Nice post, regardless of what people say, you are doing a good job, and keep up the good work
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
Sort:
Glad to hear some issues addressed.
I have been a member in the "chess.com" for 6 years.
I honest to everyone in the world that chess.com is the best chess online sites.
*****
Thanks to chess.com who already receive us despite our good or bad behavior,
chess.com remain patient.
*****
Great for chess.com
Awesome. So Off Topic will be a free zone; good compromise. I have one suggestion, though. The "Forum" menu dropdown has menu items like "Hot Topics" and "New Unread Messages" that currently include all forums.
How about an option for users in settings to remove "Off Topic" threads from showing up in these categories? That would allow everyone to filter out the junk, if they so choose. Maybe set the setting to "on" by default ;)...
You have a very tough challenge, balancing the opposing needs of the wide variety of peope here. I think you're doing as good of a job as can be humanly expected. And I'm very glad you're taking the time to communicate.
I request a TL;DR. :)
MSC157 wrote:
I request a TL;DR. :)
Yeah those 100 games had to take a lot out of you
It's a long OP, I won't pretend to have read it.
As for the question, I think there are several things that can be done, such as allow people to rate positive or negative the comments of people and the OP itself, sort out answer by rating, or insert quizs maybe in a special forum to solve difficulties with chess
You can give the option to hide threads by OPs, since there are many people that create threads in "General Chess Discussion", but those are never chess related.
pdela wrote:
It's a long OP, I won't pretend to have read it.
Cole's notes version:
Moderation is hard. No matter where you draw the line in the sand, some people are going to be upset about it.
In an attempt to find a better place in the sand for that line, Off Topic will be relatively unmoderated going forward (except for the most blatant abuse of the TOS).
Erik also called for a cease and desist on all the forum bickering that's been going on. A descalation and a reset of the tone.
Well written Erik. I have to admit to having some of the same feelings about the current state of the forums and have seriously thought about just giving up on them. Most of my posts are about trying to help newcomers navigate this awesome, but slightly untidy, website and I have had a few dozen thank yous for my efforts. I've also had run ins with some of the more cantankerous folks on the planet who make me wonder why I even bother. Guess we'll just keep at it and hope for the best.
pdela wrote:
As for the question, I think there are several things that can be done, such as allow people to rate positive or negative the comments of people and the OP itself, sort out answer by rating,
I have to disagree. Rating posts and comments leads to groupthink and more "cliquey" behavior. It becomes pretty easy to gang up on people, or let others make decisions for you in terms of what is a good or bad post. It also becomes easy to start making posts in order to earn "points," which really, is a cry for approval. That introduces a lot of superficial topics and comments.
One problem I see with the current forums is that people can edit their post anytime and in any way, without a problem. In most forums, there is a time window in which you can edit posts. Not only that, but after a few minutes passes, it will say on your post that your post was edited. This makes it so that people can't edit their post 5 days later and completely obscure the conversation. As is, it's very easy to "troll" by editing your post to something completely different, and few people will ever know the original message.
If Off topic becomes free for all I'd probably avoid it, pity about the few worthwhile threads in there.
There is an obvious solution to the too much/not enough moderation debate. Simply give each member the ability to control whose posts they see, as is done on Facebook. For example, if I find the posts of ObnoxiousGuy999 to be offensive, I could add him to my private do-not-see list. Then I would no longer see any of his posts (until I took him off my list). I would instead see a blank space or similar place-holder associated with that post number (preserving the post numbering). Every other chess.com member (that hasn't yet added him to their list) could still see all of ObnoxiousGuy999's posts. Initially, upon implementation of this system, every member's do-not-see list would be blank -- we could all see each other's posts.
This appraoch would simultaneously allow maximum freedom of speech, and personalized filtering. And the moderators would have a much smaller work load (still needed for filtering out blatant hate-speech and unapproved advertisements).
Erik, what do you think of this proposal?
Would this work, though, the way the quote functionality works here? Facebook's structure of updates and responses is much different than chess.com's forums. You'd end up seeing one-sided discussions and would probably see much of the content you were trying to suppress anyway as quoted content.
