All Things in Moderation

I actually meant that only the OP can hide comments (although it could be useful to moderators too). And I don't think it's ideal, but much better than nothing and better than the current system.

        As far as I can see, posts on this site almost always wander way off the point sooner or later. It is a chess website with a discussion forum facility - why then should posts not be more strictly required to keep to the game? There are certainy endless topics available in the area. Why should moderators not take action to keep contributers on the subject? I should say that I have been guilty of deviating from the matter in hand more than once.

        Abusive remarks, which are surely never justified and which have been aimed at me before, must be policed much more effectively. Now there is a subject for discussion, which is not actually chess related, which could be more comprehensively and effectively aired. Banning offenders would certainly be favoured by me.

        One of the problems here and everywhere else is one of human nature. Some people cannot help arguing, regardless of the points made by others. They will make blatantly dishonest assertions, which they do not believe for a minute, simply to argue. This serves to prolong discussions way beyond their natural and rational course and yes, contributes to the point being lost. So to answer the original question, I favour more and better moderation.

I don't understand your "user moderated" comment. A post that may be offensive to you, or others, may also give some a good laugh. How quickly will mods or staff see the post(s)? I have seen topics that advertise where I can get fake documents. Some have lasted more than 24 hours, and, I'm surprised it took so long for the staff or mods to get rid of it.

One that I know has posted two separate threads about a game he cannot access-in help and support. In that time, many threads have been deleted, yet, he has not received any input from staff.

This, to me, is one of the rubs of the site. I think there should be more focus on help and less on bans for posting jokes or pics in some threads. For some time, there has been more moderation in threads that would have simply died, and less focus in the help and support topics. It's as if cc thinks every question in "help and support" will be answered by other members. 

Forgive me for calling you out, but, have you seen the threads off topic?

Discussions about movies, baseball, music, football...?

Also, conversations often evolve. A topic that starts with, "is e4 good?" can turn into a fun discucussion about most anything.

That is exactly why I think a hide button for one post at the time (or all posts of a user in the OP's thread) is much better than totally blocking users. And topic readers can unhide these hidden comments if they like.

If implemented well, mods would have an easy overview of hidden (and possibly offensive) comments and could react much better and quicker without the need read/follow all threads.

Moderation is good.

Excess chess is bad for a player that can't play often while over-indulgence in alcohol is quite normal for serious drinkers. It's just about keeping priorities straight.

This reminds me of how FaceBook deals with unwanted posts.  They let each user decide whose posts show up in his/her live feed.  This is the ideal way to censor someone -- I can censor "Obnoxiuos Joe" from my live feed, but Joe's posts still show up in everyone else's feed who enjoys his "humor".  Why can't chess.com use this approach?

Brilliantly put! I'm going to print that out and tape it to the fridge.

You do get to know people here, or you may want to know people here, so it's nice to discuss other topics besides chess with everyone. People do become friends here, and one does wonder what their friends and acquaintances think about a variety of subjects besides chess:)

"Is e4 good?" shouldn't be asked period.  Dumbass threads like that need to go off topic to get anything of any value out of 'em.

I've always thought that it would be great if a set of search results from existing threads auto-generated withe each new character you typed into the new thread title text entry box much like Google does when you begin to type into their search box.

It's also curious that chess.com has a robust opening explorer interface complete with a thread for each one (http://www.chess.com/openings/), yet the discussion is fractured into many additional threads in the Openings forum category (http://www.chess.com/forum/category/chess-openings).

A similar approach could theoretically be taken with the Rules and Basics page as well among many others I'm sure: http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess.

I've always thought a little bit of better site organization could also go a long ways towards cleaning up some of the threads that come up over, and over, and over.

They probably spam a ton of different sites all at the same time.  The big banner on the front page that says there are nine million users here is probably a big draw for these spammers.

Borislav Ivanov?

I've often joked "Especially moderation", in response to the platitude "All things in moderation".

I think that in this context that response is even more relevant.

I don't think there are anymore posters here now than at any other time in chess.com's lifespan, if that's what you mean.  I get the sense that the number of posters stays pretty constant.  I also don't see any significant difference in the quality of posts.  What I do see is more professional spamming, more thumbing noses at policies, and more grumbling about moderators' practices.

I don't know if this reponds to your comments, but I'm not really sure of your point.

I wish I knew. He's particularly helpful and capable, I've found.

Chess.com has a particularly lousy search capabilities.  I would think that search engine technology would be capable of pinpoint searching and that chess.com would be able to apply such technology.  Maybe it's the lack of priority.

We'd morph into Y! Chess.