well in a sense that some break the rules, but they benefit others
All Things in Moderation
Sort:
nevermind, I retract the statement
hmm ... what was that with (moderation) rules being for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men/women?
so ironic
batgirl wrote:
Fun title, interesting topic, but no input. It seems people, in other threads, like to say what they don't like, but are devoid of alternatives.
When I used to be involved in running a real time, face to face chess club, it was he same way. People have all kinds of issues but no solutions, and most never volunteer to help with projects ever.
Critiscism is often proffered more readily than solutions for some reason to do with human nature.
Criticism is easy. Solutions are hard. People are lazy.
Jan 28, 2014
0
#330
I find that solutions generally evolve after reasonable suggestions. People only need to suggest ideas, not solve anything.
Community cannot self-moderate! There would be a lot of spam threads and every thread would turn to trash
The question is what is meant by self-moderation...
If it is a like/dislike system that buries unpopular threads/posts, clearly no. But there are probably other options.
The1899Club wrote:
I was just re-stating a suggestion made earlier. Also the "spam threads" problem is addressed in the statement "Formal site moderation is only needed in cases of undue advertising." Please calm down, sir.
Sorry, I thought I was responding normally. SO they have to look at the forums in case they're are spam threads. Then nothing would change and it would still be them moderating
batgirl wrote:
I find that solutions generally evolve after reasonable suggestions. People only need to suggest ideas, not solve anything.
I suggest strict moderation by staff. Nonsense topics deleted quickly for example.
Also like on piano forums (and other places) have it so your account has to be approved before you can post. I assume it must be approved by staff and it usually takes a day or two.
That's probably the reason for it.
The1899Club wrote:
To Irontiger, self-moderation means no formal management intervention, except in the case of blatant advertising.
But who are the moderator(s), if any ? How does any post get deleted, if ever ? How are repeat offenders handled with ? Etc.
I'm not saying it cannot work, I'm saying that without the specifics it's hard to tell.
Even police departments have to be reigned in sometimes.
Volcano738 wrote:
The OP should have power over their own thread. If they deem a post to be irrelivent, then they should be allowed to delete that post.
Considering the maturity level in the forums, more control would be in the hands of kids, resulting in even more polarity in the forums.
What we need is more quality (I'd say people who get funny) and lots less crap and pablum.
I shudder when I think of a visitor tuning in and thinking that the chess.com people are kids consumed with points and being seen most in the forums.
I don't see the fix, since it seems you'd need a bunch of quality posters while the kids piped down.
In other words, it's ending with a whimper.
I really try to use common sense. If a thread is going somewhere, I'll chime-in and stay ON-TOPIC, and productive. If I feel stupid, and foolish, I'll look for a trool thread that's not going anywhere, or has nothing to do with chess. I never talk about those Java treads because its all way over my head. Post something pertinent to chess, keep the thread going constructively, or look for a nonsence thread. Exit--stage left!
The site is constantly evolving/changing.
Think new system of moderation is now required as sometimes feel embarassed visiting the forums. Seems like have gate-crashed a school blog or radio station.
Really childlike "Hi" and "lol" threads should surely be closed down instantly so as not to encourage more of them.
Maybe you're in the wrong groups?