The idea has merit, but I don't think it's quite that simple. Also, even if chess.com got it working well, it's still subject to being end-run by sock-puppet accounts which remain of the biggest issues plaguing these forums.
Thank you for communicating, Erik :) Chess.com is a great site on the whole.
TheGrobe wrote:
Would this work, though, the way the quote functionality works here? Facebook's structure of updates and responses is much different than chess.com's forums. You'd end up seeing one-sided discussions and would probably see much of the content you were trying to suppress anyway as quoted content.
The idea has merit, but I don't think it's quite that simple. Also, even if chess.com got it working well, it's still subject to being end-run by sock-puppet accounts which remain of the biggest issues plaguing these forums.
Thank you TheGrobe for your reply. I had already thought about the fact that objectional content could still reappear within posts that quote other posts. But if the person quoting such content is someone I respect (like you, for example), I could live with that. If a sockpuppet quotes an objectional post in order to defeat my filter, I'll simply add the new sockpuppet to my do-no-see list. I can add them to my list far easier than they can create new accounts.
rajnikant001 wrote:
i just fear about one thing that keeping off-topic unmoderated would keep make it the "4chan" of this site.
also, if you guys recall,in live chess, some months ago,there was a completely unmoderated chatroom named debate. this chatroom always had some very objectable discussions going on.also,i have heard that this lead to the closure of all the chatrooms except main-hall and help&support .
so, i do fear that keeping off-topic unmoderated may lead to the closure of forums.
Although you use 4chan as an example of bad, I think it does a whole disservice to that entire site's many boards (not all of them are the infamous /b/) not to mention it is an inappropriate comparison to the moderation issue since they do have moderation over there in differing levels depending on the board.
I think a better comparison would be the yahoo forums and site content since they have had no moderation whatsoever and it is an absolute cesspool.
I think we are well away from a need for a forum closure (we haven't reached the level of youtube or reddit tier crap yet let alone something like gaiaonline or god forbid yahoo).
Wow, amazing speech there Erik. Unlike other people who take the TL;DR aproch I read the whole thing because i saw that what you said was important and worth reading. Of course to every long piece that someone writes there are some parts that need improving and comments. This is what I have to say.
I speak for trolling, I don't know if all trolls think the way I do but this is what i have to say for the chess.com community. Some trolling is bad and offensive as are some types of trolling like spamming (just posting meaningless stuff over and over again) but the right type of trolls are benificial to the chess.com comunity. Imagine a chess.com without the type of trolls that i am mentioning. There would no longer be times when they are not appreciated but there would also be no one to troll the mean people to death. They would hount chess.com with no one with the gut or the right words to take them down. Also chess can sometimes get a little dull after talking about it for hours and we start to wish that there is someone to say something that can lighten up our mood. It doesn't have to be very funny, just something that lifts some of the weight of our shoulders. Sometimes no one recognizes it and trolls still remain hated, but that uncousious post that isn't a serious chess anaylisis or commentary makes us more happy and glad that there is a chess.com comunity to keep our spirits up. I am not much for speeches but this is what i have to say for trolling.
Ajttja
Dear Chess.com:
[Please excuse me for the insane length of this post! Deep down I'm a bit of a writer and philosopher... :D]
When I started Chess.com 8 years ago I set out to create a place where people who love chess could come together to PLAY, LEARN, and SHARE. And by share, I imagined a place where people would discuss chess and build friendships around a common interest. And on the whole, I think Chess.com has become a wonderful platform for that. We have millions of members and friendships, thousands of active clubs, and have even produced a handful of marriages from people who met here!
