Chess.com - Policy of Double Standards
I really enjoy chess. I think the general design of Chess.com is brilliant. But the machine is as only as good as it's operator. I have watched this site for a long time. While I see certain Moderators helping others, I have also seen misuse of power which will ultimately lend to overall site mis-direction.
As you are probably aware Help and Support is not for general chat. For general chat you can join a group. Or can you? Not necessarily, especially if the Moderator doesn't like you. I made four requests to join Debate Plus and asked for correspondence. I received none until I noticed the Moderator in Help and Support- then I asked publicly. It was only then I got a message to say that I had not been a member of Chess.com for long enough. So I asked how long is long enough? I was told not to talk about it. I just wanted to know, so I explained my position of wanting to chat but being unable to join Debate Plus. How long is long enough? Please tell me- or haven't you decided yet....I am at their mercy. Asking the Moderator to explain what was going on got me muted. A despicable display of how leadership and power has warped equality and fairness. I mean.... what a way to treat somebody! Disgraceful! I wondered ...does that rule apply to everyone? Or is this Moderator afflicted with some form of focused Cyber-Megalomania and just doesn't want "my type" around? Why doesn't this person want me in "their group". Wait..Like they own it. Wait... WTF! (What the Frig)...... how did they get to own it?
In the days of Main Hall and the original Debate all this type of CRAP was a strong reason why people did not pay for a membership. Why would you- if you have a dispute with a Moderator or a member who is aligned with them, then your money is wasted. How so you ask? Moderators who are not impartial and side with their friends and/or who are blinded by their own sense of self importance- that's how. Imaginative Moderators creating self fulfilling prophecies of defeating the so-called "Bad Guys" and working for the "forces of good" (at least in their own head). Yes it's a minimalist narrative, like a typical "Good Guy- Bad Guy" type Hollywood movie. A notable difference is the "Bad Guy" gets branded as a Troll. According to A. Enitity (2002), the definition of a Troll is as follows:
In any case, the chess.com plot goes something like: the accused is merely a Troll and will be vilified then kicked, banned or muted. "Justice" is swift. I have witnessed on many occasions certain Moderators will create a problem in order to solve it....an excuse to wield their authority. It amazed me how rampant this typical scenario became; unraveling into a perpetual drama - but wait! There's more!
Another riveting aspect to this plot which adds dramatic flavour and intensity are certain Moderator Fans. The Moderator Fan base is diverse in structure. Some are innocent and just want to play chess and chat. The scary one's are sociopaths who have established strategic relations with a Moderator. With this alliance they can create trouble- accusing other members of being Trolls. Such individuals know full well when they place that little nasty remark in the chat box they will be impervious to any repercussions and trigger the great unfolding of their true desire; which is, destruction of another member by way of character assassination. Grovelling to the Moderator on a regular basis and establishing rapport, these types have increased their leverage to pick fights and have their victims ejected.
Looking back, the aforementioned caused Main Hall and the original Debate to became highly "policed" to the point of absurdity. They say these chat rooms got shut down because of abuse, but that's not the real reason. Some Moderators "fighting for good" in conjunction with the sociopath Moderator Fan archetype did most of the work to devour Main Hall and Debate- a very destructive dynamic indeed. After that, members had to join a group to chat. You would have thought that would be the end of it right? Think Again! Just when there was nothing left to moderate- Moderators took over the group Debate Plus. The Debate Plus group was originally formed by a member (Koto) to replace the old Debate. This chat was relatively lax with the common understanding that you might not get on with everyone and those you don't get on with just block- a very simple approach. But Koto decided to leave and hierarchical, or perhaps even autocratic control materialised. Now, the old cycle continues with the same deficits inherent from years ago in the old chat rooms.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS!!.........Surely it's reasonable to allow members to figure out for themselves if a person is offensive or not. There is point where if a person is causing trouble and you just block them then that should be it. A Moderator muting somebody because they are arguing with one of their "fans" in a chat room called Debate is retarded. Muting them or banning them because they said something that offended somebody only requires that person to block them. Who know's maybe the complainant was being offensive; or, maybe they mis-interpreted them and over reacted. Hey, maybe they deserved it .....and maybe the Moderator arrived on the tail end of a chat and completely missed the part where that so-called Troll was being victimised for an hour or two. While I am at it, whats with all the content control? ......Can't talk about politics or religion in a chat room called Debate! Get Real. Additionally, making it more divisive is how some people can talk about these topics and others cannot. I recall on one occasion I was engaged with another member discussing genetic principles and theory....it got shut down.
What has evolved from all this garbage behaviour is something which is now considered the Norm. Normalised behaviour- concrete policy, bench-marked as the"right thing", protocol, political correctness even.....and then the harassment of ordinary members for not following the Moderator's rather subjectively biased paragon of virtue. When the dust settles you see it for what it is.....a few people in power have created a Policy of Double Standards. Then "policed" it with vehement gusto in order to be revered. This is true... for instance if you think it's OK to act a certain way in Chess.com because you saw someone else do it and that was fine; or you think it should be OK for you to defend yourself if you were abused.....think again! Ask yourself have you done enough work on the Moderator- have you inflated their ego enough. Because don't expect to be treated as an equal here if you haven't. So what happens next? The end result is some people just leave for good. Others decide not to be a paying member. Some get banned or muted and return under a different guise and chew up space with new accounts. Ultimately people become angry because of the way they were treated and the cycle goes on. Reports and support tickets etc etc etc. This has destroyed earlier forums whereby people from all nationalities could chat and play chess as per the Main Hall and the original Debate. This is continuing to destroy the Chess.com community because it is eliminating chat and play.
YES... I do have some ideas to prevent this destructive dynamic.