Thread closed...

Sit at your desks, children, with your hands on your desks and looking straight ahead.

Did I miss something in the last few dying minutes of that thread?  I could see the potential for it, but last I looked there was nothing there that I'd have thought warranted it's deletion.

I, too, thought it was pretty tame.

It seems there may be more than just one faction at this site that's a little overzealous when it comes to deciding something untoward has occurred.

what the flyin' does 'vagal' mean, Schachgeek ???????

It amazes me that people that agree to the term of service when they sign up for this site now have issues with it.  If you didnt agree with the terms that YOU agreed to then why did you sign up?

That whole "big brother" mentality is self defeating.  If you truely dont agree with what goes on here, then start your own chess site with your own rules. 

I might even jon if i agree with the site rules 

this site a bloody sight less 'prefect' controlled than others - chill an' enjoy - an' chessgeek, what the flyin' does 'vagal' mean ???

Isn't vasovagal syncope just another term for fainting. And isn't fainting cause by loss of blood to the brain?

Part of what goes on here--a very small part--I truly don't agree with, yet I see no need to leave. Should I leave?

The censorship has been ridiculous on occasion. In the cheating forum I said that we should trust the top-3 match up method first and foremost, as a methodology we can see and test ourselves. This comment got deleted. Later I figured out that it was probably interpreted by a mod as a "criticism" of their secret anti-cheating methods that no one knows about, though I hadn't figured chess.com's system into the original intent of my post.

Either way, the censor's heavy hand was evident, and I disagree wholly that my comment should have been censored. Really indefensible, in my opinion.

So should I either not complain or just leave?

Aren't I allowed without apology to complain and stick around too?

Maybe there should be a forum where you're allowed to say what you want.  But I suspect that would quickly go chatoic.

Open discussions group

There is, but oddly enough there isn't a lot of discussion going.

If all you said was that top 3 matchups should be trusted, you deserve an apology as erik has said that 40% of their methodology is based on top 3 matchups. If your post also contained badmouthing of their policy against cheating or something I can understand, but by the way you described it, It seems like a mod got a bit over zealous. 

Allowed?  I view it as a responsibility as an engaged member of this community and as a contribution to the health of the site.  How else will chess.com get direct feedback on what is and is not working and whether and where their policies and offerings could use some touching up or improvement?

I got moderated and my commented deleted because I used the word succubus. It had me irritated for quite a bit.

And I agree with what goldendog said.  Just because you don't agree with policy doesn't mean you just leave...esp. if you feel the owner makes an effort to keep patrons happy and gives a lot of consideration to make the community user friendly.  I've always despised people saying "if you don't like something, leave".  That should be the last and least desirable of methods to deal with something.  Like divorce. 

What if what you don't like is being asked to leave?

"at least i didn't end up dead or in siberia."

phew!! lucky you! chess.com must have been ... busy infiltrating other chess sites' management with microscopic robot agents.

don't count on fortune to smile on you like that every day! you need to start exercising some caution, friend.

to anyone who wants to stick around and complain. yup, you're welcome to. and the feedback within your complaints is helpful for the site. at the same time, just as you are allowed to complain, other members are allowed to complain about your complaining.

That old post was just a very sterile comment on the top-3 match up methodology, and my very brief philosophical take on what and why we should be using as tools. I wasn't naming or shaming (in fact, as I have said a few times in the cheating forum, the only player I've called out as a cheater pre-chess.com banning has been ouachita) as I don't feel comfortable doing so for personal reasons at least publicly.

My only point was: I can complain about chess.com (with some cause) and still be as entitled to stay with chess.com as the next person. So far happily.

That's a luxury monopolies can afford.