Today I tried to 'log' on as a visitor on ICC, and was informed that
"Unregistered players from your site have been temporarily denied access to
the ICC. This is probably because someone at your site was behaving
inappropriately, after several warnings. Please note this has no effect at
all on registered players from your site. They can login as usual. Also, you
can register a new account using "r" at the login prompt, even if your site
is filtered. Thanks! -- The Internet Chess Club" --How grand that you can be
filtered out to play for free, but your money can overcome that obstacle.

I have 'felt' all along that ICC was using 'dirty tricks' to influence
visitors to join, like having the admins act like 'jerks', playing badly and
allowing their clocks to 'run' out. Just about everything you can think off
to 'force' players to 'join' the club. The above message seems to be an
attempt to coerce people into 'joining'. Why doesn't ICC simply admit the
fact that they do not want to grant 'free' service, and be done with it!

Why 'filter' out a 'site' when they can filter out the IP number? If someone
from 'cox' was "behaving inappropriately", he would have the 'same' IP
number every time he logs in. And if he is knowledgable enough to be able to
'disguise' his IP, then filtering out the 'cox' site will not 'stop' him and
his 'behavior'. Why 'punish' everyone from cox, unless it's simply a ruse to
'force' you into joining? Also, how could this 'person' have been behaving?
Insulting? If you have played on the ICC as visitor, you probably know that
almost everyone invokes the 'command' "SET QUIETPLAY 2" so as not to be
vulnerable to those who insult.

I have 'thought' about 'joining' several times, but I will not be
intimidated, or bullied into joining. On one occasion an admin admitted to
me that he would let his clock run out to 'spite' a player who would not
'resign' when he was hopelessly lost. These people have too much idle time,
and play chess just to pass the time away. It doesn't matter whether or not
ICC 'tells' them to act this way, or if they do it on their own, ICC is
still responsible.

Goodbye ICC, and Good Riddance!!

[ -- rgc.misc -- this is off topic in the other groups. ]

2100USCF wrote:
Why 'filter' out a 'site' when they can filter out the IP number? If
someone from 'cox' was "behaving inappropriately", he would have the
'same' IP number every time he logs in.

What's with the spurious inverted commas?

Not all ISPs issue fixed IP addresses to customers -- it's quite possible
that somebody would have a different IP address each time they connect to
the net. Indeed, this is becoming more common as there aren't enough IP
addresses to go around. (Or, rather, there are almost enough IP addresses
to go around -- over four billion -- but they are allocated in blocks
rather than individually.)


And if he is knowledgable enough to be able to 'disguise' his IP, then
filtering out the 'cox' site will not 'stop' him and his 'behavior'.

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the internet works.
You can't `disguise' your IP address as that's the only way packets can
get through. It's not like a phone call where you can hide your number
from the person you're calling. It's much more like a phone call
where only one message can be passed per call -- I can call you and say
`Hello' but then you have to call me back to say `Hello'. Unless I tell
you my phone number, we can't talk. One could use an account on another
system as an intermediary between Cox and the ICC but then, if one were
misbehaving, the ICC would presumably ban guest logins from that system,
too. But why bother forwarding packets through the second system to Cox
when you could just connect direct from there to the ICC?


Why 'punish' everyone from cox, unless it's simply a ruse to 'force' you
into joining?

Because there's no reliable way of filtering the individual.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Unholy Projector (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a 16mm film projector but
it's also a crime against nature and
it'll make you glow in the dark!

In article JZE6c.10192$272.3617@lakeread03,
"2100USCF" wrote:

Today I tried to 'log' on as a visitor on ICC, and was informed that
"Unregistered players from your site have been temporarily denied access to
the ICC. This is probably because someone at your site was behaving
inappropriately, after several warnings. Please note this has no effect at
all on registered players from your site. They can login as usual. Also, you
can register a new account using "r" at the login prompt, even if your site
is filtered. Thanks! -- The Internet Chess Club" --How grand that you can be
filtered out to play for free, but your money can overcome that obstacle.

