26 Sep 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI answered the OP. You did not.
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.
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 ?
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by divegeesterOriginally posted by pawnhandler 26 Jun '08 12:57 (Page 1 of 14)
It's a bit old but you might get some more ideas here:
Thread 95973
"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."
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by caissad4Of course it's frustrating not to receive an expected reply, though his present priorities may explain the delay.
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.
Perhaps make this appeal publically in the Site Ideas Forum. I'll support it if you do.
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby 17 Sep '15 10:36 (OP)
If You Personally Owned Red Hot Pawn
"If You Personally Owned Red Hot Pawn" what if any changes
would you make to its present policies governing:
1) "Subscriptions"
2) "Rating Tables"
3) "Forums"
4) "Clans"
5) "Clubs"
6) "Chess Blogs"
7) "Send Feedback"
8) "Site FAQ"
9) "Help Forum"
10) "Site Map"
11) "On Twitter"
12) "On Facebook"
13) "On Google"
14) "Contact"
15) "Terms of Service"
For the purpose of maximizing retention of present and attracting
new members now and for the foreseeable future?
____________
Request: Please remain focused on the thread's topic and objective."
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120159
26 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4I 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 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 ?
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThere is already a post there suggesting that forums should be limited to subs.
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.
Without active moderation, problems like this are never going to go away.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120159
26 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4Jab noted, and ducked. Do you have something against "silly humour"? Personally I'm a fan of Python.
I thought your post on page 1 was an attempt at silly humor and swipe at Grampy Bobby.
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.
26 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4I am not subscriber and I like to participate in these forums (only chess and general)....
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.
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
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by divegeesterOriginally posted by divegeester (Page 1)
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'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."
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120159
26 Sep 15
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThanks for reminding me what I posted, I was struggling to remember.
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."