Wayward Moderators running amuck..

I was singled out by david as "discussing cheating" which was given as one reason to lock Spacebux,s thread. It was not intentional nor malicious.  I made a simple, factual observation of policy changes over the years by staff. of publicly naming cheaters. I guess this greatly upset the wrong person.  Not discussing "ways to" ;"detection methods" or anything of the like. It seems just to say the term "cheat" and moderators suddenly become bent out of shape. To be told to go to a "private club" to even mention the topic is paranoia. I joined and also found a "dead end". There is more censorship and false information there than in the general forums. IMO, the whole business is simply about the "fear" of losing new or potential new members once they became aware of the topic. Is it now grounds for being sanctioned, having threads locked, only by mentioning it's existence?

As long as the site is free, we are all -- Living in Our Own Private Idaho.

Nuff said?

I have no inkling what that line means, though, the site is freer for some than others.

It's a song from the 1980s, by the B-52s.

Under the pretext of protecting your freedom on speech, your private information is gleaned and sold to advertisers, inter alia.  With 17 million members, surely there's money to be made here.  Much like your smartphone, they want you online as long as possible. Typing away feverishly in the forums pays handsomely, to someone -- as the mass of data on everyone continues to be assembled, marketed, and sold.

Free market capitalism and wild west electronics -- but not much of a jobs creator, unfortunately.

To be accurate 17 million usernames and the vast majority of them have never logged in for a second time or have never played chess

If it's only 1/2 of 17 million, it's still has large network effect.  "Accuracy" here is largely irrelevant.

Is the number still BIG?  Yes, Undoubtedly.

certainly is, but how many are really the active members of the site ?

In my opinion if this indecisiveness over V2/V3 continues we will be talking about a  5 digits number and when V3 comes chesscom will be a ghost site with million usernames but only inactive accounts

There are many here who are offended or take offense at the slightest diversion into waters less tranquil. 

There is a group here that sees themselves as the Guardians of All that is Holy with Chess.com.  They have become so ingrained with its people, its infrastructure, that it takes on a cult-like culture (hence my term Cult of v3).  Any inference that is demeaning or critical of chess.com in general is quickly ingested and inferred to be an attack of personal nature.

The wagons are quickly circled to protect not just the site from Arrows of Assault, but also the members of the Guardian Group.  An attack (real or imagined) on one is an attack on all.  David was not privvy to my PM message to LPS 1.5 years ago; but LPS has attempted to rescue his colleague from his beleaguered status.  The issue I started this thread on was about recent use & abuse of Moderators to stymie discussions critical of v3 for incidental transgressions of others. 

CrystalMoon, e.g., shut down a thread for feeling frustrated that she had to continue to silence/delete posts of a few posters who would not refrain from mentioning "Other Sites" in their posts.  Hence, the whole thread was LOCKED.  Tyler, supposedly under orders from Erik, stopped a long-running thread where Users had felt free to discuss their objections and dissatisfaction with v3.  Tyler spewed the often repeated Talking Points from somewhere and promptly silenced any further discussion.  And while we are led to believe that Chess.com welcomes adversarial discussion, even of chess.com itself, this topic was rather quickly moved (as other threads controversial of v3 often are) in to the "Off Topic" areas of the Forums, away from the appropriate Site Feedback and Suggestions category.

It is no shock to me that the Staff have circled the wagons.  I am surprised at the lengths to which they are going to argue with a single paying customer when/where the customer is not making pointed, derogatory slurs and derisions at them individually.  No.  I'm highlighting the deficiencies of the web site and its applications.  I want this site to be better.  Like it was before.  For that, I and others like me are chastised, derided, and threatened (by STAFF!).  Other than interactions with airlines, I can think of no other business run remotely close to this way---you run out of patrons real fast in the real world.  But, this being the internet, people are more used to being belligerent and laying down the law.  Face to face interaction is far less antagonistic than this site's Moderators have been in recent months.

"We welcome your feedback... but it better be congratulatory, or else!!!!"

