Crowd Sourcing in Social Networks
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
Crowd Sourcing in Social Networks
A Modest Proposal
by Dean Hannotte
Anybody who has played chess in a tournament, or even at their local chess club, appreciates sportsmanlike behavior. Opponents smile at each other, and often shake hands at the end. Pieces are not thrown at opponents, boards are not flung to the far winds, fist fights do not break out. Soccer riots never occur, soccer hooligans are never seen.
When face to face, we humans tend to show ample respect for one another. This politeness is based not merely on cultural evolution but is hard-wired into our genes. (Even penguins flock and trilobites huddle, after all.1 ) At chess clubs, cocktail parties, golf links, opera intermissions, and numerous other utterly commonplace occassions, humans are quite skilled at enjoying one another in self-imposed conflict-free zones.
I have been an internet evangelist for 30 years and will continue to be so. But we all know that as long as the world wide web is open to all humans, all kinds of ugly and even dangerous behavior will "find a way" (as did the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park"). Various tools and policies are being developed to protect good folks from bad, all the way from the far-flung investigations of the FBI down to the tiny steps we individual developers take. But as long as software developers (and FBI agents) tend not to be psychologists, these tools and policies will be imperfect and constantly in need of tinkering. Hiring a team of watchdogs is expensive and impractical for smaller networks. CHESS.COM is wonderful for intelligent people because unintelligent people tend not to play chess. But like all the rest, it is sporadically undermined by the ugly behavior of creeps who lie about themselves in their profile and in their chatting.
I am a 68-year-old married man who has no children but who enjoyed spoiling my nephew and my niece rotten when they were children. As a result I find myself looking through the list of new members that CHESS.COM makes available, in search of young people who seem friendly and who I would enjoy helping to learn chess, or CHESS.COM, or simply to overcome any shyness they may feel about reaching out into a larger world. On average, one in ten of these turn out to be utter frauds.
There are many kinds of frauds haunting CHESS.COM (and no doubt the other networks). Some are less offensive than others. But I have a special problem. In the early 1970's I became a public figure in New York's gay community. I'm used to my life being an open book. I'm used to interacting on a daily basis with thoughtful and candid people. And I become quite annoyed by people who are still "in the closet" in any way, shape or form. (And this includes gay people here who blame the Pope for their "affliction".) So I tend to be easily offended by dishonesty. It's a sore spot with me. Once I've been lied to I want to just abort the game. But one of CHESS.COM's "not quite completely thought out" policies says this would be "unsportsmanlike" of me. Seriously? I'm the guilty party??
I'm proud to say that I've become more lenient about some of the blatant lying that goes on here. Lying, sad to say, is a relative term. What constitues lying in one culture constitutes "coming out" in another. A simple example is Thailand's ladyboys — males who prefer to be thought of as females. I think they should be encouraged to join CHESS.COM — but I wouldn't want to play chess with them. Other cases of dishonesty are not so easy to tolerate.
Last year I was completely hoodwinked by "Mersaphe", a jerk who was impersonating a young Hollywood actress named Ryan Newman. When I complained to support@chess.com they replied:
Hello Dean,
I'm so sorry to hear about this terrible behavior. I have closed their account permanently; they will not be allowed back on the site!
Thanks so much for sending in the report and helping keep Chess.com a more enjoyable community :)
I hope you have a Merry Christmas!
I was relieved that CHESS.COM was stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing. And I know they close members accounts quite frequently because when I'm looking around and try to see someone's profile, often all I see is "Account Closed." In other instances, however, they're reluctant to deal with the problem.
But consider the costs of not dealing with problems. More often than not, young girls who sign up and post fetching photos of themselves change these photos within days to photos of inhuman objects. I often ask them why they do this. This is a typical conversation:
One Icelandic girl has even decided not to include any men in her "friend list". This is no crazy "feminist". This is an innocent young person with a real grievance. And I support her completely. (Maybe that's why she still plays chess with me.)
Girls on CHESS.COM are invariably hounded by rude men. Often boys who haven't a clue how to make friends will put up a picture of some female celebrity in a desparate attempt to attract opponents.