What's been surprising to me is that Chess.com has, in some ways, transcended being a "chess site". Some people don't even play chess and come back just for the relationships they have built. I've seen it in myself. Aside from Chess.com, I don't have any "online" relationships with anyone - not family or friends (I'm not active on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter), and definitely not with anonymous nicknames and avatars. But on Chess.com I'm friends with dozens of usernames, avatars and flags, with almost zero knowledge of who they are, what they look like, or where they are sitting as they type! It's wild, entertaining, and enriching to my human experience. And I know that is happening for millions of people on Chess.com. Sometimes it starts with a "gg" after a live game, and then a friend request and then a month later randomhuman1 from Brazil is friends with randomhuman2 from India. And that's why I love the "SHARE" in Chess.com. It's global. It's anonymous. And yet it's incredibly intimate.
When people ask me "who are the typical users or demographics on Chess.com" I give them a surprising answer. They are expecting me to give some answer like "middle-aged above-average intellectual man who loves chess". But I tell them the truth, that Chess.com is a perfect reflection of the 7 billion people on this planet, with only one common attribute: they happen to have signed up on Chess.com at some point. But our users are male and female, old and young, genius and average, obsessed with chess and don't know how to move the pieces. Chess.com is a perfect microcosm. And that is both a beautiful and a difficult thing, because the world is both beautiful and difficult.
As someone who never really participated in online communities before, I was naive about what would happen once we launched the site. Chess.com, with its live chat, forums, messages, and groups has a lot of touch points for user interaction. On the upside, I have been surprised to see it produce wonderful friendships and even a couple of marriages! And I have been equally shocked by the ugly side. I wasn't prepared for the level of anger, abuse, bullying, nonsense, and other stuff that would come out. Honestly, I just don't swim in those circles. In my day-to-day life, made up of exclusively face-to-face interactions, I don't know anyone who would treat anyone like that. But wow, once we launched an open and anonymous community, the abuse started. Admittedly, it took me off guard! So pretty early on I wrote a set of guidelines:
----------
"Chess.com is a friendly community. We try to keep it that way by following a common set of rules for posting. The following topics or behaviors are not allowed in the main public forums or chat rooms:
If you would like to discuss any of the topics above you may do so in the Open Discussion group forums [or in any private group forums]. If you are found unable to follow these rules, you may have your posting abilities restricted. Thank you for helping Chess.com keep a safe and friendly environment where we can all enjoy chess!"
----------
Those guidelines were designed to help keep our main forums focused on positive interactions (chess, ideas, friendship, humor, feedback). And to help do that we recruited many great moderators who do their best to keep Chess.com focused on the positive. But what I immediately found was that I am in a no-win situation! No matter what guidelines (or lack thereof) I decree, someone will be upset. Too moderated? Upsetting to people who don't like moderation. Too free-for-all? Upsetting to people who don't like abuse or conflict. There is a spectrum of how much moderation people want, and wherever I plant the rules, it will make some people upset. I've received sincere and upset messages from members who have quit on both sides - can't stand the abuse, or can't stand the oppression.
At the end of the day, somebody needs to give final and definitive answers to the issues facing Chess.com. As the "head" of Chess.com (I hate titles - CEO? president? boss? leader? barf...), it's my uncomfortable duty to hear, weigh, and decide on issues that impact everyone. I don't love that pressure, but I love Chess.com, so I do it. This week several things have caused me to pull my head out of the other issues I normally attend to - like our redesign of mobile apps and the upcoming new Chess.com - and to instead take the temperature of our community. And what I have found makes me both happy and sad.
Happy because as I have re-involved myself more in the forums, I have seen a lot of familiar faces that have been permanent fixtures here for years and years. And I've seen a lot of interesting discussions about chess news, lots of free game analysis and advice, some great suggestions for the site, and plenty of hilarious banter. And most of our community participants are engaging in the positive areas, ignoring, oblivious, or protected from the negative.
But sad because I have also seen a lot of angst. I've seen a lot of "trolling" and abuse. I've also seen some (understandably) frazzled moderation. I feel like things have escalated and are boiling over, making it worse for everyone in our community - members and moderators alike.
[Again, I apologize for waxing philosophical here, but bear with me - it's about to go deeper...]
