C'mon TheGrobe! You're, singlehandedly, ruining this thread with your reading comprehension and stuff.
It would be a shame if this thread were moved to "off-topic" just because of your pragmatism.
lol, the irony. Pre-emptavly moving the blame from yourself to TheGrobe when this thread gets moved to off topic
I think that if chess.com was interested in empty +1 comments they'd have implemented a "like" feature. Why not add your own thoughts? Tell people why you liked something.
where is the 'meh' button ?
ajttja wrote:
chessdex wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
chessdex wrote:
And besides, are you claiming you are not a dumb spammer troll or something? Because it seems like you encourage harassing people. In what ways have you contributed to this community?
There's that conciliatory tone Erik was asking us all for.
Look, I only responded after he called me a dumb spammer troll who harms chess.com. What do you want me to do, agree with him?
hey, when did i call you that? I was calling bigpoison that not you? (unless you are bigpoisons other acount)
What? I thought you called me that after my +1 comment. If not, I'm very sorry.
Oh, sorry, ajttja, I misunderstood you.
wow, If you hadn't explained your anger at me we could have become enemies over a misundestanding. BTW misunderstandings are often the root of some big arguments on the forums and lets hope that this forum does not die because of misunderstandings. Another reason explaining ones self is very helpfull.
batgirl wrote:
This new forum sounds suspicioulsy like the old forum.
In what ways?
The bickering, I think.
TL;DR summary: kumbayah
Ha! I guess somebody has to pick up Reb's slack. Never miss a chance to bash a hippy.
(...)
Again, I'm trying to strike the right balance of everyone's needs and the realities of human behavior. It's impossible to expect that everyone will agree on what is appropriate, but I have tried to keep our main environment as friendly, safe, and positive as possible, while also providing a place for those who are looking for more freedom of expression. (...)
I agree with most of the OP, except for that part. Not that it matters - erik being the commander-in-chief/supreme leader/whatever, he may set the standards of moderation he wishes (within US law of course).
However, I feel like most useful contributors come on that site for -err- chess ; for instance, take pfren : though his posts are usually the last step before outright insults, he nonetheless is of great advice, and sticks to chess forums.
In my view, off-topic posts does not belong to chess.com. Of course, political or otherwise controversial views can come up during casual forum conversation, but right now they mostly seem to come up with threads entirely devoted to them. If you force trolls to talk about chess, you just starve them away.
But, will you say, the blind-knife-juggler needs a place to practice (or the guy who plays something you don't like on the piano, for a milder analogy). However, chess.com need not provide this place. If blind-knife-juggling was forbidden in every place on Earth, it would surely be tyranny, and chess.com would be an island of freedom in a world of censorship ; however, the world is vast, and demanding from each person that one of his house's rooms be free-to-blindly-knife-juggle would also be tyrrany.
Nowadays, quite a few sites offer free forums or blogs. You can find forums dedicated to almost anything, and a blog is about whatever you wish. Why should chess.com be the garbage disposal of political, religious, science, etc. forums ?
Don't mistake me : I don't like censorship, for whatever reason it might be, even against outright obscenities or blatant disinformation. And I am not happy to live in one of the two "civilized" countries not in green on that map. However, chess.com does not need to be free-for-all-posters when other places are, and does not have to feel any ethical responsability - if, starting tomorrow, chess.com decides that any post containing an odd number of 'm' or 'n's will be hammered, that's totally ok with me (even if of course I will not be pleased, I will not complain it's immoral).
Now, again, that's my view, and I do not claim that a large fraction of chess.com shares it. I would actually believe to be quite alone, especially with the "censorship is always bad" part. Maybe erik when reading this will dismiss it as utter nonsense. But it's better to dismiss an argument you'e heard than never hearing it.
The bickering, I think.
Bah! In a forum like this? No one here would be bickering :D
But, will you say, the blind-knife-juggler needs a place to practice (or the guy who plays something you don't like on the piano, for a milder analogy). However, chess.com need not provide this place.
This is a good point. Blind knife juggling and the piano are expressly forbidden in my house.
we're humans with diverse experiences. of course we won't agree. but we can show respect and patience.
Great post.
Indeed you done a nice job here, I appreciate it. 
Restrictions on starting topics are not good. My first OPs were about what would be considered polite on this site and then some what I thought were fun 900's blitz games. I got advice on what would be polite, and on the games some instructive and encouraging posts from much better players (there are still better). Would I have stuck around without that feedback? Maybe, maybe not.
Restricting the OP topics can be tricky. Instead of moderators, you are asking the chess.com folks to be editors. I think we all agree seeing the "most recent posts" display filled with offers for fake id's or "escorts" doesn't help us participate, but how could that be avoided unless you were to submit a new topic to an editor who allowed it to be posted?
Then what's okay?
Totally silly threads like "I play chess like the Chicago Cubs play baseball"?
Non-chess topics where there are enough like-minded people to make a conversation (math, algorithms, history)?
good idea -
would math problem posts be appreciated, or not
Are you open to suggestions Eric, or has the time for that passed ?
I'm ALWAYS open to listening
In response to Irontiger's thesis, I respectfully disagree that this site should be restricted to chess.
We can grow this site exponentially if we move away from chess. Let's make this one of the biggest and most exciting internet destinations in the world. Chess.com can easily be one of the top ten websites on the internet; but only if we expand beyond chess.
The "chess only" faction will still have a high quality place for chess talk alongside other topics of broader interest. A broader membership will also lead to higher revenues, higher profits, and more money being re-invested into the site, making it better for everyone.
This would not be possible if the site were restricted to chess. Chess is moribund.
Although I doubt erik will be taking advice from sockpuppets, I will answer the content.
1-Yes, the site will grow, or grow faster, if "we" (actually, erik) make it step further from chess. Becoming one of the ten most-visited or biggest by any other measure is certainly not as easy as you might think, but it could probably grow by a large factor.
But is it really an objective per se ?
2-Precisely, the chess-only faction is going to disappear in that scenario. When forums will be flooded under "OMG RandomCelebrity just kissed RandomStranger !!! #gossip #Ihaveanemptyhead", posts such as "23.Ba3 Ruy Lopez analysis" will be drown.
3-Long-term, maybe it will generate more profit, maybe not. But short-term, the immediate effect will be a decrease in chess content, if only by dilution. Maybe there will be more members, but more paying members ? All premium features are chess-related, so it is guaranteed to put off some of today's customers for a not very tangible benefit.
TL;DR summary: kumbayah