this serious what else is he lying about?? This is a man who if you check SK has had "deathbed discussions!". Would you really want the last face you ever saw to be Trevor's? This is no different to a policeman or school teacher accusing someone of a very serious criminal offense. That <makes it a criminal offence to do so>.

I don't know who he thinks he is. No one was paying him any attention apart from... You've guessed it "Neil!". Do you not find that strange? Me neither LOL. He just made those accusations out of the clear blue sky because no one really pays him no mind.

Well okay he wants attention. I'll give him what he wants just not in the way he wants.

<Libel is not against our posting guidelines, for well deliberated reasons.>

It isn't? I would have thought it was covered under at least two guidelines, and, if real names are used, three.

The truth, as everyone who's been here for a while knows, is that *you don't enforce your own rules*.

That being the case, how much respect can you really expect?

I won't use the word "cowardice" because I can't read your mind and motives. But I do know that's how it comes across, and <Unf> isn't the only poster to comment on it.

The collections here are really powerful and I love the new notable games throughout history feature.

One thing I would really love is when seeing a collection e.g.

Game Collection: Mikhail Tal's Best Games

To also see by each collection entry, the number of other collections that particular game is in. I was checking a Tal game collection recently, and it seems some of the really intense Tal games are in say over 100 collections.

It would be nice to get an immediate view on the "Collection overall worth of a game" when seeing game entries in a collection.

It would actually be easier for me, at this stage, to make a "notability" counter instead of # of game collections. That's simply because we recently added that field. However, it would be very difficult to define "notability", it's a complicated algorithm at this point.

The complaint that we don't enforce our own rules is a very old and common, and yet I believe it's misplaced. For starters, define "enforce." The state of Florida has a 70 miles per hour speed limit on what's called "Alligator Alley." However, people frequently drive 80 or even faster and get away with it. Would you say the state of Florida is not enforcing its own laws? I would argue they are, and quite vigorously.

Some rules have an expiration date on them. If Chessgames continues to grow we will not be able to enforce a "no personal attacks" rule.

From a financial perspective it is critical to emphasize here that when the state of Florida enforces a traffic law, they gain money. When we enforce a posting guideline, we lose money. That puts them in a much stronger position to achieve extremely high enforcement rates.

Of course, if we failed to enforce rules whatsoever, the site would be taken over by Neo-Nazis, Viagra salesmen, and Nigerian scammers. So we try to find a happy medium.

Perhaps the complaint would be justified if it were restated that "we don't enforce our rules frequently enough", or in some cases, "consistently enough."

<I won't use the word "cowardice" because I can't read your mind and motives. But I do know that's how it comes across, and <Unf> isn't the only poster to comment on it.>

Oh yes, I've heard it many times but usually only with regards to this issue. What I don't understand is, why would I be a coward for NOT removing a post? Wouldn't the more cowardly (and legally safe) approach be to simply always assume the complaint is justified and delete whatever is objected to, no questions asked?

<When we enforce a posting guideline, we lose money.>

Are you sure about that? I can count hundreds of dollars in premium memberships from people who have left this site for *precisely* that reason. This is only counting those I know for a fact because I've been in email correspondence with them for years. This is a small sample group though.

Many left because you refused to control the "AJ" problem.

Apologies to those editors who still toil in silence- maybe <Stonehenge>? Who else is actually adding to the bios, the Tournament Index, and such? Most of the people who were doing that when I was most active doing that have stopped. Most are not premium members anymore. I know some of them let their preemies lapse, and suspect others did, because you don't enforce your own posting guidelines.

You may very well be right. I can't say we are perfect, and I can identify cases where we were obviously inconsistent, then there are gray areas where we are forced to make a decision and no matter what it is, many people will disagree with it.

But what's the real problem? Is it very important to you to see that some other member is given a 3 day probation instead of a 1 day probation?

Hey! Chessgames.com! There's a good idea. If you go to IMDB then any registered person can give any film a rating out of 10. I think that is how they figure out their Top/Bottom 250 films (of films that have I think more than 100 votes or something).

<<When we enforce a posting guideline, we lose money.>

Are you sure about that? I can count hundreds of dollars in premium memberships from people who have left this site for *precisely* that reason.>

I perfectly understand what you are saying and perhaps I misspoke. This money which is "lost" is an expense; specifically it's an investment in improving the overall product in an attempt to (possibly) earn even more in the future.

I was referring to cost-analysis. Somebody at McDonald's figured out that they throw in 2 free packs of ketchup costing, but the average person only uses 1.6 packs, therefore they are wasting 0.4 packets of ketchup per customer, which equates to $2 billion a year. The next thing you know, you have to tell them exactly how many packets of ketchup you want.

So likewise, one day I figure out that the average correction slip costs 12.5 cents. Then I figure out that a specific premium user costing us over $1/day in correction slips. So in a sense, we are "losing" money on this customer. That was not a bad thing, because those corrections were real problems that we wanted to fix. That person contributes voluntary work to make the site better, and then pays us an extra $29 on top of it. They shouldn't be criticized, they deserve a medal.

That's correction slips. Now what about Whistles?

What can you say about a user who isn't even premium, but submits endless incredibly convoluted Whistles, each involving a "wall of text" that takes 5 minutes to read and 15 minutes to decipher? They may have perfectly valid points, but are they worth the time to cater to?

It is obvious why the largest sites cannot possibly endorse a "no personal attacks" rule, and most of the very largest allow for extremely foul language now. They can't afford policies like that.

Perhaps the entire posting guidelines are too elaborate to be viable into the future. I can think of a few small changes that could help, and a few big ones, including improvements to the Whistle function.

<Apologies to those editors who still toil in silence- maybe <Stonehenge>? Who else is actually adding to the bios, the Tournament Index, and such? Most of the people who were doing that when I was most active doing that have stopped.>

I am aware of this and I feel in some ways responsible; or at the very least, I know there are many things I can do to help further the effort, many of which were promised long ago.

Recently I made some player biography programming changes that should prove very useful; the first programming I've made in that system in months. I have a lot more to say on that subject, so I'll post it on the Bistro.

<I have no idea of any of the ins and outs of your finances- only you know about that. Despite my all too frequent kvetching over the last decade, I do hope your finances are robust and the cg.com website will last long, long into the future.>