Because you're here.
Why is this website crap?
Sort:
Nobody's forcin you to grow up either.
Oh great RJC is back
get off his lawn.
6 members who give Eric no money, but complain about what they can't have. Excuse me, I have to go get a tissue. Oh, the horror.
math lesson: I didn't complain.
Heh; I've offered Eric $25. a month just to get rid of the trools.
Employment records are sa'post to be secretive for good reasons. The real question is who are you?, how much do you get paid?, and what do you do??
ah, the old switcheroo.
Jan 20, 2014
0
#11
Volcano738 wrote:
The moderators are doing their jobs it seems to me. They get paid to perform a service, and they are performing it.
Waste of money and time. What are forums good for? Attracting advertisers?
Jan 20, 2014
0
#12
Volcano738 wrote:
RJC... You said yesterday that you were going to close your 'f*****g' account if chess.com didn't do something about macer75 and his band of trolls. You gonna man up and stand by what you said?
Look at the bright side, they did managed to shut down macer75's troll of the month threads. That got to be a good start, yes ?
Yes, excellent start, and I heard that soorat has been banned. NO, I'm not gonna cowboy-up. I pay very little to enjoy the benifits of this site, so anything I can do to HELP staff, is a small token in the bucket. What I WILL do, is not play Macer's game. I'll try a different opening!
Yo_Bro wrote:
There are a variety of reasons why this site is crap, Ill list a few.
1. The live chess server sucks.
2. They ban people who accuse people of cheating instead of those who cheat.
3. They underpay their employees which was exposed by the David Pruess situation
4. They close all threads that might hint at a problem with the site or why another could possibly be better.
5. They are fascist.
I could go on and on but theres just a few, Im assuming this thread will get closed soon.
1. Not for me
2. They ban pkenty of people who cheat. They have a policy of no naming and shaming. They have a process for reporting them. Follow it or get banned.
3. So don't work for them. When you get a job you agree to work for the pay the employer states. Your option to go to work or not. You want to pay people more, start your own company and pay more.
4. Their site, they can do whatever they want. You don't like it? Start your own site or go elsewhere.
5. Really? Thats the best you can do?
AMEN RSAVA; To Volcano738; I'm completely baffaled by your post #18. Are you old enought to hold a job in the private sector??
Alfieri17 wrote:
Well #4 (They close all threads that might hint at a problem with the site or why another could possibly be better) is a little more complex than just "love it or leave it".
Those kind of policies tend to backfire and get people even more bent out of shape than they were before. The people that get banned or censored start to agitate from the outside. The people that remain then start to question the leaders more wondering things like "I wonder why they are so secretive and quick to censor stuff?" Then things go in a vicious circle until there is a massive meltdown a la Tienamen Square 1989.
No, it IS as simple as that. You can deal with it or leave. If enough people leave then the OWNERS (you know, the people who took the risk to begin with) have to evaluate if the policy is still one they want to have or if they want to change it.
This isn't a democracy, it is not a team, it is not a country. It is a business. Their business so they get to set the business model.
There's just still a lot of work to do. chess.com is still very much a work in progress, but with more and more input from the chess world (accompanied by a complete recoding of the site and banning of all accumulated trolls) it will be something great in 5-10 years more
A little more complex?? Lets see, Eric has 8 million members, many are paying a small amount. I don't think he's worried about Tienamen Square at his office.
And filled with stupid moderators?