Carlsen choses "DannyTheDonkey" as his username on another popular site.

Sort:
rjbuffchix

Oops, since clicking "Play" is Rated by default and unchangeable, looks like I'm 1222. Mea culpa.

Former_mod_david
rjbuffchix wrote:
david wrote:

@rjbuffchix In light of the recent occurrences with your account, your ratings have been reset to 1200. You would also be well advised to heed the Support team's caution about the way you have been speaking lately.

Cheers,

David, moderator

Hi @david, thanks for the job you do. As for what you said, I'm a little confused. I liked my hot sauce devil 666 rating and wasn't ever playing Rated with it. So I'm not sure why I was not allowed to keep it. It also raises the question of whether I *am* now allowed to play Rated again. Is it considered sandbagging for me to play Rated, even though 1200 is what chess.com wants me back at? I want to be sure before I dare to try, as I feel I'll get banned on the spot. Seems like a witch hunt or something her

You've been allowed back on the site because you've agreed to no longer manipulate your rating: given that was how you obtained the 666 rating in the first place, it didn't seem appropriate that you should keep that "reward". Playing Rated games are fine, as long as you aren't deliberately throwing them to reduce your rating - your rating will get to the appropriate level soon enough (as everyone's does if they play enough games with their best effort).

See your messages for more info about the second part of your query.

Former_mod_david
h4_explosive wrote:
david wrote:

despite whatever evidence may be presented to the contrary

you presented no evidence at all that it's not about the money. you don't care at all about the integrity of this forum, just look at the "secret of chess thread", it's full of insults and no moderator cares. But if someone mentions [the other site], it gets censored immediately - that's a very good indicator that it's just about money

I didn't because you've clearly made up your mind already and it's not the moderators' role to try and change it, but to make sure that the Chess.com policies are applied. Please stop contravening them by naming our competitor site - this is your last warning.

The moderators also don't necessarily read EVERY post in EVERY thread in the forums - that'd be a massive task. Personally, I look at topic titles and if there's anything remotely controversial about it, will have a look inside the thread. If a thread has been generating a lot of comments, I'll check that out. If it's a really long running thread that has previously been ok, I generally assume it's still going ok and might check in on it every now and again.

Looking at the last few pages of that "Secret of Chess" thread, I didn't see any concerted personal attacks - I can see evidence that there might have been in earlier pages that have been missed, but the moderators aren't going to go back and review every page unless someone helps point it out to us. We'd be happy to do so if you let us know.

BradleyFarms

Is there another color of type you can use? That shade of green is hard to read.

Former_mod_david
CHESSMASTERorCM wrote:

Is there another color of type you can use? That shade of green is hard to read.

Sorry about that - the green colour is used to indicate that's it's moderator speaking rather than a normal community participant.

It's why normal members shouldn't post using that colour, even in jest - Chess.com is very clear on this so that no misunderstandings are possible.

BradleyFarms

Okay then. Maybe if changing the color ever arises, Dark Blue or Sea Blue, would be clearer.

SuperSam1

Lately, intelectual conversations hasn't entirely stimulated sanity.

PawnPusher1536
david wrote:
BestKidInSchool wrote:

seriously, why do you care so much? 

Because it's a Chess.com policy. If you'd like to get it changed, speak to @jdcannon - he's the Staff member leading the moderator team. Good luck with that!

is there any reason for that policy?

rjbuffchix

I have to say that while I do understand the logic to put me to 1200 (and it was a nice "gotcha!" moment, props to you all for trolling an alleged troll tongue.png), I had agreed to not manipulate my rating anymore due to the fact that I had reached my goal rating, which subsequently now has been taken away from me. This is ~not~ to say that I will act upon this and go back to 666 necessarily, but it was worth pointing out! Cheers from Chixxy the hot sauce devil happy.png

cfour_explosive
david wrote:
h4_explosive wrote:
david wrote:

despite whatever evidence may be presented to the contrary

you presented no evidence at all that it's not about the money. you don't care at all about the integrity of this forum, just look at the "secret of chess thread", it's full of insults and no moderator cares. But if someone mentions [the other site], it gets censored immediately - that's a very good indicator that it's just about money

I didn't because you've clearly made up your mind already and it's not the moderators' role to try and change it, but to make sure that the Chess.com policies are applied.

so it's not about the money haha, I understand. Great. But I better be quiet now because apparently I will be banned otherwise although I've never done anything at all and am even paying for this website lol.

cfour_explosive
BestKidInSchool wrote:
david wrote:
BestKidInSchool wrote:

seriously, why do you care so much? 

Because it's a Chess.com policy. If you'd like to get it changed, speak to @jdcannon - he's the Staff member leading the moderator team. Good luck with that!

is there any reason for that policy?

Money. I mean, no, of course not money. sorry.

nimzomalaysian

Guys, youse are digressing from the original topic.

PawnPusher1536

"beloved" Danny Rensch?  Really?