@divegeester saidI notice that @KarmaJoy is not even accepting new challenges. Pretty suspicious for a new member to a chess site. It does get tedious, tracking down recidivists.
This has come up before but the recent filth in the “Notable Deaths” thread in the GF prompts another request.
Russ please can you restrict posting for at period of completed games, maybe 10, in order to stop abuse from returning banned users.
Thank you.
I support the idea that new non-subscribers should play out at least 20 games before posting. Moreover, they should not be 'sandbagged' games against the same player, where one player resigns after very few moves or in a playable position. There should be evidence of intent to play chess here in good faith.
@moonbus saidI support this viv a vis new members, meaning those whose provenance is "unknown".
I notice that @KarmaJoy is not even accepting new challenges. Pretty suspicious for a new member to a chess site. It does get tedious, tracking down recidivists.
I support the idea that new non-subscribers should play out at least 20 games before posting. Moreover, they should not be 'sandbagged' games against the same player, where one player resigns after very few moves or in a playable position. There should be evidence of intent to play chess here in good faith.
New, as opposed to "unsubs", like me (for now). I'm not against restrictions on unsubs as an incentive to subscribe, but not what would amount to a demotion. New people, yes, as we don't know them, or how they might behave in a public forum.
56d
I don't see the point of restricting new posters who are actually new posters because of the actions of a old poster who keeps coming back into the forums.
Some just like to mainly chat instead of playing chess, we even have them on here who have been here for many years. This action in my opinion could stop new posters from joining this Site.
-VR
@very-rusty saidI think most (genuine) newbies will play out a few games first, before immersing themselves in the forums. (Newbies being more likely drawn here for the chess). It is returning banned players who are more likely to play a few moves and then hit the forums.
I don't see the point of restricting new posters who are actually new posters because of the actions of a old poster who keeps coming back into the forums.
Some just like to mainly chat instead of playing chess, we even have them on here who have been here for many years. This action in my opinion could stop new posters from joining this Site.
-VR
Completing a set number of games, before forum posting privileges are unlocked, seems like a reasonable thing to put in place.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is not your personal website where you can feel free to trash other users.
Perhaps anti-social people with their own questionable hyper-religious agendas need to, as you say, "be dealt with as well".
In case your political leanings prevent you from recognizing the value of diversity in a social setting such as RHP, your insulting post to me doesn't help make ALL users feel welcome, and as such, should probably be alerted.
@moonbus saidYou must mean @mercurial20. A perfect example why the OP is a good idea.
I notice that @KarmaJoy is not even accepting new challenges. Pretty suspicious for a new member to a chess site. It does get tedious, tracking down recidivists.
I support the idea that new non-subscribers should play out at least 20 games before posting. Moreover, they should not be 'sandbagged' games against the same player, where one player resigns after very few moves or in a playable position. There should be evidence of intent to play chess here in good faith.
56d
The post that was quoted here has been removedHow would you know that
a) this is a horrid place?
b) people are registering via the dark web?
Just to set the matter straight, people who register use service-provider-assigned dynamically rotating addresses temporarily bound to telecom routers or DSL modems, not a personal IP address which can be traced to a single device or user.