Consider this recent prank. Around six months ago I noticed a member called Frank Duncan and was bowled over by his photograph: I had never seen a man so happy, so alive, so bursting with joy. I asked him about this amazing snapshot and he gave me details about how and in what circumstances it was taken. We quickly started playing chess, usually two games at a time. He was always the opponent I would respond to most quickly. We had interesting chats in which he talked about how close he was to his children. Then, one day last week, he replaced the snapshot I loved with one of an ugly young woman sticking her tongue out. I assumed he was indulging some daughter or stepdaughter who enjoyed playing practical jokes on innocent bystanders. After a few days I decided to ask him why he was giving such an ugly person so much screen real estate. In one of our two games I tried to make a joke of it:
But he didn't respond. In the other game I got more explicit:
How is one supposed to react to this? Is Frank playing a practical joke on me? Does his widow think it's "okay" to play cruel jokes on strangers just because somebody annoyed her? Is it really "okay" to perpetrate fraud consistently for more than six months? Does she really think she might not have mislead our community? Should one feel mild annoyance, disappointment, anger, outrage — a thirst for revenge, perhaps? I felt — and feel — all of these. I couldn't sleep that night, and my heart is racing as I type this. It was more disturbing than when I was robbed at gunpoint. The gunmen, after all, just wanted money. They had no intention to inflict psychological damage.
It's impractical for Erik, CHESS.COM's founder, to hire a whole staff of psychologists to make binding decisions about exactly who, and exactly how, to discipline. Nor does the answer lie in offering more and more refined profile settings.
Networks tend to back "freedom of speech", i. e. we can't stop people from lying and deceiving one another so we're not going to try, because it's the easiest way out. They are businesses, after all, not charities or government entitlement programs. But "free speech" doesn't mean a publisher has to publish your book, and it needn't imply that networks must tolerate deliberate attempts to undermine the level of trust enjoyed by the community. When the CHESS.COM community harbors miscreants like this in the name of "free speech", something is very wrong.
Note that courts of law can't afford psychologists either. They outsource that expense to the litigants. They need judges to decide technical questions of courtroom conduct, officers to keep the peace, stenographers to make a record. And, since we have all known for centuries how corruptible underpaid judges and their staff can easily become, they crowd-source the "who done it" phase to quite ordinary randomly-selected people who hopefully are not committed to any foregone conclusion.
Through no fault of its own, CHESS.COM, hasn't yet stepped up to the plate on this issue. Maybe it's too new a project, too understaffed, too flooded with existing bugs and "anomalies". (There's no "maybe" about that last one!) Probably it just can't afford to. But maybe it can afford this "modest proposal":
Set up an independent panel of volunteers who, like jurors, have an inveterate interest in our community and the level of trust it enjoys. Have this panel review all complaints about unsportsmanlike behavior, and give them the power to kick people off our network, temporarily or permanently. Let them remain anonymous to avoid the recriminations of violent psychopaths — these too are lurking among us. Have your top lawyer sign off on the plan.
It may take a little effort to set this up, but after that this panel will be a no-cost and extremely valuable service to our community.
Most of the members do very little except play chess. For them, social issues are no concern. The only concern is cheating with computers. I have been on this site several years. I make comments on occasion, and message about games on occasion. But frankly, I have never had a situation of the type you describe. I mostly just play chess. And if I did have an occasion to be upset with someone, I simply wouldn't message them any more.
" one of CHESS.COM's "not quite completely thought out" policies says this would be "unsportsmanlike" of me. Seriously? I'm the guilty party??" Have you seen the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglass ?
Well I understand the way you feel but we also have to understand this evolved internet has many wackos on it. Nobody should have their real name or picture here. I have heard of too many stories of just bad attitudes because of losing a game. Others are so sure a person has cheated they can not even be reasoned with, then add in the sick starkers, the trolls that follow members around even to the point of having their friend follow other members because they think they are someone else. Plain sadistic behavior. There are members here that think they rule the site and chess.com should do what they want. Far to many really sick people here in denial that have too much time on their hands. We are here to play chess and have fun. Who really cares who is on the other side of the board or think they have some right to stick their nose in a person's private life. SIck Sick Sick members here convinced they are doing the right thing. This stalking and following spying on members is the worse to me. Chess.com lets members here and these wackos need to just do their own thing and keep their sick delusional noses out of everybody personal live and business. IMO
I have my real name and picture on chess.com. I may have exagerated my age....
Well constructed post, but. I agree with mike & Robert very much.
I think you're probably a decent person, but you're lacking perspective, and that is a very dangerous flaw.
