Originally posted by divegeester Disagree. You are overreacting to something that has upset you personally. I am sorry you feel this way and it (the topic in question) is clearly very sensitive to you, but your suggestions here and how you are thinking (with your heart not your head) are not the best way to make informed decisions. You are pretty forthright in the forums yourself, altho ...[text shortened]... erent perspective, because there are much worse things happening and being said on site and off.
I answered the OP. You did not.
Present a solution, anyone can just say "I disagree".
As per the original question posted "If you personally owned red hot pawn" means that I would be the owner.
Is there any part of this post you do not understand ?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Have you made Russ aware of these five observations?
I told him that there was no moderation in the forums and just removing posts lets the abusive poster do it again and again.
I received no reply on this.
Originally posted by pawnhandler 26 Jun '08 12:57 (Page 1 of 14)
"I would require that each person be informed by the mod account exactly why they're being banned, and the same of the Powers That Be when someone is banned from the site. In the latter case, an e-mail that says something along the lines of "Your moves matched up to Fritz in these 4 games" or "this is the person you were found to be harassing" or whatever. In the case of forum bans, a simple "this is what you did that earned the ban" would be nice. I'd also periodically remind people that warnings are a courtesy and not a requirement.
Really, that's it." "About @pawnhandler: Last moved 1791 days 12 hours and 7 minutes ago."
Originally posted by caissad4 I told him that there was no moderation in the forums and just removing posts lets the abusive poster do it again and again.
I received no reply on this.
Of course it's frustrating not to receive an expected reply, though his present priorities may explain the delay.
Perhaps make this appeal publically in the Site Ideas Forum. I'll support it if you do.
Originally posted by caissad4 I answered the OP. You did not.
Present a solution, anyone can just say "I disagree".
As per the original question posted "If you personally owned red hot pawn" means that I would be the owner.
Is there any part of this post you do not understand ?
I already have answered the OP on page 1 and coincidentally it addresses this point of forum moderation. Your inability to process disagreement is noted.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Of course it's frustrating not to receive an expected reply, though his present priorities may explain the delay.
Perhaps make this appeal publically in the Site Ideas Forum. I'll support it if you do.
There is already a post there suggesting that forums should be limited to subs.
Without active moderation, problems like this are never going to go away.
Originally posted by divegeester I already have answered the OP on page 1 and coincidentally it addresses this point of forum moderation. Your inability to process disagreement is noted.
I thought your post on page 1 was an attempt at silly humor and swipe at Grampy Bobby.
Originally posted by caissad4 I thought your post on page 1 was an attempt at silly humor and swipe at Grampy Bobby.
Jab noted, and ducked. Do you have something against "silly humour"? Personally I'm a fan of Python.
Nevermind, no it was a serious point about self moderation in these forums. Part of your and mine frustrations is the inability to control or at least influence the forum environment. The alert system is generally useless we agree on that; I've alerted several nasty posts and they remained. Incidentally I have noticed that spam and advertising links get dealt with rapidly, which is interesting.
If subscribers had a system of vetoing posts they could be removed by popular vote. Of course in the clans forum this mean that all the posts would be removed, but who cares about them. It's about power to the people, us, the subscribers. I don't know how it would work but I'm sure it could be tried.
Originally posted by caissad4 The majority of the problem posts are generated by nonsubs who are clearly not here to play chess. Moderation of these problems has been and remains an abysmal failure.
1. Limiting access to forums to subscribers would only mitigate not eliminate the problem.
2. Eliminating the forums entirely would be like "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
3. ...[text shortened]... I would be concerned for the karmatic repercussions of continuing on in this negative situation.
I am not subscriber and I like to participate in these forums (only chess and general)....
Maybe if a forum user receives more than certain number of negative votes,
this could be a parameter for a .... temporal ban of 1 month
Originally posted by divegeester I already have answered the OP on page 1 and coincidentally it addresses this point of forum moderation. Your inability to process disagreement is noted.
Originally posted by divegeester (Page 1)
"I'd introduce proper self moderation on the forums. Everyone would get a limited number of vetoes and any member getting a certain amount would get a ban. You'd be history."
Originally posted by caissad4 There is already a post there suggesting that forums should be limited to subs.
Without active moderation, problems like this are never going to go away.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Originally posted by divegeester (Page 1)
"I'd introduce proper self moderation on the forums. Everyone would get a limited number of vetoes and any member getting a certain amount would get a ban. You'd be history."
Thanks for reminding me what I posted, I was struggling to remember.
Originally posted by caissad4 There is already a post there suggesting that forums should be limited to subs.
Without active moderation, problems like this are never going to go away.
If You Personally Owned Red Hot Pawn...
26 Sep '15 09:23
Back to Top