Wayward Moderators running amuck..

Hoping the thread is not now locked for trolling. 

The site is becoming a troll haven anyway, the REAL problem for the moderators.

Thanks to all for a thoroughly well rounded discussion.  

I loved the repartee and digression around Gregorian Chants, private screens, and the need to pause in life.

Have a nice weekend, everyone.

But with exception for those whose head is up their arse.  No names being mentioned.

Zweet dreams, borg!

What language should I use for my dreams?  You are sui generis, kind sir.

@DD had Aussie origins a couple years back.  You both can produce a felicitous turn of phrase, indeed.

I believe camter meant to say "may be termed cultural", to which I would agree. On the one hand, there are technical issues, differences of opinions on the best interface and how to present it.  On the other hand is what may be described as cultural differences. Chess.com is an American site. The stereotype (which has a lot of truth) is that such businesses are governed by the almighty $. Bottom line is making a profit. Until this "attitude" changes, there is no hope of any changes being made in the overall concept of how to manage their website. As camter said, time will tell the consequences of the present direction and course.

Here is a basic example to make a point. The site claims, advertises here and every promotional opportunity 18 million "Members". 99% of us here know this is false advertising, yet staff persists in this charade, all in the name of generating more and more advertising revenue. It can be perceived as "The American Way".

Capitalism is NOT a nationalistic thing.  If so, the CCP could be directly compared to the Job Creators cited on Fox News, ad nauseum.

What in the world is the "American Way??"  Is it (crazy) KFC celebrations in Japan, as per the following link --

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161216-why-japan-celebrates-christmas-with-kfc

On a separate issue, I like the way V3 invites you click on  "Hide the Ads," which introduces you to the offer for a (paying) premium membership, without the advertising light show and myriad of distractions we now find in V3.

How about those (40+ years old) for woman dating and spam sites!  

So you did write that as a typing exercise.  Got it.  Thanks for playing.

Agreed. It is a generality, stereotyped. One though that is founded in the concept "it's all about the $". Capitalism generally began in America. Don't get me wrong. It's one of the greatest concepts of all time. The real question is... can it successfully be applied to a chess web site ? The truth in advertising issue is double edged, may prove very successful at 1st, but come back to take a big bite.

The opposing sides may be described as:

1. Chess as a free service and listed as ....  .org,   Accepting donations

2. Chess as a capitalistic venture and listed as ... .com,  Requiring paid membership

3. One of many options in between.

That's a real doozie. Advertising genius at it's finest. Place a tab right below a flashing add to date 40+ year olds that says "Hide Adds". Well OK, I'm thinking, let's hide this annoying and offensive add and click on it. Stupid me. It's another add asking for my $. What a sucker.

So, would any official member of the Chess.com STAFF care to respond to the original questions I posed earlier?

Has chess.com altered its policies towards Users expressing dissatisfaction towards the site?  Does such dissatisfaction warrant LOCKING of threads & / or openly naming & labeling users of being uncompromising and hard headed?

When did Moderators begin using the term "Chess.com feels .. " as a point of position in arguments?  Do all Moderators now speak for Chess.com?

@David and @LPS both offered up some insight, but David's was more-or-less summarized as a warning & threat wrapped up in a bunch of verbiage about what to do if I'm dissatisfied with the moderators here and what we're allowed to post.  He did not answer anything about whether Moderators now officially speak for Chess.com.

LPS followed with another warning / threat that any all words from Users can & may be used against us at a later date pending a STAFF meeting.

When Martin was around as a staff, he said Moderators had specific roles.  They could inject themselves in to the discussions.  I never had the notion they could threaten users and/or lock threads at their personal discretion.

We Users are forever being shown the "Terms of Service".  Well, what are the "Terms of Moderators"?  What are those policies?  Do Moderators speak for Chess.com?  How can I tell whether a "STAFF" member is a Moderator or some other Chess.com personel?

 Camter, I wonder, are all these good people who added in the forum your friends?  

They're over a barrel Spacebux. Everybody knows the answers. To start, most moderators are volunteers and as such it's difficult to hold them to any consistent "standard". Some appear out of nowhere, wave their wand, sign their name and disappear. Others I've seen participate in discussions as regular members, going as far as befriending such. Staff steps in and takes up the slack, acts as a moderator when it's deemed necessary. It's a completely arbitrary system. They are not about to be backed into a corner and provide fuel for a fire. It's their site. It's how things are done. One mod in your opinion went overboard. What do you expect ? An apology?

Most moderators are Volunteers, are not trained and donate their time when they are available. This should end this line of discussion.

True.  And yet, it may be time for Chess.com to adopt policies and restrictions for some of the Trigger Happy types.  The ones that feel they must protect the honor and sanctity of chess.com at all costs.

I do not know, my friend. But they are welcome to say nice things about me, true or not.

Stop the navel gazing.  Visit the Beer Hall, instead, and bottoms up.

Then you'll have carte blanche to run amok.  Moderators notwithstanding. 

But don't be a smuck and run amuck (sic).  Spelling be damned.

amok is the spelling, as you say.