It doesn't take a panel of helpers or a degree in psychology to figure out who is worth your personal time, and who isn't. (regarding the small social aspect on this website)
Plus you know there are more than 12 million accounts already, and sometimes getting 5000 new accounts in a single hour. How many people will it take to judge accounts ? and what is the liability cost involved ? its a fantastical dream to even imagine such an undertaking done in a fair way. Its also a sinful waste of money in a world where people struggle to keep a roof over their head.
Perhaps the OP should play chess a little bit more and stick his nose up other people's business a little bit less.
There is something to be said for everyone; females, gays, Christians, Atheists, Brits, Americans, Iranians, etc; to come and enjoy chess.com without being harassed. I am aware of many incidents where females have been sexually harassed on chess.com; this isn't necessarily chess.com's fault as this is what you get on the internet. So if standing up for what's right involves "sticking noses into other people's business", then I say, "stick yor nose up other people's business".
" I find myself looking through the list of new members that CHESS.COM makes available, in search of young people who seem friendly and who I would enjoy helping to learn chess" You seem sincere enough. May I suggest trying that on ChessKid.? No disrepect intended but the "list of new members" is the worst place to look for sincerity, because the're new. You don't know anything about them. I'm still surprised by some people who have been here for 2-3 yrs.
So ... if PROTAGONIST is being tormented by ANTAGONIST because ANTAGONIST believes PROTAGONIST is gay, then mindyour own business because PROTAGONIST may not be actually gay?
Or, if OFFENDER is tormenting and hitting on DEFENDER because DEFENDER presents herself as being a 12 year old, we should look the other way because DEFENDER may be a 60 year old man pretending to be a 12 year old girl?
That's what I hear you saying and I don't agree. It's not that I blindly believe everything I see and hear on the internet. We should not take what others present themselves to be as it may be completely honest, or utterly dishonest; and is usually somewhere in the middle. (Of course, I hope no one believes that I am Captain Christopher Pike of the USS Enterprise).
But as with and in all things, we have to make decisions based on the evidence and knowledge at our disposal.
You need a remedial, Evelyn Woodhead Sped Redding Course, just to get through the OP's first post. Yikes.
" I find myself looking through the list of new members that CHESS.COM makes available, in search of young people who seem friendly and who I would enjoy helping to learn chess" You seem sincere enough. May I suggest trying that on ChessKid.? No disrepect intended but the "list of new members" is the worst place to look for sincerity, because the're new. You don't know anything about them. I'm still surprised by some people who have been here for 2-3 yrs.
You're right, Ronald. New people who are just dipping their toes into our ocean often wait 2 weeks, get cold feet, and then abort. I haven't signed up to be a CHESS.COM "greeter" because I don't want to be stuck with just anybody. I stay away from people who identify with Nazis, terrorists, hooligans . . . Well, it's a loooong list.
Maybe CHESS.COM should have a checkbox when you sign up that says:
[x] I would like to be mentored because I'm serious about learning this game in this environment.
obviously this picture posted is misleading. my reasons for doing so are my business and mine alone. anyone whom shows even a shred of interest why should be avoided. quite frankly sir your interest in knowing your objects of appeal is disconcerting. perhaps you are a rightous soul and above repute. however not all are. leave me...a self proclaimed liar about my persona only...leave me et. al. our privacy sir.
About the original post.
I believe chess.com should be about playing chess. If you want to use it as a social platform to interact on a deeper level, you should be aware that the usual annoyances may occur. It would be almost impossible to fight this, because of the nature of an online social platform.
But you too, sir, are showing unsportsmanlike behaviour in the way you describe it in your post. That is if all of the examples you listed, are examples of that behaviour (which in my personal opinion is incorrect). When you describe the last person in the picture, you speak of an "ugly person" multiple times. There you are deliberately insulting this person because you think this is her real face. (While that isn't certain). But if it is her real face, you are insulting a young teenage girl who kind of pranked you and then came clean about it. While you did enjoy the games of chess you played with this person, which is what this website should be about.
Maybe, before you met her, this girl was also harassed by men when showing her real picture, without sticking out the tongue, then changed it to a guys picture, ... I guess you can fill in the rest. But of course that is only a thought.
About the harassing of women: you are right, that is a problem which, unfortunately, goes far beyond this website.
So to sum up:
P.S. I do not think the 'panel' you are talking about would be a good idea. Who would control that panel? What would be the criteria? Why would someone have this authority to ban people from this website at will, when they do not think they are who they say they are? Would you like it if someone suddenly kicked you off the site?
That's not me in the picture but im telling the truth when i say i'm a psychotic clown who's killed people