All Things in Moderation

Seems to me like batgirl's just playing devil's advocate here anyway. Immediately after czechsmex' quote I wrote one longish reply and one shorter one - no reaction from bg; the 3rd one got a short answer. But noticeable is that we've had no opinions from her, just questions. I can't imagine that she doesn't read the forum threads, neither can I believe that she doesn't have opinions on the way things have been going. Shame we don't get to hear them.

Sometimes I talk, sometimes I listen.  I made this thread hopefully to learn how people feel moderation of the forums might be improved.  Management only sees things from their perspective (a perfectly valid perspective, but a limited one).  Any improvement in moderation practices must in turn lead to improvement in the forum experience, and, since the forums are one of the most in-your-face elements of the site, a good forum experience can only be beneficial to both sides: members and management.  I'm not here to evaluate anyone's ideas or opinions, nor to give my own.

does anyone know why chess.com would moderate this thread heavily? Are they starting to pick it up a little. Chess.com, why are you moderating this thread more than others, I'm just curious

I'm not a communist thus I am against moderation in all but the most extreme circumstances.  For instance if someone is spamming an irc channel to the point where literally no discussion can exist I think that's it's fair to silence them, after all they silenced you first.  I view it the same as violence: it is never ideal... unless you are attacked!  Then violence is absolutely justified.

Besides that kind of abuse of the communication platform itself, there should be no censorship.  Healthy individuals do not need to be shielded from particular aspects of the world.  Not even children need to be shielded.  I find the harmful cuddling parent culture incredibly detrimental to society.  Kids do not need to be protected from swears, "adult themes", or jungle gyms (that's right, jungle gyms are being phased out of society because parents are so terrified their precious little doll might break an arm or get a concussion).  Besides, kids know better than anyone exactly how to circumvent these restrictions.  And they are going to be more interested than ever to explore something so heavily emphasized.  (  http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=335  )

If you can't tolerate opposing views being expressed you need to look beyond the moderation staff and into the mirror.  You aren't mature enough for an open forum to begin with.

To what moderating are you referring?

[Your picture annoys me. Mod]

mods are volunteers.

Thanks for your post #231 batgirl, I can live with that.

         My guess is that the're moderating heavily because the posting numbers grew too guickly.

I did some moderation because the topic was doing some serious and helpful work and it was being derailed. Less significant threads get less moderation, generally speaking, in such circumstances. Mod.

         Remember your rights when posting in these threads. You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say, can and will be used against you in a chess game. You have the right to a mod arbitor, and have him present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you by chess.com at Eric's expense. Do you understand these rights, as I have read them to you ???

I found this amusing.

Quickly mods, remove it before others see it.

A. Sometimes, yes.

B. For the most part, I would say leave it alone. When there are serious discussions, members that interject something completely unrelated are often times ignored. Other times someone may tell the poster to get lost. Either way, it's fine by me. Consider the daily puzzle. It's been many moons since I looked at one, but they were always filled with "first page!" type comments. I never remember one instance where a mod or staff member told them to stop. They didn't have to. Many of us just scrolled right past it.

C. I don't know why cc changed the rules. I never saw a dependency on random members, either.

As far as controlling behavior, mods and staff have had no problem muzzling those that would continuously write things completely unrelated to the topic.

oh god I've forgotten about you. And the answer to your question is in set time.

Batgirl, let me weigh in on your question C to Al.

This "self-moderation" is not a chance behavior. Long-time dedicated members, including myself, want to see a certain level of quality on the forums. When I see something that is just garbage, I want to do something to turn it into a quality thread or at least let the OP know that they should put a little more thought into their topic. Just as there are behavioral incentives to the people who spam (they want attention), there are incentives to the people who turn the spam threads into interesting ones (we want interesting forums).

Nor would I say that there was a dependency on such self-moderation. It was simply that the mods took a more laissez-faire approach unless there was excessive abuse or pointless, humorless spam. It was a simple system that worked.

Of course, what is "garbage" can be subjective, but some garbage is more subjective than others. One objective measure I can think of: pointless spam that is clearly not building or adding to the conversation, but only adding to the poster's own ego-trip. Not a perfect definition, which is why I think subjectivity cannot be completely abandoned, but it's a start.

         You have the same corrulation,(Ivandh), in the military. Somtimes they look the other way, sometimes if you have one hair out of place; Goodbye.

Thanks Ivandh.  Your reponses always carry a lot of weight. While Thomas Jefferson said that the best government was the least government, he also felt that all governments should have a revolution every 20 years to keep them honest.  Since this isn't a government and the likelihood of a revolution is scant, it seems that the job of the moderators is whatever chess.com wants and  I suspect what chess.com wants is adherence to policies which it feels creates an environment that promises a relatively enjoyable experience for all its members.   I've been here since June 2007 and have participated in the forums since day one.  During that time, the forums have oscillated up and down from what in my persepective felt enjoyable or worthwhile, but never too far in either directions.  So, I don't really have any nostalgic feeling towards how the forums used to be.  Forums in other places I have been, where the moderators were lax,  fell quickly into places I wouldn't frequent.  I never saw much self-restraint or self-moderation occuring in such places.  Sites that were over-moderated often tended to get boring, but I would at least continue visiting them.  Maybe there's a middle ground, but it seems that middle ground must always cover more of the side that chess.com wants and less of the side of what pranksters want, and it seems the only way is through the use of moderator to enforce policies.  How they do this is certainly worth questioning.

Back in post #227, Lou-for-you gave a very succinct and intelligent list of moderating  rules I thought were worth considering.

"Back in post #227, Lou-for-you gave a very succinct and intelligent list of moderating rules I thought were worth considering."

That was hard to read with my background, but you have a point, I think that while some believe that this place is too moderated, i think it is moderated just fine. If you want to go all our, join a group, is my thinking

I had copied/pasted the #227 from the post itself so I wouldn't forget the number in the process and it carried it's own formatting with it.  I corrected that problem  (at no extra charge, of course).

:)

Thank you :)