All Things in Moderation

Sort:
Avatar of goldendog
Irontiger wrote:
goldendog wrote:

For a forum where 25 makes you an old man, it's pretty good.

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.

TL!?

Far from my impression. They do polls there--I wonder if they polled age groups generally?

I remember some age bracketing poll, though I forget the subject, and it skewed pretty young.

Avatar of Irontiger

Oh, and the lax application of forum rules is probably due to the "trolling the trolls" effect.

Some troll comes up with a random topic, makes it controversial by personal attacks and the likes, but still staying on the edge of locking. While some reasonable people try to argue with the troll, meta-trolls come and post pictures or make inane comments in order to get the troll angry so that the whole thing gets closed.

The moderator's interest is to go along with the meta-trolls' strategy and not delete their posts (though often blatant violations of the anti-troll rules) - he will be able to close the thread sooner instead of having to watch it for a week before finding a reason to close it.

Avatar of Irontiger
goldendog wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
goldendog wrote:

For a forum where 25 makes you an old man, it's pretty good.

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.

TL!?

Far from my impression. They do polls there--I wonder if they polled age groups generally?

I remember some age bracketing poll, though I forget the subject, and it skewed pretty young.

 Regular posters are a very small part of polling groups.

If you mean most forum viewers are mostly young, it's possible. But forum posters, on the average weighted by number of posts, are older.

Avatar of goldendog
Irontiger wrote:

 Regular posters are a very small part of polling groups.

If you mean most forum viewers are mostly young, it's possible. But forum posters, on the average weighted by number of posts, are older.

Peaks at  c.25 according to this:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=427622

Avatar of Irontiger
goldendog wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

 Regular posters are a very small part of polling groups.

If you mean most forum viewers are mostly young, it's possible. But forum posters, on the average weighted by number of posts, are older.

Peaks at  c.25 according to this:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=427622

I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I was talking of chess.com forums.

Avatar of goldendog
Irontiger wrote:

I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I was talking of chess.com forums.

Ah.

You're forgiven, but still a spanking and straight to bed without dessert.

Avatar of Irontiger
goldendog wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I was talking of chess.com forums.

Ah.

You're forgiven, but still a spanking and straight to bed without dessert.

If only you could catch me...

Avatar of waffllemaster
wasted_youth wrote:

I don't think it's a matter of moving threads to Off Topic; that forum is brimming over with rubbish anyway (although there are, rarely, very good and funny threads).

I'd like to see 1. a set of rules which specifically cover a lot more than the present ones, and 2. a moderation team which enforces them. Examples from the TL rules quoted by 3FFA:

 

"Do not post just for the sake of posting. We will warn for excessive "+1" posts. Also, don't be a backseat moderator. Our moderators handle the moderation so you don't have to.

Don't use our forums as your personal marketing resource. Don't post referral links or blatant traffic grabs. It's fine to post a thread that links to your personal blog or an article you wrote or published on another site if the content is relevant to the discussion, but treat our forums as your home, not as a tool to drive traffic. Additionally, don't treat our forum as a substitute for Google.

Gratuitous swearing, insults, or trolling will get you banned.

An opening post should set the tone for discussion by being thoughtful and well constructed. We will not hesitate to close threads that don't have enough content.

Use the Search Function before making a new thread to make sure there isn't already a topic."

All this sounds pretty Utopian compared to the forum here at chess.com. Sure, there'd be outrage among the trolls if a few were first warned and then banned, but in the long run the forum would be a much better place to visit. It's chess.com's site, and they have the right to make and enforce their own rules.

Yeah wouldn't mind this, at least it would clean up a lot of pointless topics.


Although I don't mind off topic comments or pictures if the OP was just a question and it has been resolved (which sometimes happens in the first post).

Avatar of goldendog
waffllemaster wrote:
Although I don't mind off topic comments or pictures if the OP was just a question and it has been resolved (which sometimes happens in the first post).

orangehonda was a pip in his time Smile.

Avatar of wasted_youth

Off topic can be great, no question of that; it's when it starts getting a life of its own within an otherwise interesting unresolved thread that it can be a real pain in the neck.

Avatar of goldendog
Irontiger wrote:
goldendog wrote:
Irontiger wrote:

I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I was talking of chess.com forums.

Ah.

You're forgiven, but still a spanking and straight to bed without dessert.

If only you could catch me...

Pfffft. Dogs are quick. I'll even give you a head start.

Avatar of littledragons

Start A Forum where you are allowed to post only after you have made at least 20 good post in other threads. 

Avatar of waffllemaster

Yeah, waffllemaster was meant to post pictures of waffles originally Laughing

Back in those days pancakes had something to say about that.

Avatar of TheGrobe

They say that you can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time but you can't to both.

In moderation, though, I think that you can't do either.  It's the nature of the beast.

Avatar of AlCzervik
wasted_youth wrote:

Off topic can be great, no question of that; it's when it starts getting a life of its own within an otherwise interesting unresolved thread that it can be a real pain in the neck.

??

Many threads evolve just like conversation. Add to that that some "chess topics" will never be resolved-bishop v. knight; was Fisher the best (look 'em up).

Avatar of Bardu

Half of the people can be part right all of the time

Some of the people can be all right part of the time

But all of the people can't be all right all of the time

Avatar of AlCzervik
batgirl wrote:

There has been some discussion recently, buried with other threads, about how things are moderated here at chess.com.

Strangely, some people complain that there's too much moderating, while others complain there isn't enough.  Some folks claim the moderators are biased, while others seem to think moderators are somewhat misguided.

I'm curious, to hear not what people think about the current moderating practices, but more so about what different members might construe as ideal moderation, bearing in mind the goals and policies of chess.com.

I'd like to see more of a delineation between chesskids and cc, as it was supposed to be. Too many kids spouting crapola.

For the adults that still act like kids, I'd prefer if the site moderated along the lines of how it was done a few years ago. Spamming extremely stupid topics, or the 50th topic about the same thing worked. Even with pics.  As poison pointed out, many times the regular members were the best moderators. Sure, there may have been only a few occasions where the OP got the hint, but, even when they didn't, it turned into a fun thread for others.

I should add that my opinion here is for these forums. If I knew anything about chess, and watched broadcasts of master's games, I'd probably choose more discussion to be about said games.

Avatar of TheGrobe

It still happens, but much less frequently than it used to:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-is-biased

Avatar of TheGrobe

I think the problem was that the default MO became the photo-carpet-bombing of the threads, something that the site's management hates.

I never cared for that approach personally (though good, funny topical picture should be encouraged), but I'm all for what happened in the thread above.

Avatar of TurboFish

I'd like to see implementation of a way to "unsubscribe" from the posts of specific individuals so that I never see their posts in any of the forums (until I chose to delete their name from my "unsubscribe" list).  Everyone else who hasn't unsubscribed would still see those individuals' posts.  Initially we would all be subscribed to each other.

In terms of resources, this scheme would simply require that the site maintain a private list of the screened members for each user.  Each of us would essentially become the main moderator of her/his own forum experience.