he might even want the site to be suitable for a young person (not necessarily redneck kids). it’s easy to smoke your cigar, munch on your chicken legs when you couldn’t care less what vocabulary the kids end up with.
Right, I don't want Ricky Bobby's kids. 
lol.....Ricky Bobby's kids are already driving through the forums.
I'm starting to view the forums more like a nursery school, but your right....instead of de-railing someone else's threads the kids should start their own threads.
have to agree with the OP. there is no excuse. no point giving reasons why it isn’t detected. i am sure the site makes enough money to pay for a professional moderation of the place.
24/7 coverage of all forums and articles. That would take a minimum of 5 or 6 full time employees to cover, or a lot of part time ones. I can't say if the site has the resources for that, but even with dedicated coverage, it is likely things would get missed. And that is a potentially a pretty expensive proposition.
have to agree with the OP. there is no excuse. no point giving reasons why it isn’t detected. i am sure the site makes enough money to pay for a professional moderation of the place.
24/7 coverage of all forums and articles. That would take a minimum of 5 or 6 full time employees to cover, or a lot of part time ones. I can't say if the site has the resources for that, but even with dedicated coverage, it is likely things would get missed. And that is a potentially a pretty expensive proposition.
First step is to get what you need to do a good job. 10 more moderators or a hundred, whatever it takes. It's easy to do. As I said, on other forums what they do is pick some good long time members and give them moderator power.
But besides the manpower issue, the second issue is the existing moderators tolerance of of what is going on here. For example, you said you "cleaned up" the Polgar article, which is great. But there are obvious trolls there, and instead of banning them, they just had their most offensive posts deleted. That's not enough. Monster_with_no_name for example is a troll, and a racist, with no legitimate purpose here. But instead of being banned he just has some posts deleted. Other forums I have seen he would be gone in 2 seconds, and at chess.com he stays.
The problem is when someone logs off they get a new IP address from there service provider the computer number is what they look for and thanks to git-hub that can be hidden. RJC was Muted once maybe he can tell how he got muted and what he had to do to get back. He does have the biggest "youre blocked list"
You're throwing around a lot of terms there .
The "computer number" in question is assigned from whatever blocks of class C IP addresses the provider has, which are quite limited and can be tracked down (and the vast majority of IPs are not reassigned when logging in/off). What can't be tracked down is IPs from other venues, anon services etc. but that doesn't really matter because once you nail down the home, work, and favorite coffee shop IP ranges of your offender, they could be effectively blocked. Nobody is going to drive all over town to different places every day just to post meaningless garbage on chess.com. In terms of anon services, chess.com could just disallow logins from all the major anon services, if they so chose.
The best solution would be to force a refundable credit card payment of $1. That solves a huge chunk of the trolling serial sockpuppets and as a bonus also removes the youngest kids who should be on chesskids anyway. Luckily for you, that will probably not happen, since it would slow down chess.com's accumulation of 30 million+ "users". I will say that it is amusing to realize that some of the site's most anti-establishment types are helping chess.com's bottom line this way.
P.S. GitHub is source code system/repository and has no direct effect on anything you said. Some open source projects stored there might, but that's like saying a local bank should be thanked for providing people money.
P.P.S. The blocked list is capped, so there are lots of people with "the most" accounts blocked.
I block a lot of new people because I can't tell if the're legit.....or returning trolls and I want to protect my Pet thread. Also, Chess.com has numerous tools to identify legit IP addresses but due to the number of trolls that join every day, its a full time job in and of itself. The site offers them the freedom to step out of line and when they do......."poof".
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get food to "moderate" the Patriots game today.
have to agree with the OP. there is no excuse. no point giving reasons why it isn’t detected. i am sure the site makes enough money to pay for a professional moderation of the place.
24/7 coverage of all forums and articles. That would take a minimum of 5 or 6 full time employees to cover, or a lot of part time ones. I can't say if the site has the resources for that, but even with dedicated coverage, it is likely things would get missed. And that is a potentially a pretty expensive proposition.
First step is to get what you need to do a good job. 10 more moderators or a hundred, whatever it takes. It's easy to do. As I said, on other forums what they do is pick some good long time members and give them moderator power.
But besides the manpower issue, the second issue is the existing moderators tolerance of of what is going on here. For example, you said you "cleaned up" the Polgar article, which is great. But there are obvious trolls there, and instead of banning them, they just had their most offensive posts deleted. That's not enough. Monster_with_no_name for example is a troll, and a racist, with no legitimate purpose here. But instead of being banned he just has some posts deleted. Other forums I have seen he would be gone in 2 seconds, and at chess.com he stays.
