Site Rules

Any suggestions forward to the site.  If i get told the site I will look at it now.  I am NOT a mind reader

You're not???

?I'm not sure I understand #25.

I did in fact create a suggestion ticket for my idea on how to make things better.

I really don't feel my suggestion was taken that seriously.

its not really a thank you at all- and its certainly not sincere.

OTOH,  moderators are (no offense) not in the position to make changes to the system- that would be the job of staff!

neither you nor David; can really approve a better way to deal with complaints.

silly Mike.  We're moving past 2Q.

happily staff took action there.   the real question- does staff want to make it easier for the forum community to reach a moderator.

If I have a concern I can't randomly pm moderators.  and doing that would have them all pretty ticked off at me.

I'm sure that you mean well Taurusmale67, but the issue that bothers many here is lack of consistency.  I followed the rules, 'posted tickets' but nothing was ever done; it's why I started the thread called 'This Site', which broke no rules but was closed down.

  The reason given for its closure was that it was repetitive.  Right, so is that in the rules and if so why aren't all the other repetitive threads closed?  Please point out which rule forbids making a consistent repetitive argument, especially if the questions aren't answered.

 Like others, I don't expect perfection as we all make mistakes.  Ex mods and Staff here are also making these points; surely worth discussing 'behind the scenes'? 

ok.

well I've lost track of my suggestion.  I made a "suggestion Ticket" at the urging  Martin Stahl and it may (or may not) be documented on the last "site rules" thread.

its a simple idea.  make an abuse forum just like you do with spam.

anyways I'm just a little sore on how that turned it out.  I don't even think my suggestions ticket was adknowledged by an email.  there was no official reply of any kind and no hint that any one intended to do anything useful by it.

martin who's not the guy to make changes briefly considered and it got buried with all the other none-sense here.  and it all got forgotten. 

When you have a large group of people there is always going to some inconsistency.  That unfortunately is a fact of life.  Ok you have made this post if you make another on the same subject I will lock it.  I can't change things so i can only suggest writing in to the site and it is their choice if to make those changes.  If they don't then move on the owners have the right to say no.

No limit it is down to the judgement of the mod that see's it.

I will keep my views, and opinions confined to The No Troll Group.  Its apparent nothing is going to change.  

Troll On!

this is difficult , cc would not be if the free information age of the internet had not occured , it was a place (cyberspace ) free from the constraints that hold us back ,

erik saw an opportunity to combine his passion for chess whilst caring for his family within this and cc has grown to millions

now its bigger , and everywhere the free information age is being rolled back ,

i dunno how you feel about that erik but understand family comes first , high falluted morals well they dont feed the kids

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment further. Which rule is being compromised with my posts?

...and I thought Mexi's post (21) was very funny   He's merely adding some humour to the thread; surely that's not against the rules too?  If so, please direct us to which one.

It wasn't just repetitive - although I have locked repetitive threads before and been criticized for doing that as well - but also highly critical of Chess.com. I also feel that it is also patently untrue. @Firstplay, you clearly have the same impulse: if you think someone is saying something you don't agree with which you believe to be clearly false and unjust, you will say something - the very existence of the last thread and now this thread demonstrates this. You are not, however, part of the moderator team that has been authorised to act on that judgement call.

I also feel that there's a little confirmation bias here - that you see things that line up with your expectation and don't see things that don't. For example, @ProphetessMio made a great blog entry recently about sexual harassment - I'm not sure it was done in response to being harassed that way over the internet, but it has certainly attracted a harasser. And pretty much every day for the last two weeks one or more mods have been following the blog and dealing with that person's latest account. One of things I do is search around the latest accounts of this one person from Plymouth in the UK, who posts really nasty profanity on other people's profiles, and delete them. Sometimes those comments can exist for quite some time before I get to them, but I do the best that I can.

To really curb this behaviour, Chess.com would have to change its openness. At the moment, anyone can create an account with a valid but temporary email, and start posting straight away.

One thing that might help is that Erik is considering adding "reputation" to the site: I have no specifics, but I suspect it will be a rating system of some sort. It maybe completely user driven, but I don't know - maybe not. I don't know if it will affect people's ability to post or play games, but if it is done right, it could help a lot with this sort of thing. 

Some better safeguards would definitely be an improvement.