All Things in Moderation

Cheating's a big problem

Yes because you are one to talk.

Can we please get back to the topic (whatever it was) that was discussed before I came in and ruined the thread?

 I feel that all policies should be public information. And the same with the enforcement of the policies as much as possible. Certainly offensive/vulgar language must be removed entirely, at least the part that is offensive/vulgar. But for the most part mod action should be left visible to the public.

I am trying not to digress from the topic at hand, so I will leave it at that. If you'd like you can PM me.

the duplicate account defensive structure, I'm not sure to which extent it's justified to have some people declared as personae non gratae. It's obvious that, even though they're critical and misbehaving and breaking many rules (i.e. Wealhtheow, just to name one), they love the site and contributing to make it a better place, maybe even more so than the average non-banned Joe

its human nature to defend those areas, people or ideas you spend time on or with. Doesnt mean that the people on this site are somehow abnormaly defensive, it does suggest that you yourself whoever wrote this above statement is perhaps thin skinned egotisitacal simpleton who intended to throw some light on others ineptitudes to deflect his/her own.

Stay thirsty my friend

I agree with BorgQueen.

Touché!

The high level of activity on the forums here is a tribute to the moderators.

Moderation on the video channel is particularly good.

I think I would quite like to see a rule introduced that a new account can only post after 20 games or 1,000 moves have been played. That would not wholly stop the people who open an account just to make provocative posts but it would make them jump through some extra hoops to do so and might deter a few. Also I would like threads started by people who have been members for less than a month to carry some asterisk or mark or appear in a different colour. It is often easy to guess from the title that a thread is for kids and trolls/spammers but a mark of that kind would also help.

There is a lack of positional discussions in the forums but I think that is due to the fact that there is now a wide range of media available for that sort of thing. And, in any case, it might sit ill with the lighter stuff which does appear.

Basically, I don't think there's any strong will to moderate the forums beyond the bare minimums. Chess.com probably thinks that it does't really affects its business which is volume-based.

I'm very disappointed by the way public forums have evolved too, but I'm quite happy that private group forums still provide a decent alternative.

I was thinking something similar to the johnyoudell proposal. But in addition to the 20 games requirement, it could be to have to wait 1 or 2 to months before start posting in the forums.

Before that you could only write in 1) a beginners section (if you want help with the rules or how to start games) and 2) in a bug reporting/contact the staff forum.

Sure, it won´t stop most trolls, but at least we would get less of them for a time. 

Unless its really blatantly bad, I believe people should get a warning first before getting banned. Chess.com could get more moderators so more is 'seen', or a one click flag thingie. But I think they left that out on purpose becuase it may flood moderators.

I also think moderators from chess.com get trained somewhat. As in: they get to know the chess.com norms and values to prevent randomness in moderation. Perhaps its good for moderators to have a place where they can discuss "on the edge" cases. When multiple moderators decide something it is not ok, then you can delete it.

Heinzies suggestion of  adding a reason why threads are closed seems fair. The community learns from it. But it could also evoke new discussions, as weve seen before: "I disagree with closing X or Y". These kind of discussions imo should be deleted right away: either ask a mod for explanation and discuss with them or just accept that this is not what chess.com wants. 

I agree with johnnyoudell and BorgQueen.

On another forum, members must have their first X posts approved by a moderator, as well.

It's really not that hard to DETECT them and re-ban them.   If it is done well enough, the offender will tire of creating new (e-mail/ip/chess.com) accounts every hour and just not bother.  

It's not that easy, either.  If you IP ban, then you risk (for example) shutting down an entire chess club that uses a single cable modem.

Ever heard of one bad egg spoiling it for the whole bunch? :)

In the example of a chess club, there could be communication between Chess.com and the club as to who was causing the problem and what their problematic behavior was. Real reprocussions for behavior! The club could give their member a chance to change, etc.

The same could go for a family.

Back in the day, conq' and 'flags were the best moderators on the forums. 

Some guys it would be neccesary to invent if we didn't already have them.

All that utility has gone poof now though.

That requires manual intervention, which requires a large callcenter.  Not going to happen.

Of course, from my point of view, everyone who ever used floppy disks for anything else than a history class must also have seen dinosaurs go extinct, but I am under the impression that most regular posters (even the trolls) are averaging around 40.

I'll take the over on regular posters. The under on the trolls