I have 'felt' all along that ICC was using 'dirty tricks' to influence
visitors to join, like having the admins act like 'jerks', playing badly and
allowing their clocks to 'run' out. Just about everything you can think off
to 'force' players to 'join' the club. The above message seems to be an
attempt to coerce people into 'joining'. Why doesn't ICC simply admit the
fact that they do not want to grant 'free' service, and be done with it!

Why 'filter' out a 'site' when they can filter out the IP number? If someone
from 'cox' was "behaving inappropriately", he would have the 'same' IP
number every time he logs in. And if he is knowledgable enough to be able to
'disguise' his IP, then filtering out the 'cox' site will not 'stop' him and
his 'behavior'. Why 'punish' everyone from cox, unless it's simply a ruse to
'force' you into joining? Also, how could this 'person' have been behaving?
Insulting? If you have played on the ICC as visitor, you probably know that
almost everyone invokes the 'command' "SET QUIETPLAY 2" so as not to be
vulnerable to those who insult.

I have 'thought' about 'joining' several times, but I will not be
intimidated, or bullied into joining. On one occasion an admin admitted to
me that he would let his clock run out to 'spite' a player who would not
'resign' when he was hopelessly lost. These people have too much idle time,
and play chess just to pass the time away. It doesn't matter whether or not
ICC 'tells' them to act this way, or if they do it on their own, ICC is
still responsible.

Goodbye ICC, and Good Riddance!!


'Why' do 'you' feel 'the' need 'to' single 'quote' every 'other' word
'in' your 'post?' It 'is' very 'annoying' and 'it' doesn't 'do' what you
'intend' according 'to' the 'rules' of 'grammar.'

-Harold

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

What is wrong with FICS or other free chess servers?

Mikko Nummelin

"Harold Buck" wrote in message
...
In article JZE6c.10192$272.3617@lakeread03,
"2100USCF" wrote:

Today I tried to 'log' on as a visitor on ICC, and was informed that
"Unregistered players from your site have been temporarily denied access
to
the ICC. This is probably because someone at your site was behaving
inappropriately, after several warnings. Please note this has no effect
at
all on registered players from your site. They can login as usual. Also,
you
can register a new account using "r" at the login prompt, even if your
site
is filtered. Thanks! -- The Internet Chess Club" --How grand that you
can be
filtered out to play for free, but your money can overcome that
obstacle.

I have 'felt' all along that ICC was using 'dirty tricks' to influence
visitors to join, like having the admins act like 'jerks', playing badly
and
allowing their clocks to 'run' out. Just about everything you can think
off
to 'force' players to 'join' the club. The above message seems to be an
attempt to coerce people into 'joining'. Why doesn't ICC simply admit
the
fact that they do not want to grant 'free' service, and be done with it!

Why 'filter' out a 'site' when they can filter out the IP number? If
someone
from 'cox' was "behaving inappropriately", he would have the 'same' IP
number every time he logs in. And if he is knowledgable enough to be
able to
'disguise' his IP, then filtering out the 'cox' site will not 'stop' him
and
his 'behavior'. Why 'punish' everyone from cox, unless it's simply a
ruse to
'force' you into joining? Also, how could this 'person' have been
behaving?
Insulting? If you have played on the ICC as visitor, you probably know
that
almost everyone invokes the 'command' "SET QUIETPLAY 2" so as not to be
vulnerable to those who insult.

I have 'thought' about 'joining' several times, but I will not be
intimidated, or bullied into joining. On one occasion an admin admitted
to
me that he would let his clock run out to 'spite' a player who would not
'resign' when he was hopelessly lost. These people have too much idle
time,
and play chess just to pass the time away. It doesn't matter whether or
not
ICC 'tells' them to act this way, or if they do it on their own, ICC is
still responsible.

Goodbye ICC, and Good Riddance!!


'Why' do 'you' feel 'the' need 'to' single 'quote' every 'other' word
'in' your 'post?' It 'is' very 'annoying' and 'it' doesn't 'do' what you
'intend' according 'to' the 'rules' of 'grammar.'

-Harold

--Harold Buck


Why do you feel the need to waste bandwidth bickering about grammar? Address
the content of the post or keep silent.

