Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Announcements

Announcements

  1. Subscriber Russ
    RHP Code Monkey
    06 Mar '08 02:09
    If you would like to participate in a reformed game moderation team, please post your name below.

    All names will go to a community vote and the result will be used to help select the new team.

    Past game moderation team members are not exempt from nominating themselves for the new team.

    Thanks,

    -Russ
  2. 06 Mar '08 02:17
    Originally posted by Russ
    If you would like to participate in a reformed game moderation team, please post your name below.

    All names will go to a community vote and the result will be used to help select the new team.

    Past game moderation team members are not exempt from nominating themselves for the new team.

    Thanks,

    -Russ
    I'd love to participate, I think anybody who knows me knows that I'm clearly not an engine user. And if my play here isn't proof enough please check out my accounts on ICC or PC: CMSSacrifice on ICC and CMSMaster on PC.

    Naturally, though, I would prefer to be more liberal with banning engine users than the previous moderation team was. I also think that the game moderation team should frequently be moderated itself.
  3. Standard member irontigran
    Rob Scheider is..
    06 Mar '08 02:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Russ
    If you would like to participate in a reformed game moderation team, please post your name below.

    All names will go to a community vote and the result will be used to help select the new team.

    Past game moderation team members are not exempt from nominating themselves for the new team.

    Thanks,

    -Russ
    i would like to be a moderator, i would be a good asset as i am fair and just please vote for me
    -irontigran
  4. Subscriber huckleberryhound
    Devout Agnostic.
    06 Mar '08 02:26
    I'd do forum modding, but i'm not good enough a player for game mod.....well done though Russ.
  5. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    06 Mar '08 02:30
    I don't even have a chess engine, so that would automatically count me out, before the Vote did ..... Good Job though we sure need the game Mods back !!
  6. 06 Mar '08 02:31 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by huckleberryhound
    I'd do forum modding, but i'm not good enough a player for game mod.....well done though Russ.
    Possibly. Everybody should be extremely, extremely...EXTREMELY careful when they're deciding who should be made a game mod.

    I wasn't here for the first time the moderation team was formed, but I do recall that Trackhead21 was a popular choice for the original mod team. For those of you who aren't shocked by that, understand that he was later banned...for engine use.

    I don't know if the following members would have interest, but at the top level I would be my trust in the following players to do an excellent job of moderating:

    Northern Lad
    David Tebb
    Mephisto2
    Gatecrasher
    !~Tony~!
  7. 06 Mar '08 02:33
    Russ,

    I applaud your desire to address the issue. When I logged on today, I was asked to affirm not to use chess engines. Although they are already noted in the terms of service, it helps remind users when they logon. That's good. Keep up the good work.
  8. Standard member Arrakis
    D_U_N_E
    06 Mar '08 02:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Russ
    If you would like to participate in a reformed game moderation team, please post your name below.

    All names will go to a community vote and the result will be used to help select the new team.

    Past game moderation team members are not exempt from nominating themselves for the new team.

    Thanks,

    -Russ
    Russ,

    You simply cannot put such an important position up for a popular vote. Most members claim they have NO IDEA what a cheater is or how to catch them.

    I admire your flexability in the decision to renew the mod team, but let's do it right. Let's not put up a popular "vote" on it. Please change your stance for people interested to contact the site administrators and give reasons why they:
    1) want to be on the mod team and
    2) what their qualifications are.

    About 3 years ago I went thru this procedure at RHP and there was a person called Maurader who led a campaign against myself in the forums. Well, he was successful and I didn't get the popular vote. But after a year or so this guy was screaming about all the computer abuse (even though he was partly responsible for not allowing myself on the team).

    I'm not saying that I want to be on such a team. What I'm saying is that this team has to be made up of people based on their expertise and not a public vote.
  9. 06 Mar '08 02:36
    Originally posted by Arrakis
    Russ,

    You simply cannot put such an important position up for a popular vote. Most members claim they have NO IDEA what a cheater is or how to catch them.

