Chess.com policy in private groups.

Chess.com policy in private groups.

Recently a member published a staff member response to their question regarding the content of private groups and the role of admins within those private groups. I repost a part of the official response here:

" so let me go into the reasoning behind why we allow admins complete reign in their groups! Our goal for making Clubs at Chess.com was to allow many different cultures to grow on our site. Many people have severe disagreements about what is acceptable behavior, and what is not, so by leaving that up to individual people, we felt we would allow these groups to grow and take on a life of their own. Largely, we've been happy with the result."

I believe this is the correct position for Chess.com.

The Chess.com expectation and requirement is for private group admins to act as moderators and be de-facto staff within the group. However, in two specific regards they do not support that policy and, in fact, have systems in place that prevent admins fulfilling that function.

First private group members have the option to prevent their group admins from direct messaging. Whilst I understand the need for privacy and blocking to prevent abuse in the wider site context, it should always be possible for private group admins to message group members to ensure that group information and group rules are made clear. The ability to block an admin effectively prevents group moderation by the admins.

The second aspect is the possibility of a group admin being muted for sending out direct messages to multiple group members. This is a restrictive procedure and it not even possible to get an understanding from staff as to the volume level of messaging group members that will trigger this process.

Therefore, my proposal is that:

1. Private group Admins should always be able to send a direct message to any group member. (It would be reasonable to make this an SA function if Chess.com still required some greater privacy for members)
   
2. Private group admins should never be subject to muting for direct messaging of their group members.

The counter argument to these proposals is that members deserve the option of privacy. I understand that but if you join a private group you can expect to be subject to the groups policies, as stated in the response from staff above, Ultimately you can always leave the group.

I would ask Chess.com to consider these policy changes.

I also think mods should have some power to look in/take actions in these clubs. Like if a club is made just for destroying other clubs, cheating or other BS like that.

Thank you @joeltuininga. I think that is not quite relevent to the OP. That is a vaild thought but not about Admins authority. Chess.com official involvement in private groups probably deserves it's own forum.

I have managed several groups for several years as owner and SA, and I have always enforced a standard, standing policy that if any member of my club has blocked me from messaging them, then I remove them from the club. And if, when they apply for membership, I cannot send them a welcoming message because they have blocked "everyone", then I disapprove their request.

It seems pretty simple to me that if a person has "joined", that it means that they wantonly and willfully "become part of". 

But if they have cut themselves off from information concerning the club by blocking me as SA, and from other sources of information concerning the club, then they have effectively quit the club. They are no longer "part of", by their own choice. So it seems only appropriate that they be removed from the ranks.

So I support the idea that an SA of a club should have some means or method of contact with every member of the club on an ongoing basis.

OK.

Please note that while staff allow much leeway for admins to run their own clubs, there are limits. You cannot post material that would be illegal in the US, any sexual content or other material that completely crosses the line.

Staff reserve the right to take action in private clubs for serious breaches of terms of service and the community guidelines.

"Players and community members who are unable to follow these rules will be subject to warnings, restricted privileges, separated playing pools, or even having their accounts closed. "

https://www.chess.com/legal/community
https://www.chess.com/legal/user-agreement

Yes, thanks, @VirtualKnightJoakim, I understand that. However it doesn't make the 2 point proposal any less valid as far as i can tell. If C.C expect private group admins to be responsible for the group content then they should not restrict the admins ability to perform that task. The current policy does.

@wormrose, that is fine except that the rules of some leagues, i.e. World League, stipulate that we have to except all applicants (with few exceptions) to allow full participation in the the matches.

Proposal 1:

It is an interesting proposal to make a feature change that would allow all SAs/admin to message their club members (even when the member have blocked them). Obviously, if a member did not wish to get such messages from an admin they would be free to quit the club.
An alternative implementation of this would be to disable (grey out) the block button for admins in the clubs you are in). Again, a member could quit the club and block the former admin.

Proposal 2:

I would like to see a setting for a club to make all forums owned by the club. That would mean that an OP could not delete post #1 and would restrict blocking to exclude the forums they may make in such a club. It is annoying when a member have made several key forums for a club and on the way out block all admins and many club members which makes the forums very restive. There are also discussions clubs where blocking of other members from the clubs forums makes no sense.

Again, if a member do not wish to see another members comments in their forums in such a club, they can untrack and/or quit the club.

I would like to hear from more admins here about the proposal in OP, post #1 and in above post.
Once we have more feedback, support and more baked recommendations, we can post to one of the official chess.com where feature suggestions are discussed, say:
https://www.chess.com/club/chess-com-beta

Hello VKJ. I agree with your position as far as blocking the info in forums. I'm just not sure how they would be able to get around the blocking issues. ?

I don't see how that would affect anything I have said. Could you please be more specific or provide an example of what you are saying.

In some groups it is not acceptable to kick out a member because the blocked an admin or have there settings on no messages. They have to be allowed to stay in the group to play in team matches as per league rules. 

Proposal 1:

I am imagining some scenarios, and agree accordingly.

If a super admin use verbal abuse or sexual harassment to a member, the member always have the option to report it. Then again, friends verbally abuse each other as a matter of joke, often with poker face. So it is hard to tell if two people are friends then the verbal abuse of one person to another is serious or just teasing. As for sexual harassment, I have seen a girl falsely accusing a boy of sexual harassment then banning him from the group. So chess.com should verify/cross check for such claims of abuse and harassment.

Proposal 2: 

I don't understand this fully. What kind of direct messages? I mean what is the content?

If it is what I think it is, there can be buttons beside the name of a member in the members list which will send pre-recorded text upon pressing. To prevent abusing this feature, it will be activated weekly or bi-weekly.

Proposal 2: 

I don't understand this fully. What kind of direct messages? I mean what is the content?

Any content where the same message is DM'ed to multiple members can prompt a mute. This is particularly relevent for team matches when trying to recruit more boards.

I assumed so. In such case, as I said, there can be buttons.

I certainly agree there should be more control given to Super Admins such being allowed to message club members who have blocks on receiving notifications and messages.

As others have mentioned what's the point of joining a club and then not allowing communication from your admins. 

If any admin abuses messaging by verbally abusing a member or similar they can be reported and kicked out of Chess.com if proven. 

Having the Chess.com settings set that only admins of clubs can message members of that club will allow more people to be able to use Block notifications and messages feature to prevent spam from outwith the club and other club members without affecting internal communication from the admin team. Surely that is a good thing?

I support the proposal to allow S.A to be able to contact club members without regard to the individual's setting. Club admins have an often thankless job but un general I think we all do our best to support the clubs we belong to.

I get around this by copying and pasting the same message, except in each one I'm including the person's name. So I don't get blocked for doing that. But I do see the capcha's if I just send a copy and pasted message over and over and over again.

Agree Scotty. I also do that but I don't know how good the checking algorithm is. It's possible that just changing the member name might still invoke a spamming flag as 95% of the message is still constant and we have no knowledge of the level of messaging that initiates a mute.

The principle of admins being able to message all group members should still be in place I believe.