Jason Repa

"Mikko Nummelin" wrote in message
i...
What is wrong with FICS or other free chess servers?

Mikko Nummelin

Nothing, which is why I wonder why anybody would pay $50.00 a year to play
chess online. Talk about a waste of money.

Regards,

Matt

Mikko Nummelin wrote:

What is wrong with FICS or other free chess servers?

Mikko Nummelin

1 Belligerent immature youngins.

2 Innumerable intentional discos.

3 Unmoderated cheating (cheaters sometimes get caught, but it's rare
compared to the actual number of cheaters).

4 Very poor sportsmanship.

"2100USCF" wrote in message
news:JZE6c.10192$272.3617@lakeread03...
Today I tried to 'log' on as a visitor on ICC, and was informed that
"Unregistered players from your site have been temporarily denied access
to
the ICC. This is probably because someone at your site was behaving
inappropriately, after several warnings. Please note this has no effect at
all on registered players from your site. They can login as usual. Also,
you
can register a new account using "r" at the login prompt, even if your
site
is filtered. Thanks! -- The Internet Chess Club" --How grand that you can
be
filtered out to play for free, but your money can overcome that obstacle.

Join the club! ICC once put a "C" by my name on a free trial account,
because I went quickly from the default starting rating, to 2100+ in blitz
and a paid member complained about me saying I used program assistance. I
did not use program assistance and complained to the admin and they started
asking me stupid questions like "do you own a chess playing program"? I said
"yes I do, but I didn't consult it or even have it on when playing". They
kept the "C" by my name for the rest of the free trial and muted my chat as
well.


I have 'felt' all along that ICC was using 'dirty tricks' to influence
visitors to join, like having the admins act like 'jerks', playing badly
and
allowing their clocks to 'run' out. Just about everything you can think
off
to 'force' players to 'join' the club. The above message seems to be an
attempt to coerce people into 'joining'.

Absolutely correct!


Why doesn't ICC simply admit the
fact that they do not want to grant 'free' service, and be done with it!

I'll tell you why, because they can get more paid members doing what they're
doing and allowing full access for free, then telling you to pay to keep it
going. Your best protest against their "bait and switch" tactics is to make
sure you never give them one dime for anything, and tell others about your
bad experiences. Right now ICC enjoys the fact that they were teh first
popular chess site and has the largest membership as a result, but that will
change if they continue their corrupt practices.



Why 'filter' out a 'site' when they can filter out the IP number?

Because it is very easy to change your IP number if dynamically allocated,
such as with cable isp. They would have to filter out an entire block of IP
addresses for that method to be effective, thereby losing customer base as
well.

If someone
from 'cox' was "behaving inappropriately", he would have the 'same' IP
number every time he logs in.

Not true!


I have 'thought' about 'joining' several times, but I will not be
intimidated, or bullied into joining. On one occasion an admin admitted to
me that he would let his clock run out to 'spite' a player who would not
'resign' when he was hopelessly lost.

I'm on the side of the admin there. There is nothing worse than an idiot
that plays on with his lone king against and entire army, or some other
hopelessly lost position, when he has no chance of winning, or drawing, even
on time. If I am critical on time and there is some question as to whether I
will run out before mating, no problem, that is part of what blitz/bullet is
all about. But if I have 2 minutes on my clock, and have a king and a rook
against a lone king, etc, the guy is just simply being rude and ignorant not
resigning.


Goodbye ICC, and Good Riddance!!

I concur!


Jason Repa

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:alI6c.42355$1p.603870@attbi_s54...
"Mikko Nummelin" wrote in message
i...
What is wrong with FICS or other free chess servers?

Mikko Nummelin

Nothing, which is why I wonder why anybody would pay $50.00 a year to play
chess online. Talk about a waste of money.

Regards,

Matt




Not everyone is a minimum wage moron like you Matt. Some of us can easily
afford to pay a modest $50 fee for a full year of access.


Jason Repa

In article hbI6c.860699$ts4.189939@pd7tw3no,
"Newsmail" wrote:


Why do you feel the need to waste bandwidth bickering about grammar? Address
the content of the post or keep silent.


Um, nobody cares what Mr. Troll thinks.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson