The State of the Forums or Down the Rabbit Hole

i don't believe any political affiliation has anything to do with moderation here. 

since you want to talk politics, i'm sending an invite where adults discuss it.

Thanks for the invite, but I respectfully decline.  I don't mind talking politics; I simply offered up my perspective on why the chess.com forums are in such bad shape today.

Forums of this site is just an endless repetition of similar topics and unnecessary drama. It's like an eternity in an abyss. A torturous hell for trolls and people who are hurt by trolls to come back for revenge only to get stuck in endless limbo, duping people to think it's a challenge or something great, something similar to drug addiction, a pointless suffering.

this is incorrect. for years the forums were populated with great wit and wisdom. members like trysts, clifton, goldendog, thegrobe, spud, and our op could give insight on games and also make some darn fine humorous commentary. for example: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/accused-of-chatting

back around the time i joined, we would spam worthless topics. it worked. useless posts that batgirl showed would die. then there was a shift to get rid of us spammers. as if all topics are worthy, and humor was no longer allowed. it got me and 'flags banned.

some, like me and 'flags that are still active, come here for games and groups now. 

all of the people i mentioned are remembered because they are bright and funny. displacing that with topics dedicated to counting should be embarrassing. 

obviously you do not mind being political.

my invite was a sort of ruse. i did not expect you to join and share your beliefs. some people-and, yes-i am assuming you are one based on your post, want to attach their lean to everything. as you did.

you made an assumption based on belief. 

if anything, this site would side with your perspective, as the owner is a mormon. 

That's okay that it was a ruse.

Red Queen Hypothesis

I suspect the OP ( with his new name)   of the locked forum is simply giving the names of folk he has simply decided he isn't too keen upon , for whatever reason.

In the words of Alexander Pope........."Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,

And without sneering , teach the rest to sneer."

alice in wonderland right?

I can't read all that into that single posting.

But I find it interesting/disturbing that his other thread, also one in which I can find absolutely nothing particularly objectionable was also locked: Why We Love Woollensock!!

I'm just staying out of all this.  Its not my site, and how Erik decides to run it is up to him.  Its good to be King.

   Are you defending the OP of THAT thread batgirl?   Check the timeline. At the 1st of the month, Mr Socks started...."A Word Of Thanks To Chess.com" thread. Out of spite, or maybe sarcasm, 3 days later "Why We Love Wollensocks" was created.  I posted about it here in post 681.....https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/chess-com-censorship-is-it-going-too-far-60413783?page=35   I'm very grateful for the action that was taken by Chess.com in saying.....Enough is enough.

Oh, no wonder I wasn't getting any more notifications on that thread. 

So as long as you like the action that was taken, it's a good action?

One thing I stressed during my stint as a moderator was that what/who I liked or didn't like never entered into the equation and everything had to be approached objectively.    Reading both threads I could find nothing objectionable in them, ergo, there was no reason to lock them regardless of who created them or whatever motivation anyone wants to ascribe to their creation.  I don't know the OP or anything about him/her so I'm looking at the threads, not the creator.  If there's an issue with the OP, chess.com should deal with him/her but locking the threads without cause --especially while ignoring the real threats to the forum, juvenile banality and lack of oversight-- is incorrect.   

I remember having to walk 5 miles each way, sometimes through 3 feet of snow, just to read the chess.com forums.  Kids these days just don't have that dedication.... or maybe the current end goal just isn't worth it

Amen.  Objectivity.  Not committing the ad hominem fallacy.  

Substance > Style.  Eg., Actions and results over supposed "mean" tweets.

Something is afoot - as Holmes would have said, and I, for one, am not in favour of it. I have no problem at all with forums, as long as people are polite and respectful. ( some of the ones quoted though, are nonsense, to use a polite phrase, but harmless enough.

Interesting that a few posting here are hypocrites in that they regularly join the fray on the topics they seem to despise. eg meaningless threads and  juvenile banality.