Well, fear does not always serve us well. I doubt that this forum
would be removed simply because some may choose to place rants
here.
Of course, I could be wrong. However, I suspect this forum will be
policed from time to time for inappropriate posts.
Besides, I believe our hosts here are working on programming a
voting system into posting so that offensive, inappropriate or
unappreciated posts can be simply removed by the forum users! This
should make the Chess forum self-policing.
So, let's not fear yet!
What we really like is to have something like they have over at
www.slashdot.org - each member is given moderating rights every now
and then for three days where they can grade each post for
relevance/appropriateness, etc... and this way the forums are quite
well controlled - moderators are chosen based on some points scoring
system. But there is also meta-moderating where each member gets
given a sample of moderations and gets to judge whether they were
fair or unfair judgements!!
It's quite an intricate system but seems to work extremely well -
needless to say it's far too much for RedHotPawn and we're not going
to implement anything like that!
So, for the timebeing we have introduced a simple approval system
whereby moderators need to approve each post before it is posted.
As a starting point, all our Pawn Stars have automatic posting rights
(i.e. posts do not need to be approved) - and we will do the same for
more members as we become familiar with their posts. And vice-
versa - if some members are causing controvesy, we will simply place
them in the need-to-be-moderated queue. The fewer people we have
in this queue the better!!
As we are based in England we may start to need moderators from
other parts of the globe. We'll probably put an option on the "Your
Settings" screen for people to say if they don't mind being contacted
to become moderators.
But anyway, offensive and unappreciated posts will no longer be a
problem on these boards.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris,
Appreciate your information about this matter.
RagingBull.com, a stock posting message board, gives posters a
rating based on posting behavior. Readers of an individual’s posts
determine this rating. A poster may have as many as 4 $ (dollar
signs) after his/her name. The more $ signs the better the poster is
thought of by the posting community.
The way it works is that others may censor one by choosing to check a
box that will make the censure’s messages invisible to the viewer
doing the censoring. Three to four people do this to a poster and
he/she will have no $ signs after his name. This lets others know that
this person's posts are generally not appreciated or appropriate.
In the positive direction, posters may add a check mark to a box for
posters who create messages with good, thoughtful content. The
more posters who do this cause the well thought of poster to gain
more $ signs, and this in turn lets all know that this person is a
quality poster.
This idea might be too much programming for RedHotPawn, but a
very simple "three strikes and your post is gone" rule could be placed
into affect. That is: each member could be given voting authority on
any post, but could ONLY VOTE ONCE per post. When three members
vote "thumbs down" so to speak, the post gets deleted after the third
vote, automatically.
Also, members could be given a rating, such as stars after their
name, that would indicate the general quality of their posting
behavior -- the more deleted posts for a particular member, the fewer
stars after his/her name; the more "thumbs up" votes by members (3
positive votes per posting), the more stars.
This system would permit bad posters who change their behavior to
regain a quality poster rating. After all, we are all human and at
various stages of emotional development. (BTW, I know some
players who play chess extremely well but who are so lacking in social
skills that they are quite verbally abusive! Being a good chess player
and quality person are not always the same thing. However, I have
noticed that Grandmasters, the top class players in the world, are very
thoughtful and humble persons, generally speaking. They speak
thoughtfully but have tremendous skills for slaying players on the
chessboard!)
Any thoughts on such a simple method of user controlled policing?
Thanks, Chris, for your wonderful efforts to provide a great place to
play chess!