DO YOUR JOB, ADMINS!

Why so opaque?  Why not put the Handbook out there, let us read it, evaluate it, and decide for ourselves?

Obviously there's something there that the Powers That Be deem to be too sensitive to reveal to the rabble! 

Also re this "moderation philosophy", sounds heavy, "Professor" Stahl.  

As said, there are no such thing as handbook. Please provide any visual evidence that moderators are given such things; if you don't have one, then don't even think about the fact that handbook exists on the chess.com realm.

You know what they are afraid of, right?

If We, The People, have access to the "forbidden knowledge", if you will, whenever there's  a question or dispute about a Mod, or Staff, armchair chess.com "litigants" will get uppity –– "but the Handbook says..."

This would result in endless headaches for mods and staff.  Sort of like how now everybody is going to the doctor already self-diagnosed, thanks to the internet.

Knowledge is power.  And this is just one more dreary step on the continuum by those who walk along the rarified, velvet-carpeted Corridors of Hegemony, to maintain control over the unruly masses.

"...at least some of us are not total imbeciles.  "

Nope...but you are well on your way to full blown imbecileness.

Anything is not verified without proof.

Frankly, because it's none of your business.  As a member you have free rein and access to whatever chess.com offers your membership level.  As long as you follow the guidelines under the user agreement, the ToS and the posting rules, moderation shouldn't even affect you.  

Oh, snap!!!

Btw, it's "imbecility", genius.

At least some of us are not total i-check-literally-any-grammar-mistakes-on-chess.com.

If the site wants to do it, they would, but only staff can make that decision. There's nothing there that would surprise anyone that has read any of the links I provided

The sentence doesn't make sense.

"You are well on your way to full blown imbecileness" is more understandable than "You are well on your way to full blown imbecility"

It's all about guidelines, along with some minor technical things on how to actually use the moderation tools. Being guidelines, there's a lot that is left to discretion, so even if someone had access to it, you couldn't use that to proffer any kind of real rebuttal to moderation actions.

The site could take a very heavy-handed approach and moderate very strictly to the links I provided. There would be a lot more locked topics, more muted members, etc, but the site has a moderation in moderation philosophy, and has for a while. It could be a lot more draconian.

Plenty of moderators and ex-moderators have stated such a thing exists. Unless we are all delusional, it exists

Just yankin your chain.  You want to think that you have somehow reinvented the wheel with your "Im gonna act all crazy on a website, and demand stuff!!!."  Please continue.  Its only been done a few billion times already.

I don't think "imbecileness" is an actual English word, so...

Ok, now we're being told by people in the chess.com stratosphere that "it's none of our business", and things could be "a lot more draconian".

Well, ok, I'm not a mechanic, so I get it.

Don't look under the hood!

This is Barney-Boondoggle, Chess Reporter, signing off the thread, going undercover to investigate this Breaking Story –– word on the street is that there's a new slogan in town ...

FREE THE HANDBOOK!!!

Please read the soon to be published article elsewhere on the site:

          A Handbook's Tale:

       How Internet Moguls Keep Moderator Handbook Content in Digital Dungeons.

Do your job Ron!

And what if it isn't? Doesn't mean it's not valid to say "imbecileness" in the forums, genius.

If you want to get your knickers in a twist over defending a made-up-word in the forums, then by all means ... go for it.

If you want to get your knickers in a twist over defending an existing word that doesn't make sense at all in the forums, then by all means ... go for it.