ArtfulDodger: hmmmmmmm you must get up off that pocket book and come up with the membership fee to get to know.

Tuesday: what does it say? ;)

Who's frightened, where?

We now have a great deal of nervousness in one of the originals. Rightly so. LOL.

censoring newbies would not be very sociable.and I doubt it would discourage a troublemaker.

playBunny: It has been my ezperince that as far as online board go:
hidden posts & complicated post rules only complicate the system unneccesarily,and dont resolve the problem.
the best systems seem to work when:
1-all posts are visible..so all can see..its removes the subversive element.
( if you have something to say,you should be able to say it to all)
2-there are many boards re many subjects..but one general board which is truly general in scope.
3-boards are moderated fairly but often.
4-under aged people are not allowed on adult content boards.
5-the greatest deterrant to troublemakers is a stricy non tolerant policy.
usually a temp bann for 1st offense,2nd ban can be for a year.
( but you must make sure you have properly ID'd a problem child)
without a lot of rant..anyone got any to-the-point ideas to add?

ClayNashvilleTn: I can relate to that clay.I avoid all of this ranting behavior.but I had someone accuse me( a while ago) of being a newbie(I have been here for a long time) name that was really someone else.(who I had never heard of)

playBunny: Thank you alot. Now it is clear :-))

Spirou: C'est l'Accord d'Utilisateur - il y a un lien au même fond de chaque page. French AU

It's the User Agreement - there's a link at the very bottom of each page. English UA

Pedro Martínez: ??? Thank you to try to help me but it is equally obscure :-P

Spirou: Gebruikersovereenkomst

Wonder what may be UA.

bwildman: Yes I believe that it does. You can numerous incidences of it almost daily. It depends on who you are, who you know, and if the board on which it's posted is Moderated by a friend.

bwildman: 1) I wouldn't have reposted those messages here myself, but George (ChessM1000) wanted to protest the fact that he received them as spam. (I did, in fact, send him a message recommending that he delete that post as it gives extra exposure to the Danofool but in the meantime Fencer responded and it became a moot point.)

2) Do you think the UA should protect people who have been banned?

As an aside, I think the use of the word "guidelines" in the User Agreement weakens it. Users must ".. agree to the following guidelines:". That tells me that judgement is required and that not following a guideline is an option. A rule is definite and can be obeyed or broken (or bent if you want to allow that). A guideline is either followed or not, but it is a choice. Perhaps it should be changed to "rules".

playBunny: Help me dear (very limited english) :-) "Jokes board" is that jokes 'Pawns' could write? If yes, I think it is not a serious lost compared the vileness they could issue without paying a not really expansive fee.

playBunny: 2questions....
1)if they were deleted on another board...what makes it ok for this one?
2)does the UA only apply to some?

Spirou: Yes, I like Clay's idea too, and it's by far the easiest to put in place, but I wonder whether the boards would lose more than they gain (especially the Jokes board!).

playBunny: I prefer the ClayNashvilleTn suggestion, because simple, clear and efficient.

bwildman: Lol. That's the rule, of course, but ... that was a PM consisting entirely of messages posted on a public discussion board (last night, before they were deleted). And the rights of a disruptive person who's got himself banned ... ?

ClayNashvilleTn: Could guest players be prevented from doing anything but playing games? Is that a good idea? They could only post msg or send PM's after purchasing a memebership?

Or perhaps after an established player (a paying member or a good Pawn) has vouched for them - as judged from sane and friendly game messages (which should always be allowed) or by already being friends from elsewhere. Maybe it could require 2 or 3 or more people's vouching, or perhaps the vouching player could be deemed the "responsible adult" and therefore suffer consequences if the new pawn is disruptive enough to require banning. That last idea is to help prevent frivolous vouching and, especially, self-vouching of multiple nicks.

The scheme used on the FIBS forums is that new players can't post messages until they have played 50 games. That's an easy strategy to implement but I quickly discovered the drawback. I had trouble creating my account on FIBS and wanted to send a bug report - but wasn't allowed to until I had reached my 50. Duh? But that problem's easy to deal with: Pawns could be allowed to post bug reports and send messages to the moderators right from the start.

Chessmaster1000: I understand your complaint,however,its against the user agreement to post pm's,on public discussion boards.

If BK has a fault or weakness it is the inability to prevent Multi Nic's from being created by trouble makers.

When a new person shows up on General Chat they are scrutinized, ignored, mistreated and sometimes falsely accused of being someone else, all because of Multi Nic's.

I am sure some of us have at times offended innocent people just trying to make contact and develope friendships.

All of that has been caused by people like the one you pointed out. Sounds like Fencer resolved that pretty quickly.

Could guest players be prevented from doing anything but playing games? Is that a good idea? They could only post msg or send PM's after purchasing a memebership?

Chessmaster1000: I know how. But I won't say it because it would disprove its very sense.