Why aren't the forums more serious?

The only thing I actually like about the forums are the discussion threads when the World Championship rolls around....then it seems like this place actually feels like a chess forum.  Other than that, mostly gibberish about e4 or d4.  

at d5 i feel the pawn although a good space gainer for white is vulnerable due to its over extended placing , a f5 pawn push by black would severly expose its overreached nature or cost white tempi if they support d5 with c3c4 (after an earlier c2c3)

And another thing...many chess.com Forums, statistically,on the order of hundreds or even thousands, to one, have a lot more "reads" than "writes"; not everyone is comfortable "contributing" as such, such as it may be.

Many folks obviously read a lot more than they write and let's give chess.com kudos for providing endless entertainment, and education, in this wonderous format.

you know its SO funny that you all hate a place that is this Popular?

I can think of tons of places with no regulars, (or very few), few people reading or commenting... and what comments are there are very serious and polite.

yet here, there is one-liners and jokes.  and everyone is hatin' it. 

its wierd.  FWIW, I love it here. 

I figure mod/staff got it just about right.  they stop in and mod away just about when all heck happens.  and if you think there's no mods around - start namin' and shamin' (or looking for those kinds of posts)-- their almost always gone within a day, no matter where there posted- and even in big contentious sprawling posts that become a chore to read.

I figured since you knew my mind so well, I was an open book, a dry one, that required no clarifications

I pointed out that there a a lot of meaningless threads and even more silly postings.  I don't care in the least that they exist, and they may even serve a purpose, but that doesn't change their nature.  I don't look to eradicate anything, except perhaps to ability to quote large comments in a response.  My question was : where is it the mods should be looking to step in where they haven't been in order to improve the forums - in someone else's opinion.

And, btw, I like Kaynight.

I wasn't sure how I felt about the topic, but this sound about right to me.

Hahaha

Good point, Whip_Kitten.

The "fluff" factor is rampant in the forums.

OK, one more time then. For ol' time sake. Last time, I promise.

• Moderators are a special sub-species of human beings that have actually deluded themselves into thinking they perform a valuable service.
• They're sort of like meter maids with even less sense of humor and an inability to think for themselves.
• They tend to be rather good at following arcane and byzantine rules and would do well as low level military personnel or working as inspectors at an underwear factory.
• Arguing with them is like trying to discuss string theory with a hamster.
• Despite what they claim, they love doing what they do and tend to be very proud of the obtuse angles on their cranium.

I totally agree with Becky by the way and especially with the last sentence. "Maybe that's a pessimistic view on things, but you'll see me proven right when after this thread (like so many threads before) the usual happens: nothing changes."

I'd say 99.99999999999%

Edit: and btw. How could anyone not like kaynight. He's one of a kind.

You are probably viewing all of the forum topics at the same time. That's definitely going to be ineffective if you only seek to read serious chess discussion. Try using the filter:

Why is it pessimistic to not desire mutability?

The glass it at least half full when we accept things the way they are.

endgame study forum

      Let me shed some light for Becky on post 41;                                                              I don't remember the name, but one mod returned after more than a year of inactivity and asked in a post who from staff was now in charge of mods. Now that person seemed very nice and didn't cause any problems, but how can it be that an account is inactive for more than a year, then becomes active again and still has its moderator priviledges ? Thats like total chaos, especially when you remember that it doesnt show who moderated something. If that had been a malicious person he or she could have done a lot with that power that seemingly was under no supervision.                                                                                                You've only been here for 2 months,(not that there's anything wrong with that)   The moderator in question was Kohai. She gave 8 wonderful years to this site and was nice to everyone. Unfortunately, she had to take an extended medical leave. When she came back Eric graciously allowed her a change of scenery and she ran ChessKid.com. Out of curiosity one day, she asked who was doing her job because of her global location. Many of us wish her well, but we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

Let the record hold: Kaynight and I shared private messages. We are cool and have took the high road. He said his thoughts and offered an apology if I took of fence , which none was taken. Really cool guy been in chess since 92. let's all kiss and make up.. or kill each other in chess :)

       2 years ago an incident came up which resulted in Eric giving some clarafications to the forums;  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/making-the-chesscom-forums-better

That's a great article written by our Great Leader, RJC.

Yet there was one finer point brought up by the Chief of Staff that might be called into question.

Paragrah 4, bullet point 4:

"pointless, distracting posts".

This is a highly subjective realm of perspective, and no clear-cut criteria of codification, apart from the subjective views by Mods and/or Staff, has yet been delineated. 

What's your point?

It's simply a bandying about of semantics, FMnobodyreally.

That's the crux of the matter.