This moderator is making me uncomfortable
Sort:
A word of advice - the moderation here has always been somewhat pathetic. There are better mods who mostly do their job for the most part, but a good chunk of them have internal biases. Chess.com doesn’t pay forum moderators, only fair play investigators and other staff, so mods don’t have much incentive to try very hard. Some do anyways, but there’s lots of lazy ones who lock whatever doesn’t glaze about how good the site is and basically go on power trips with some people they don’t like. The solution would be to pay the moderators literally anything, so that they feel inclined to do a better job, but as cc has insisted for years that they can’t afford to do that despite making nearly 500 million in 2024 according to LinkedIn. Seriously, I don’t respect their insistence that they can’t afford to pay their moderators something at all when their revenue is that high. No way does all of that get used up by several costs and prize events. That’s excess right there.
Server costs*
10 hrs ago
0
#84
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
... The solution would be to pay the moderators literally anything, so that they feel inclined to do a better job, but as cc has insisted for years that they can’t afford to do that despite making nearly 500 million in 2024 according to LinkedIn. Seriously, I don’t respect their insistence that they can’t afford to pay their moderators something at all when their revenue is that high. No way does all of that get used up by several costs and prize events. That’s excess right there.
I don't think it's ever been stated anywhere, by staff, that they can't afford paid moderators.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
... The solution would be to pay the moderators literally anything, so that they feel inclined to do a better job, but as cc has insisted for years that they can’t afford to do that despite making nearly 500 million in 2024 according to LinkedIn. Seriously, I don’t respect their insistence that they can’t afford to pay their moderators something at all when their revenue is that high. No way does all of that get used up by several costs and prize events. That’s excess right there.
I don't think it's ever been stated anywhere, by staff, that they can't afford paid moderators.
Maybe not directly stated, but heavily implied. What with the layoffs that happened a little while back and such. It just seems strange given how much profit they make yearly
7 hrs ago
0
#86
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
... The solution would be to pay the moderators literally anything, so that they feel inclined to do a better job, but as cc has insisted for years that they can’t afford to do that despite making nearly 500 million in 2024 according to LinkedIn. Seriously, I don’t respect their insistence that they can’t afford to pay their moderators something at all when their revenue is that high. No way does all of that get used up by several costs and prize events. That’s excess right there.
I don't think it's ever been stated anywhere, by staff, that they can't afford paid moderators.
Maybe not directly stated, but heavily implied. What with the layoffs that happened a little while back and such. It just seems strange given how much profit they make yearly
While approximate gross income has been publicly made available in some places, I don't believe any profit numbers have been. 🤔
I honestly couldn't say if the site could compensate moderators or not and if that would make sense financially. I don't think anyone outside staff in finance and upper levels could say that with any accuracy.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
APersonWhoYoyos wrote:
... The solution would be to pay the moderators literally anything, so that they feel inclined to do a better job, but as cc has insisted for years that they can’t afford to do that despite making nearly 500 million in 2024 according to LinkedIn. Seriously, I don’t respect their insistence that they can’t afford to pay their moderators something at all when their revenue is that high. No way does all of that get used up by several costs and prize events. That’s excess right there.
I don't think it's ever been stated anywhere, by staff, that they can't afford paid moderators.
Maybe not directly stated, but heavily implied. What with the layoffs that happened a little while back and such. It just seems strange given how much profit they make yearly
While approximate gross income has been publicly made available in some places, I don't believe any profit numbers have been. 🤔
I honestly couldn't say if the site could compensate moderators or not and if that would make sense financially. I don't think anyone outside staff in finance and upper levels could say that with any accuracy.
Why is there always the Moderators answering the threads, rather than the actual staff, like Wind?
4 hrs ago
0
#88
Staff are working on other things and don't generally have a lot of extra time to be reading forums
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Staff are working on other things and don't generally have a lot of extra time to be reading forums
including ones made by them?
This is making me laugh. Angry because a thread got closed down about rematches? Tell me why rematches are important? How can rematch benefit me? And can I just play another opponent and repeat my win of that's the reason. Also why do you even care if people don't want to rematch? W moderator.
Don't set him off again!
I like to see him crashout right in fromt of us, so I can laugh at someone crashing out over a chess site.
0/10 raigbait get better
Ragebait? 3 people liked my comment, so how is it ragebait? There's absolutely NO way you called me ragebaiter for speaking facts. Maybe research the definition of ragebait before assuming it's ragebait. Cope harder Mr. "I hate people who don't rematch because I lose 50 games in a row".
That's just a skill issue, no facts, just false
And how is me saying that I want to see the OP crash out false? That's not even proof, I'm saying I want to see the OP crashout, nothing about rematching. Maybe have a good reading comprehension next time.
wompity womp womp sucks to suck