What makes moderation good/bad? (Please do not attack members of the staff team)
Sort:
19 my point is exactly.
BasixWhiteBoy wrote:
I don’t know. I feel like they aren’t quick enough to ban trolls and spammers, or at the very least mute them. I feel like they should take more time and spend more money to keep the forums fun and family friendly. With all of this being said, the mods can also overmute and overban people, and don’t allow for a lot of perfectly reasonable peaceful arguments. They lock threads seemingly without reason. I think there should be able to be reasonable arguments about politics and religion, so as they are not blown out of proportion by everyone.
Arguements about politics and religion always get blown out of proportion thats probably y it is banned in the first place. Besides there is a club to discuss all this matter without restriction. so whats the problem?
22 once again, that’s something that can be interpreted and is subjective.
I hope you understand what I meant now when I said most moderation rules tend to be subjective. Because it’s hard to interpret when a discussion has morphed into a debate, or when a users jokes have become too inappropriate.
I hope you understand what I meant now when I said most moderation rules tend to be subjective. Because it’s hard to interpret when a discussion has morphed into a debate, or when a users jokes have become too inappropriate.
I’d say that it’s generally easy to tell when a thread has gone too far.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
#16 they don’t have to analyze. They just have to check both sides, and take a brief look at each ones comment history to find where it started. And keep in mind, cases like that where it’s unclear which of two users should be in question are far rarer than the more clear ones, so it wouldn’t be a large time investment.
But about reports, there unfortunately is no proof that staff goes beyond simply taking action on an account that got reported a bunch. Ideally a user should never be muted or banned off of reports alone, but it’s hard to reinforce that.
But about reports, there unfortunately is no proof that staff goes beyond simply taking action on an account that got reported a bunch. Ideally a user should never be muted or banned off of reports alone, but it’s hard to reinforce that.
Well idk man, I just dont think its practical but it will be good if they can enforce that. About the reportpart ; y not just directly ask a staff how they manage reports? Well they could lie but staffs are paid by chess.com right? So im pretty sure they take this seriously. Besides this wouldnt they as a company lose customers if they ban them unfairly? This leads me to think that they definitely care about the reports.
Oct 25, 2024
0
#26
BasixWhiteBoy wrote:
I’d say that it’s generally easy to tell when a thread has gone too far.
I dunno if I support that.. Many a thread have started as a joke, and people got offended, and haven't been deemed as "gone too far". I know of a certain few members, including myself, who made a thread, which started as an inside joke, and devolved into an argument.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
22 once again, that’s something that can be interpreted and is subjective.
I hope you understand what I meant now when I said most moderation rules tend to be subjective. Because it’s hard to interpret when a discussion has morphed into a debate, or when a users jokes have become too inappropriate.
I hope you understand what I meant now when I said most moderation rules tend to be subjective. Because it’s hard to interpret when a discussion has morphed into a debate, or when a users jokes have become too inappropriate.
Yes I understand. But do you think there is a practical solution to this problem?
25 you think I haven’t? Every time they tell me “we can’t disclose that information.”
27 I think they need to do an overhaul on the community policy that makes the rules much for specific and clear. Not only would the moderation be much more fair, but it also would result in less users attempting to bend the rules.
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
25 you think I haven’t? Every time they tell me “we can’t disclose that information.”
Ohh I see...
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
27 I think they need to do an overhaul on the community policy that makes the rules much for specific and clear. Not only would the moderation be much more fair, but it also would result in less users attempting to bend the rules.
Hmm ig that could work. It would certainly be nice if they implement it.
Oct 25, 2024
0
#32
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
(In case mods see this, please leave this open. It is not calling out any of the staff and
Don't worry, this doesn't violate the community policy. In fact, I REALLY like this topic and love to hear suggestions (and constructive criticism) from others that I can share with the mod team (though I'm sure others will see this too).