    I admire your flexability in the decision to renew the mod team, but let's do it right. Let's not put up a popular "vote" on it. Please change your stance for people interested to contact the site ...[text shortened]... hat this team has to be made of of people based on their expertise and not a public vote.
    Yeah, please see my post.
  10. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    06 Mar '08 02:44
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    Yeah, please see my post.
    Trackhead also didn't make it... so I hope Russ has a good screening idea.

    P-
  11. Subscriber huckleberryhound
    Devout Agnostic.
    06 Mar '08 02:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Arrakis
    Russ,

    You simply cannot put such an important position up for a popular vote. Most members claim they have NO IDEA what a cheater is or how to catch them.

    I admire your flexability in the decision to renew the mod team, but let's do it right. Let's not put up a popular "vote" on it. Please change your stance for people interested to contact the site hat this team has to be made up of people based on their expertise and not a public vote.
    I don't often agree with Arrakis, but popular vote wouldn't pick the best, just the most popular.
  12. 06 Mar '08 02:47
    Originally posted by huckleberryhound
    I don't often agree with Arrakis, but popular vote wouldn't pick the best, just the most popular.
    How about a 2 or 3 step process, involving popular vote and some other means of determination?
  13. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    06 Mar '08 02:58
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    How about a 2 or 3 step process, involving popular vote and some other means of determination?
    I always like to think Russ is "the other means" but beyond that, and who he already trusts... what can be done to screen?

    P-
  14. 06 Mar '08 03:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    I always like to think Russ is "the other means" but beyond that, and who he already trusts... what can be done to screen?

    P-
    I definitely think that they should show their other ratings, as I just did. I supplied an ICC and a PC rating - I think nearly everybody who plays chess here should have a rating from some other source, whether it be online or OTB. And I'd be very surprised if any player rated over 2000+ here didn't have an OTB rating - it just wouldn't make sense. I, unfortunately, do not have an OTB rating (Maybe why I'm not 2000+ yet...) but that's not for lack of want, more for lack of places near me to play (as in, less than an hour away). Hopefully, that will all change next year when I'm at OSU with plenty of places for otb near me.
  15. 06 Mar '08 03:15
    I don't know how games are moderated or what the moderation process is. There have to be some minimum standards of computer software, yes? For example, if moderators check on games by comparing %'s of matching moves against certain software programs, they can't include the opening moves because those are already established from previously published sources, and it can't be counted against a player that they happen to have good source material. And when I read some posters that say "I can just tell when someone is using a computer" or something like "yeah, the Ruy Lopez is known to 10 moves in most lines" when in reality it is more like 20-30 moves, I have doubts that some well-meaning players are capable. Do they have the MegaDataBase from ChessBase to compare? Do they have the Correspondence Database, too? Do they have the Informants? The NIC Yearbooks? Chessbase Magazine (CD)? If they are looking at an endgame that they think is too perfect, do they know that it isn't an example cited directly out of, say, Averbakh's five-volume set of Comprehensive Chess Endings? Do they have the software to compare Fritz, Zappa, Rybka, Shredder, Hiarcs, Crafty, Chessmaster, Naum, Junior, etc etc.?

    Can prospective moderators avoid the catch-22:
    1)he played too good. he must be an engine user
    2)he started out slow, then played well, so he must have turned on an engine when he knew he was losing. he must be an engine user.
    3)he started out well, then didn't play as perfect, so he must have been using an engine and then turned it off when he knew the game was in the bag. he must be an engine user.
    4)he played some moves really well, some not so well, in no particular pattern, so he must have been turning the engine on and off at different times. he must be an engine user.
    5)some games he plays well, some games he doesn't. he must be deliberately losing games to throw the moderators off. he must be an engine user.

    I've heard all these above complaints here, and there's practically no way to defend yourself from the mob once they get it in their mind to grab the torches and pitchforks. Just putting people on a ballot doesn't mean they're qualified. I hope that well-meaning candidates are truly ready and capable of performing their duties, and if the moderation process doesn't require any of the above, then I am sorry for taking up everyone's time with this post, and I am crossing my fingers for the best.