Forums (Again)

The ToS are not working because they are not enforced. Faith, you didn't say anthing about freedom of speech, Mike did before you.

If people saw that the ToS were enforced to the letter then this would deter people - however I was suggesting something less draconian an incremental temporary ban that gave the abusers 2 chances to reform. However, I am happy to see the ToS enforced instead though.

Back in the "old days" when the Internet was in its infancy, we had a term called "Netiquette".
It came about as the first forums, BBS & newsgroups became open to anyone.
The idea was simple: no flaming, no offensive behaviour.
This is a forum, not a school playground.
No offence to our younger members, as they generally behave better than the rest of us.
There's nothing wrong with getting passionate and fired up about discussing issues we feel strongly about.
But there is never any excuse for personal insults or flames.
If we all take a deep breath and don't let our fingers work the keyboard faster than our brains can keep up with, there won't be any problem.
Since this is never going to happen, we will always need some level of moderation.
The RHP moderation policy seems to me to be one of laissez faire, unless things start getting personal.
IMHO this is exactly the right approach, leading to productive, provocative and interesting debates.
Keep up the good work, boys & girls of the mod squad!

Perhaps the forums have simply become too broad. You can imagine this scenario, for instance, I'm sure it must have happened many times.

You're looking for a place to play Chess online and discuss chess, you discover RHP and you start playing games and you think this site is great and start to use it regularly, perhaps even subscribe.

Then you look in the General forum, the first forum on the list and you have to pinch yourself, cos it's full of Gangsta Rap and Evangelism, and you say out loud - "I thought this was a chess site?!"

Perhaps a restructure of how the forums are listed may help prevent people who might easily be offended from straying into the more risque fora. Getting the balance of what is appropriate and expected from a chess site must be a relatively high priority for Russ, surely?

Originally posted by Exy
Perhaps the forums have simply become too broad. You can imagine this scenario, for instance, I'm sure it must have happened many times.

You're looking for a place to play Chess online and discuss chess, you discover RHP and you start playing games and you think this site is great and start to use it regularly, perhaps even subscribe.

Then you look in t ...[text shortened]... appropriate and expected from a chess site must be a relatively high priority for Russ, surely?

Nobody has ever suggested that speeding tickets shouldn't be issued because it won't deter people whose nature it is to drive fast. The tickets are issued because ultimately the offending motorist will have their license taken away from them.

That's nice and clear and logical - go slightly above the limit from time to time but if you get caught and get a caution and repeat your behaviour then expect to lose your license.

If you need any more moderators, I'm happy to assist.

🙄

Originally posted by Russ
I am personally finding it very tiring dealing with the endless bickering in the forums ...

I'm not a subscriber (yet) so feel free to skip this post, I'm just observing. Years ago when the internet was new, I saw the same thing (bickering) close down another (non-chess) site. It got to the point where it was no *fun* anymore and people drifted away. The site closed amid great acrimony.
Now, that was a non-chess site, this site is full of chess players, who by nature love mental combat. Down a piece? Fight on to victory! (or at least a draw) etc etc
Some of you have suggested that a tightening of the rules would fix, or at least help, the present situation and I agree. I also suggest that in addition to that, posters take responsibility for their posts, and if they run afoul of a mod and get a short ban, accept it. (Of course after some reasonable appeal eg pm-ing the mod, asking for clarification etc.)
Russ' post looks a bit ominous to me-I see a person who is getting bogged down by this controversy; please accept the fact that *no* set of rules humanly-derived will ever be perfect.
Thanks for reading.

Originally posted by Exy
The ToS are not working because they are not enforced. Faith, you didn't say anthing about freedom of speech, Mike did before you.

If people saw that the ToS were enforced to the letter then this would deter people - however I was suggesting something less draconian an incremental temporary ban that gave the abusers 2 chances to reform. However, I am happy to see the ToS enforced instead though.

Terms
of
Service

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I'm not a subscriber (yet) so feel free to skip this post, I'm just observing. Years ago when the internet was new, I saw the same thing (bickering) close down another (non-chess) site. It got to the point where it was no *fun* anymore and people drifted away. The site closed amid great acrimony.
Now, that was a non-chess site, this site is full of c ...[text shortened]... cept the fact that *no* set of rules humanly-derived will ever be perfect.
Thanks for reading.

Originally posted by Russ
It is time for me to make another post about the forums.

I am personally finding it very tiring dealing with the endless bickering in the forums. Whenever I sit down to work on the site, I expect to answer a large number of feedback emails and personal messages, that is just part of running this site, but the endless flood of complaints about forums posti ...[text shortened]... is last bit, but qutie serious about everything else]

Thanks for listening (again)

-Russ

Russ, et alia,
I apologize in general for posting on the subject, seeing as you have asked that we might cool down, but I think that you, and we all, realize that there is a deep controversy here. I know that you have a lot to read, but I hope that you (all) will consider reading this post in spite of its length.

First, let me acknowledge, as I am sure that we all do, that we recognize that the site is yours to do with as you please. As I have said before, none of us has a right to post, you permit it. And if you wanted to force us to end each post with "Russ is great," then we would have to do so, or not post, or leave the site. This site is like your house; and, to extend the metaphor, we are all visitors here for a party and should respect that which you ask. If you say no dancing on the rug, then fine; if want us to use the bathroom on the second floor, fine.