I have long stated chess.com certainly is "big enough" with all the forums and resources to hire a staff of independent, trained moderators. Volunteers, who sometimes are on duty or not, standards that seem to be individual whims of the day, simply does not cut it. I've heard numerous times from staff the idea is not practical nor cost effective. It's a matter of "priorities". The real fact, imo, is staff likes it just the way it is. Moderate "cheat and other site discussion" but let chaos reign, look the other way about morals or ethics. Topics as deviant behavior attract the most attention.  The more dissension the better for advertising revenue. Just another wild conspiracy theory. 

Maybe if you started your post with "First to count to..." "Is Bobby Fischer the great of all time?" "Add a name, remove a name" "Post your chess related meme here" it would stay open a lot longer.  Being new here, the forums seem to thrive on anything that is non-chess related, and the more obscure the post, the more replies it gets.  

Here is an example where I am in total disagreement with "policy" regarding what is allowed and what gets tossed.

A 2 year old thread was just revived "Suicide over chess". This  sort of "discussion" should absolutely not be permitted. Yet here it is 2 years old. To permit this topic to exist is outright disgraceful. Currently there is a well known case in the courts, a teenage girl texted encouraging suicide and is now on trial. Obviously a lot of trolls will hit on the thread, making all kinds of inappropriate remarks, yet this thread is not locked in 2 years !

The infamous 2Q1C went as far as starting a club where he would give advice to chess players contemplating suicide or had been "abused in chat". This club remained for months till his ultimate demise. Yet no moderator ever deemed this as inappropriate.

Who has time for all this reading, let alone keystrokes?

This forest is so HUGE, of what tree are you speaking??  Yikes.

Chess players are a thoroughly eccentric lot.  Let there be no doubt.  

Blame the all mighty dollar.

1. It generates interest ( posts, hits, revenue)

2. Generates membership (revenue)

When you allow money to rule your life, morals are out the door.

zborg wrote:

But Spacebux is one of a kind!  He is the Iowa hero!

If I was a governor I would have decorated him instead of trying to mute or close his account

for he personifies his homeland greatest values cause Iowa'a motto is

"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"

He stands alone for these values for more than a year in chesscom and in this way he is a very special chess player and he deserves a lot more respect from the staff and the moderators

The Supreme Court of the United States recently struck down a law which restricts offensive speech. The Court rightly noted that inoffensive speech needs no protection. Freedom of Speech ONLY refers to the freedom to say things that are controversial, offensive to some, and unpopular at the moment. 

Moderators are needed to monitor for obscene speech and x-rated or exceedingly vulgar speech. But Spacebux has not written anything remotely like that. He is just the loyal opposition, an annoying gadfly, who keeps telling chess dot com how good it used to be and could be again. 

And they really hate hearing that, apparently. 

A very annoying gadfly. and, if they listened, chess.com could be great again.

I suspect I have worked out most reasons they have gone wrong, but I am reluctant to make accusations which may be false.

If I may use a well-known metaphor, you can judge a tree by its fruits. The process of fruiting takes time, so we need time to make a sound judgment as a consequence.

The problems being encountered are not merely technical, they are a mix of motives including what may be termed culural.

Why, in a world which has in the last half century replaced French (which replaced Latin centuries ago) as the standard internantional language with English (for better or worse), decided to adopt pictures and current twitter  symbols as new language for a Chess site?

I might have to find a French speaking site or a Spanish or Italian one as an alternative, as they speak a language that is human, and of which I have a smattering.

Adios, mes amici.

It is called Web 2.0 and it reflects a changing electronic world.

If you like we can all go back to Gregorian Chants.

And how is that an improvement?  Just because you put a "2.0" in the front of it?

New technology is only an improvement if utilized in the proper context.  Otherwise, you get new bugs, new spam, and dysfunctional results.

@Bellero & LawD - you're making me blush guys.  Thank you for the kind words.

I'm sorry, but where did I say it was an improvement? Oh, that's right, i didn't.

Reading comprehension - solves a lot of problems.