Moderator tolerance has little to do with it. There are guidelines, and while there is some subjectivity allowed, there is a certain level of moderation the site prefers, in general.
The main thing is, you can't mandate that volunteers have to do, so many will self select the things they focus on. If you pay someone, you can be more prescriptive.
I propose myself as mod. How much is the salary?
I propose myself as mod. How much is the salary?
Zero
If you really want to be moderator you can always apply.
Information is in the club description.
https://www.chess.com/club/moderators
Martin you didn't mention mods get free daily doses of unexpected grief!
monster_with_no_name is still trolling the Polgar thread, and just called someone an idiot (not for the first time). If that is the level of moderation that this "site prefers", that's a shame.
monster_with_no_name is still trolling the Polgar thread, and just called someone an idiot (not for the first time). If that is the level of moderation that this "site prefers", that's a shame.
Oh come on. Surely there are bigger problems at the site. You want chess.com to spend $1 million hiring 24/7 moderators in all languages?
Oh good the sewer water has flooded the house. Let's see what the priorities are now
have to agree with the OP. there is no excuse. no point giving reasons why it isn’t detected. i am sure the site makes enough money to pay for a professional moderation of the place.
24/7 coverage of all forums and articles. That would take a minimum of 5 or 6 full time employees to cover, or a lot of part time ones. I can't say if the site has the resources for that, but even with dedicated coverage, it is likely things would get missed. And that is a potentially a pretty expensive proposition.
First step is to get what you need to do a good job. 10 more moderators or a hundred, whatever it takes. It's easy to do. As I said, on other forums what they do is pick some good long time members and give them moderator power.
But besides the manpower issue, the second issue is the existing moderators tolerance of of what is going on here. For example, you said you "cleaned up" the Polgar article, which is great. But there are obvious trolls there, and instead of banning them, they just had their most offensive posts deleted. That's not enough. Monster_with_no_name for example is a troll, and a racist, with no legitimate purpose here. But instead of being banned he just has some posts deleted. Other forums I have seen he would be gone in 2 seconds, and at chess.com he stays.
Moderator tolerance has little to do with it. There are guidelines, and while there is some subjectivity allowed, there is a certain level of moderation the site prefers, in general.
Yeah there are guidelines alright. But moderator tolerance has everything to do with it. Look what you are tolerating right now on this thread, let alone the Polgar thread or the rest of this forum.
The main thing is, you can't mandate that volunteers have to do, so many will self select the things they focus on. If you pay someone, you can be more prescriptive.
All I can tell you is that it works. I have seen it work. You pick moderators and they moderate and the forum will be a better place. There would still be super moderators of course, if this place pays some moderators, then great. That could still happen if it is your job you are worried about. And by the way, although I am probably annoying the hell out of you, I am trying to give good feed back because I like chess.com and want to make it better. I hate seeing what is happening to it.
That is an interesting statement. Is there a chess.com defined policy of how much moderating is best?
Specifically, I'll use the language of the USA Today article I linked earlier:
How much content that is designed to divide people, widen the political divide, and tear apart the social fabric, does chess.com feel is desirable to the extent that it is better to allow than to eliminate?
Put your boots on it is getting deep
I propose myself as mod. How much is the salary?
Zero
If you really want to be moderator you can always apply.
Information is in the club description.
No, they should pay. I have an ex wife and two children
That is an interesting statement. Is there a chess.com defined policy of how much moderating is best?
Specifically, I'll use the language of the USA Today article I linked earlier:
How much content that is designed to divide people, widen the political divide, and tear apart the social fabric, does chess.com feel is desirable to the extent that it is better to allow than to eliminate?
There are guidelines the moderators have been given in the past and guidance about how strict to be. Moderators don't get to arbitrarily decide what they like or dislike outside of those guidelines on how strict to be. I mean, they can, but if they are too harsh, there might pushback from staff on it.
What little moderation I do, I err on the side of caution. I actually mostly just answer questions for the most part.
coupla things. if the topic in question is the one where polgar said she had to work harder than men, i'd likely tell her to f**k off with that. i hate seeing those at the top *complain* about how they got there.
to the op, you have the ability to ignore those, just as i ignored polgar's article.
Well, your opinion is about something in the article, so its not off topic, and a valid post, although maybe communicating without vulgarity would help with keeping this place civil, especially when discussing something contentious.
The posts I was referring to were much worse than that, and completely off topic. And why should I have to ignore an article about Polgar? I want to read about Polgar and maybe engage in discussion about Polgar. I shouldn't have to see the crap about superiority of some races over others, etc. Ignoring it is not a good suggestion. Better moderation to get rid of such nonsense is a much better suggestion.