I get a pm from a player in Brazil who tells me to ..... perform a sex act... on him (of course he used explicit, vulgar language. I (try to) respond with "You mean that little peanut?"... And get a message from Chess.com that MY message violates the community terms. Classic!
Hmm. I think you did not just use the word peanut.
Perhaps another word.
And if I were you, I would be skeptical and think the same thing. Too often, in fact MOST often, people underplay their role in questionable situations. However, in this case, my reply to his message was EXACTLY as I posted.
This leads me to another point of confusion for me. My message is only, let's call it "lewd", if it is taken in the context of HIS message. So the auto-check that Chess.com uses looks at context while deciding if a post violates their standards? And, if so, how was HIS post allowed through?
At his point, I am more intrigued by the methods and AI the site uses than I am the inconsistency of its application.
I get a pm from a player in Brazil who tells me to ..... perform a sex act... on him (of course he used explicit, vulgar language. I (try to) respond with "You mean that little peanut?"... And get a message from Chess.com that MY message violates the community terms. Classic!
Hmm. I think you did not just use the word peanut.
Perhaps another word.
Wrong response for a moderator.
I get a pm from a player in Brazil who tells me to ..... perform a sex act... on him (of course he used explicit, vulgar language. I (try to) respond with "You mean that little peanut?"... And get a message from Chess.com that MY message violates the community terms. Classic!