Site Rules

Does anyone know why this site claims to have rules?  Rules that should apply, don't.  And rules are applied that don't exist because the content doesn't appear to fit with some of the Staff members own opinions. 

We were told by a Staff member that it was ok to discuss the rules btw.  Or has that changed too?  If so, what rule does this break please.  I think these issues should be clarified to avoid us unintentionally breaking rules in the future.  If we don't know what the rules are then it's easy to make mistakes.

This isnt going to end well....

Lol.   I tend to agree GodsPawn, but, it's not an unreasonable question, nor does it break any rules that I'm aware of.  I try not to break rules, but I've had a number of interesting threads and debates closed down for reasons that don't fit in with the stated rules, while other obvious rule breaking statements and comments are allowed to go unchecked. Best for everyone I think if we're all singing off the same hymn sheet

I appreciate the dialogue David.  However, it's exactly the rules that I wish to discuss.  I accept that different mods and Staff will have different views, as we all have in life and that's what makes the world go 'round.  However, we never once received an answer, or discussion, from Staff on why some threads would be closed for fairly innocuous remarks while the bigots rants remained.  It's why I question the rulings, while accepting the rules.

I think we all, or mostly, appreciate Staff and mods cutting us a bit of slack on occasions.  I think Staff and mods appreciate that it would be almost imopossible to discuss anything at all without some mention of politics or current affairs.

I thought the rule concerning politics and religion is a reasoned one.  I can well understand how these topics can get out of hand, some individuals unable to conduct a civilised debate without hurling personal insults.  I can understand why chess.com don't wish to harbour bile and racial and religious hatred, and full credit there I think.

However David, surely you can see the inconsistencies when threads are closed because they've ventured too far into a political arena, according to a particular Staff member.  Ths is at the same time that the most horrific  language and abuse carry on unabated in Open Discussion.

The last two threads that were closed in Off Topic had been reasonable I feel.  Obviously there were some differences of opinion but that's only natural.  Reading through them again I note that it's usually the pro-establishment people that just can't seem to abide civilised discussion, the first to start with the name calling and abusive comments.  They, for some reason, can't seem to accept the idea that others think differently to themselves, and that they therefore have the 'right' to denigrate any such arguments by personal attacks.

This means that the abusive people are favoured.  The long running debates/discussions which most here obviously find interesting are closed, due to the bad behaviour of a minority.  The number of views on some of these threads should surely be viewed as a positive for chess.com; I can't understand why they'd be viewed as a negative.

My remarks about attitudes of owner and Staff may have been a bit too sharp, but when these long running discussions of a polite nature are closed then what are we supposed to think as clearly, and verified by ex mods and Staff, there's a clear lack of consistency.

I hope these comments are taken as they're meant, to be useful and positive as a way of improving this site.  Many customers have politely suggested that some changes are made that could accomodate both religion and politics.  All the suggestions should be viewed as a positive, a way of attracting more customers, which could also filter out the abusive elements.  Those that wished to engage in exchanges of opinion in a friendly, polite manner would surely encourage their friends to participate on the site.  Good for business. 

@firstplay Here are the rules you refer to

https://www.chess.com/legal

Thanks Taurusmale67.  As far as I know I follow these rules.  I'm friendly, don't cheat and don't abuse others.  Does anyone on here think I'm unfriendly?    Some may disagree with my views on certain topics.  That's fine, I dont expect everyone to agree, but neither should I expect abuse just because of a disagreement.  I also enjoy a bit of banter.

I've never once see Staff member enter a debate on my behalf when being abused.  Not that I care mind you, I think they're funny, and can imagine a purple faced person thumping away on the keyboard instead of them just giving a reasoned response.  As I've said before, I like rules, but find it confusing when some are given leeway and others aren't, especially on the issue of abuse.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been abused and absolutely nothing said from Staff.  I only complain when others are being abused, especially when the abuse is racial or religious.  I'm a fervent none-believer but will always defend the right of others to believe whatever they want to, providing they're not hurting anyone.

Personally I never take sides but as i have said before things happen behind the scenes" so what you see and what is happening is two different things.  I admit mods can not be everywhere I run in and out of forums and then later see or be told i have missed something.  I'm human and i will make mistakes and when I do i will correct them to the best of my ability.

Everything you have said has been taken down in evidence and WILL be used against you at a later date

My PM's are always open just say the word and i will enter the room without anyone knowing

As an ex mod you know how mods operate I will never claim things are perfect. 

I will enforce what i see and that is all i can do

david wrote:

GodsPawn2016 wrote:

Firstplay wrote:

Lol.   I tend to agree GodsPawn, but, it's not an unreasonable question, nor does it break any rules that I'm aware of.  I try not to break rules, but I've had a number of interesting threads and debates closed down for reasons that don't fit in with the stated rules, while other obvious rule breaking statements and comments are allowed to go unchecked. Best for everyone I think if we're all singing off the same hymn sheet

I agree with you, and this is precisely why i quit modding.  There is no standard to follow.  Something will be against the rules, but will be allowed until...Other things are shutdown immediately, some arent.  Way to much gray area for me.  Its like no one wants ot take a stance on anything.  Kinda like a Govt run operation.  No one wants to take responsibility for anything unless someone else steps up to take the bullet.    

What you're describing there is Chess.com's leniency in enforcing its rules, which is primarily a reflection of the tolerance that Erik himself extends to all comers, even to those who berate his intelligence or business acumen because of the impending departure of V2 , those who paint him as a right wing fundamentalist nutter, and those who declare the moderators to be biased hypocrites.

 

The thread that started out as a criticism of the rules was allowed to run by all of the moderators for quite some time, even though I felt all of the salient arguments had been covered quite early on and it had moved beyond the initially stated purpose long ago and became a place to snipe at the moderator team and Chess.com. So with that latest round of exactly the same sort of criticism - which as @Firstplay said himself that he "had consistently been making" - I felt justified in pointing out the instruction from the Staff member in charge of the moderator team - @jdcannon - to direct any complaints about moderation to him, and finally winding it up.

 

@Firstplay, if you actually keep this new thread as a discussion of the rules, that's fine. If you turn it into yet another platform where you start saying stuff like "the site has a history of allowing offensive remarks of a racial nature, and against minorities.  It would appear that the owner and Staff have a blind spot to these remarks, but have 20/20 vision when it comes to polite political discussion." - which we disagree with you on and think that it is pretty evidently not the case, just as you clearly think that it IS the case - then I will lock this one too.

 

Thanks!

What David is really trying to say.   Lol

ok.

hypothetical (not really, but lets just say it is)

lets say SOMEONE looks at this repetitive thread and say.  boy you know.  THIS  is SO right.  the website is wildly inconsistant.

and lets just say that Person has Reported a thread now for 23hours.  (plus or minus a few).  that absolutely fragrantly discussses a forbidden subject.  that person has said this within the the thread; and yet the thread is now hundreds of posts bigger.

on one hand.

said thread is still there; all wildly against TOS and unactioned.  on the other hand, it is Reported! so this guy really can't go and flame it within breaking a few TOS himself. 

and then he reads this self-same stuff about mods trying to be objective.

ofc, I realize mods are only human... but still sheesh.

the real Issue is (as I've said many times).  Abuse tickets are a really, REALLY and really sucky way of dealing with abuse.

would you be interested in a suggestion of how to make the whole issue a little better?

(if No one official says YES, i'm not sayin' since I have before and it didn't go very far...)