But, what I think is causing the controversy is not the fact that you have rules, but that the rules are inconsistently applied. Because moderators are human, and because it seems that they have no direction, they are obligated to interpret the TOS. As you might have observed, Pradtf and I have two very different readings of the TOS, what constitutes offensive, and what should and should not be permitted on the site. And we are just two of many people.

Here is a single example of what I mean. People have said "No racial slurs shall be used." But in my post I quoted Twain's Huckleberry Finn wherein the n-word figured rather prominently. Should my post be removed? Censored? Edited? Ask ten people, you will get eleven answers, guaranteed.

As the United States was coming into existence, the founding fathers were vague in their use of terms. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as stated in the Declaration of Independence, became a kind of mantra for Americans as we strove to form a governmental system. But what life or liberty or especailly what was a reasonable happiness is subject to interpretation. This is why the Supreme Court is (and has been) so busy. People often say that this vaguness was the "genius" of our founding fathers; I rather think that it was because they themselves couldn't agree!

I will give a brief personal example to illustrate my point. Because of my own complicated theological stance, one which cause fundamentalists to claim that I do not believe in God and Freethinkers to assert that I do, I tend not to get involved in religious debates. Certainly Freethinkers find the fundamentalists offensive, and no doubt vice versa. And I find that many of the posts from either of those groups to be personally offensive. What do we do here? Never talk about religion (either pro or con)?

The whole debates forum is a fertile ground for offense. I recently quoted the Sea Wolf in an effort to illustrate what I mean (A brief rant, if you wish to read it), and not 24 hours went by before an unnecessary and unproductive response was given, directly insulting me and not addressing the issue. Clearly, at some point I had struck a nerve; perhaps he thought the post was directed at him. Who knows? People tend to really struggle with separating how they feel and what they think and, as a result, when there's disagreement, there are posts which may be totally reasonable to some and outrageously offensive to others. Those posts, engendering ire, are replied to with even more intense posts. And so on, &c. &c.

Whenever people discuss ideas rather than facts (although sometimes with facts too), there is bound to be controversy. And where there's controversy, there's emotion. And where there's emotion, there's offense. People can't be reliably expected to not be offended if an idea they hold dear is challenged in a post, nor can we trust that they will not respond with a post that might in turn be seen as offensive (if it isn't outrightly).

What complicates the situation further, and this is my essential point, is that the moderators, being human, are not consistent what they delete or censor. Because they are participants in the community, they are, either actively or passively, involved in the forums and, as such, when they delete a post, they may be doing it because they feel offended, not necessarily because the post is offensive. So, at your party, some bouncers are letting people use the second floor bathroom, other bouncers are allowing people to use the one on the first floor, some are preventing people from using the bathroom at all, so they are using the bushes. And, I wager, none of the bouncers are being consistent with their enforcement, further complicating the situation.

I think that, starting with the debates forum, some rules about what "otherwise objectionable" means from your TOS. Obviously, we can agree on certain four-letter words. Certainly we shouldn't bandy around epithets carelessly (can we quote Mark Twain, though?). We shouldn't tolerate posts someone who speaks highly of the Holocaust or Slavery. No doubt, we should delete personal attacks like, "Nemesio, you are a jerk and a moron." I think everyone on the site can and do agree on these clear-cut sorts of examples.

It's in the grey areas that things get sticky. For example, there are people who find the following statements objectionable "God does (not) exist," or, "George Bush/John Kerry/Tony Blair is an idiot," or, "Gay Marriage should (not) be permitted," or "We should (not) legalize marijuana use."

Other things aren't necessarily offensive, but you might not want your kid reading them unmonitored: e.g., "Here is how I benefited from Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous," or, "Here were my experiences in Vietnam/Desert Storm," or, "Here is my experience with sexual/racial/ethnic discrimination," or "Here's a transcript of the Abu Ghraib report." These things can be very emotional and very graphic, even while they might be positive and wouldn't be suitable for children. Should they be deleted?

One solution to this problem would be only have chess and site related posts (and maybe posers and puzzlers). No general forum and certainly no debates forum. Both of these things open the door to personal exchange, and therefore emotion and offense.

But you have expressed a reluctance to do this, and I understand and am inclined to agree. Allowing people to express their ideas and share things about themselves personally builds community. Unfortunately it makes it a lot more complicated to run a site. By allowing the exchange of feelings and personal expression, you allow with it controversy and offense, and, more work for you and for the mods.

Here is another suggestion, based on a site I no longer visit. There should be a moderators forum, one which only moderators can post in or read. Whenever a post is deleted or censored, it gets reposted in this private forum, and discussed amongst the moderators. Most of the time, it's just agreement: "Yes, this post should be deleted." But sometimes there is discussion and debate. This is healthy and will prevent a moderator from overstepping his/her bounds (or having a bad day). A vote is taken and, if a majority of moderators disagree with the deletion, it gets reinstated. If you have enough moderators, this process should work because, generally, where an individual can have tunnel vision, a group will have a better sense of the consensus of opinion. Things should only go to you if there is substantial division amongst the moderators, although of course you could read over and participate in the moderators forum.

As a result, though moderators would be acting singly at first, their actions would be subject to peer review, helping to ensure fair application of policy.

I submit these comments and suggestions for your, and the community's, perusal and am,

Respectfully yours,
Nemesio

Great post and goes to my example in "help & ideas" - more consistency

skeeter (with a rec)

I'll second that😏