My initial comment is just to add that moderators are volunteers. Moderators are not paid employees of chess.com. In many ways, moderators are advocates for users (I frequently share comments or suggestions from the community in our private moderator discussions... so much sometimes I'm surprised I'm not muted). Moderators help keep chess.com safe and fun for everyone by following the guidance provided by chess.com. We aren't the biased adversary some might think we are. We do not make the rules... we don't ban users... these are decisions for paid employees (i.e. staff) of chess.com.
32 Glad to hear it!
Yeah, that makes sense. I didn’t know that the mods talk about the community suggestions, that’s pretty cool!
Yeah, that makes sense. I didn’t know that the mods talk about the community suggestions, that’s pretty cool!
Oct 25, 2024
0
#34
BasixWhiteGirl wrote:
Well according to AA, mentioning a politicians name isn't political, but after mentioning one in a post of mine, it quickly got locked by Martin. So I do believe that it's subjective at times. Obviously political threads would (at least, I hope) be locked by all mods.
I'm speaking generically here (on behalf of myself, not chess.com) and not about a specific example...
Mentioning a politician, country or person in religious texts may not inherently be political or religious. Likewise, showing support for the same may not be political or religious. There are times a moderator may feel a particular comment crossed the line (such as taking a more negative context or expressing political/religious ideologies), is likely to lead to further negative or heated debates or violated other rules. Political or religious discussions can sometimes get heated quickly.
I'm human and may make mistakes. It's also important for others to report something they feel may be a violation. All reports are viewed by staff or moderators. There's no guarantee a comment will be seen by staff or moderators (unless it's reported).
Oct 25, 2024
0
#35
DeltaCrimson wrote:
Thats y you dont have to be scared if someone says that they have reorted you. You dont have to worry about getting reported for invalid reasons.
It may surprise you that some users are not aware of the difference between up/down votes, reaction emojis and reporting 
Even if someone said they reported a comment (or user)... don't believe everything you read on the Internet (and don't sweat it).
Zemna wrote:
As time went on, baby is getting banned faster and faster
Yeah, Martin pounds on him as soon as he's noticed and if I'm on and that sh!t's yet muted at least, I instantly contact him, Martin and he handles the needed toilet flushing 😂
What do you mean "what is bad moderation" just any ban that's not justified by anything the user has agreed to (e.g terms of service). Because once you're on the website, you're on THEIR website, they make the rules because they made it and it's your choice to leave
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
DeltaCrimson wrote:
Is there really something called good or bad moderation? I dont think so imo. Because chess.com has some specific rules or terms of service and moderators just enforce these rules. So how can there be good or bad moderation? Moderators cannot be subjective in case of moderation, they can only follow the rules.
I understand the point of view this argument comes from, but there's a big problem with it: It assumes that every rule will be perfectly explained and objective. The problem is most rules aren't, especially when it comes to something like moderation. Take for example: No political or religious debate. Well, what does debate mean? Wouldn't you call that a very subjective thing? Everyone's definition of when an argument becomes a debate could be different, and as such, when this rule should be applied can be quite unclear
... lol or people could google the word debate, or discussion, and realize someone giving an honest answer is going to be truthful, whether others agree or not. And when I have a response that direction I usually will follow by saying no intent on discussing upon.
Once you're banned for something that's not specifically stated in the rules though then that's when it's unfair
Oct 25, 2024
0
#40
TheRealWilliam2 wrote:
It assumes that every rule will be perfectly explained and objective. The problem is most rules aren't, especially when it comes to something like moderation.
...when this rule should be applied can be quite unclear
In my opinion...
There will always be some judgement required in moderation. I also believe moderation works best when it's transparent, measurable and repeatable/consistent. You're right... it works best when rules are clear and actionable... ideally with examples of what's not acceptable.
r/Chess on Reddit publishes a list of actionable rules. They're also numbered for easy reference. Most even include a list of examples to guide users (for example, Rule 3 low quality submissions). All moderation actions and responses I've seen on r/Chess are mapped to one of their the rules.
Other social media platforms publish very comprehensive details about their community guidelines (for example this one from Facebook even has links to a very detailed explanation of hate speech that I consider a very harmful form of abuse and harassment).