The world is full of angst. People disagree. Humans fight. Parents and children clash. Desperate people commit crimes and end up in jail. Terrorists blow up innocent people drinking coffee at cafes. And what's crazy is that both sides feel justified. But the normal response from opposing sides is not to understand, but to fight harder. We see this play out across all issues around the globe. And I'm not taking any sides on any world issues here because I don't know what the solutions are, but I do know that the current methods are NOT working. Teenagers lie to their parents. American jails are full of people incarcerated for possession of marijuana. Terrorists keep blowing up civilians. Each side of an argument tries harder and harder to convince the other side, or enforce by force their own position, and the other side feels more and more invalidated and alienated, and then more willing to do ANYTHING to fight against those who do not listen.
The answer to all of these problems is empathy. It is the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes, to really understand their feelings and motivations. And even if you don't agree with the behaviors and conclusions, to at least validate that the feelings are real - that is usually enough to diffuse a situation to the point where a civil negotiation can take place. But that is HARD to do, especially in an anonymous environment! It's HARD to remember that everyone else is human, that they wake up, deal with problems, have difficult lives full of emotional struggles.
Permit me to share a video that I think encapsulates this challenge. It is a university graduation speech put to film: https://vimeo.com/68855377
The point is we are all people. We all get frustrated. We all get annoyed by the other people around us because we are mostly focused on ourselves and our own needs. And it is HARD to consider that everyone else and their thoughts, feelings and realities are real - at least to them. But the more able we are to empathize, the better we become as a society and the happier we become as individuals.
With that as the backdrop, I'd like to reiterate our policies, explain them, and then lay out some new policies for how we moderate on Chess.com.
Our updated policies are:
----------
"Chess.com is a global community and we hope to be civil, friendly, and helpful to one another. We try to keep it that way by following a common set of rules for posting. We do not tolerate:
Additionally, the following behaviors are not allowed in the main public forums and chat rooms:
The Off-Topic category and all Group forums are not moderated except for reports of hate speech, threatening personal attacks, or obscenity. If you are found unable to follow these rules, you may have your posting abilities restricted.
When you participate in our community please remember:
The following are our moderator action policies:
----------
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 personally live my life by two laws: First, do not harm anyone else. That includes physical, mental, emotional, and economic harm. Second, do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else, unless they are harming others.
And whether you agree or not, many people feel harmed by swearing, fighting, contention, name-calling, nudity, etc. And I respect that reality. But I also understand that some people disagree. As an absurd example, I don't want people walking on public sidewalks while blindfolded and juggling sharp knives. It's not fair to everyone else using the sidewalks, and the blind-knife-juggler's right to the sidewalk must yield to the #1 law of not hurting people, even if they could, theoretically, all move out of the way. That's tyranny by the minority. And yet, I don't want to ban blindfold knife juggling. There should be a place for that to be allowed. Maybe a side street specially designated for it. And guess what - if you don't like it, don't walk down that street. So that's what I've done - Off Topic is a side street that is mostly unmoderated. And if you don't like unmoderated discussion, don't go there!
Now, I recognize that while none of us exactly agree on the same community standards, most of us want to have fun, be loved, enjoy life, and be a good person. We might have different opinions on what that means, but overall, 99.9% of people I've met in the world and on Chess.com have roughly the same goals and compass. At the same time, I also know that there are some people who just want to watch the world burn. For whatever reason, there really are some people who are seriously disturbed beyond reason and don't care about anyone else. They are devoid of empathy. And those people we will continue to relentlessly remove from our site to keep it focused on the good.
But I believe that is a very small number of people, and that many people who have been labeled "trolls" are probably just feeling angry, lonely, misunderstood, or oppressed. Maybe they brought it on themselves. But maybe they didn't. Maybe somebody said something mean, and they retaliated, but then they were the one singled out and reprimanded. And then they did something as payback, and then they were hammered again... and it just escalated.
I'm calling for a de-escalation. I'm calling for a reset. If you have a reputation that you aren't proud of or you feel isn't deserved, I'm asking you to be your best self and let us see it. And if you have anger or bad feelings in your heart toward someone else on the site, I'm asking you to forgive and give another chance.
Let's all make Chess.com better for everyone by being our best selves.
Erik