Remember the burning horse incident? A certain regular member barfed the F-word all over the page. The post went live with no filter or moderation. Why don't the programmers simply create a filter that automatically rejects any post attempt containing one or more of the forbidden words?
Why aren't the forums more serious?
Sort:
Sep 24, 2015
0
#43
And I might add that people are in different moods at different times; sometimes people feel serious, sometimes goofy, or whatever, and additionally each forum has it's own millieu.
It is this diversity that makes chess.com so great, imo.
TurboFish wrote:
Just get rid of free memberships, and 99% of the childish members will vanish overnight.
Exactly.
Sep 24, 2015
0
#45
TurboFish wrote:
Just get rid of free memberships, and 99% of the childish members will vanish overnight.
Free memberships are useful, but free members should be limited on the number of posts they can make in the forums. Perhaps also they should be prevented from beginning threads.
Ziryab wrote:
TurboFish wrote:
Just get rid of free memberships, and 99% of the childish members will vanish overnight.
Free memberships are useful, but free members should be limited on the number of posts they can make in the forums. Perhaps also they should be prevented from beginning threads.
Good ideas!
Sep 24, 2015
0
#47
TurboFish wrote:
Why don't the programmers simply create a filter that automatically rejects any post attempt containing one or more of the forbidden words?
Another site does that. Even though it has a religious forum, I cannot type an Anglicized version of the first word of the Bible: bereshit. Even adding a second i leads to rejection by the bot.
TheBlunderfulPlayer wrote:
Please stop spamming.
I'm not spamming. I'm stating my opinion.
I love you guys... last night I was drunk and bored with a thought. Who ever said " Wal mart of chess " needs at hand shake. Have fun. play well.
If chess.com got rid of free membership who would the paying members look down on? There is already a premium forum and it sees little traffic.
Ziryab wrote:
TurboFish wrote:
Just get rid of free memberships, and 99% of the childish members will vanish overnight.
Free memberships are useful, but free members should be limited on the number of posts they can make in the forums. Perhaps also they should be prevented from beginning threads.
You nailed it.
Sep 24, 2015
0
#52
Becky_the_Stabber wrote:
Here's a few suggestions of mine
Here's a few suggestions of mine
1) Make Moderators VISIBLE.
2) Make the moderation visible.
3) Moderator accountability.
4) Either have more strict rules or enforce the existing ones more.
5) Just because someone is always on the forums doesn't mean he'll be a qualified mod.
6) Do you have a work schedule for your mods or is it just who is on moderates some?
7) Moderator organization.
Wow. I hadn't anticipated such a detailed response.
1. Some people with "staff" are moderators. Not all moderators have a "staff" designation.
Mods can be easily accessed by messaging and a list of mods can be found here (it's a stickly thread in the Chess Community Forum). Then there's aways shaun, Kirkwood or Erik.
2. I'm not sure why mods use []. But I do know that impersonationg a mod, even in jest, may lead to getting oneself muted or even suspended.
3. I'm sure mods have a certain accountability, which is to say they aren't at libery to do whatever they want. Complaints from members would certainly draw attention. Perhaps it would be a good idea for mods, even when writing within []s to sign their name?
4. This is a tricky one to me. Rules are definitely in place. I'm not sure how flexible they are... surely there is some flexibility built in. Mods, to me, tend to, and again to me should tend to, be more lenient than strict. However, regarding trollish behavior, I'm not sure there is any policy in place and without a policy, what is there to enforce? I do know that trolling (to use the word loosely) involving spamming is being addressed pretty regularly. There IS the Off Topic Forum which to my understanding (because it says so) is unmoderated.
5. Mods to me seem pretty sane. I don't see chess.com utilizing people just because they frequent the forums. There are probably other, better, considerations.
6. There doesn't seem to be set schedules. People to work for chess.com are global. I would think any attempt to regulate them by time would be nightmarish.
7. Ask a mod.
Sep 24, 2015
0
#53
Becky_the_Stabber wrote:
I left out the crux of my thoughts.
What is the result you would like to see? Or what is it that moderators should be moderating but failing at?
People talk of "trolls." To me a troll is someone who makes incendiary comments/questions just to get (hopefully angry) responses. I'm not sure what term describes those who make pithy, pointless posts or who start trite and ridiculous threads. But, on the other hand, completely worthless threads often get the most comments. Is there some criteria mods can use to determine what is good, what is bad, what is beneficial to this site and what is detrimental? Can they go by their own opinion of judgment or is there some objective measure for this. What I'm getting at is that for a mod it seems a no-win situation. They can't make everyone happy, they can only enforce established policy to the best of their abilities.
I don't believe a utopian forum is possible. But I do believe in improvement... but I have to wonder who gets to define improvement.
BTW, I hope you don't see this as contentious. It's just my thoughts for what they're worth.
Sep 24, 2015
0
#55
CensoredReality wrote:
I am happy with the lack of mod presence.
Do you see a lack of mod presense here?
The forums on this site have always been garbage. Just full of spamming morons.
Sep 24, 2015
0
#57
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
The forums on this site have always been garbage. Just full of spamming morons.
That seems rather harsh. Isn't there anything about the forums that you like?
all internet forums are severly sub-par
I know for a fact that there are some people that have gifted current paid memberships to others, but either cannot currently afford, or don't feel it would presently be of benefit to themselves, due to the fact that a lot of the training tools are available elsewhere without charge; so to assume that a person is here for "free" because that member has a basic membership is in fact, in some cases, innaccurate.