31 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by MissOleumOriginally posted by MissOleum
As usual, someone has taken a sentence out of context.
If you read the whole paragraph, the meaning is clear: a post alerted by two individuals on legitimate grounds is 99% guaranteed of removal. This statement was intended only to distinguish between user alerts and robomod alerts (which outnumber user alerts at least 20 to 1). It's my pr ...[text shortened]... everyone else.
Now, my friend, you have lots more material to misinterpret, enjoy![/b]`
...But the Forum Moderator then has to make an impartial assessment of whether the claim is valid, or whether the alerting member has a hidden agenda. Sometimes there is not sufficient grounds and the post must be allowed to stand. A post alerted by two individuals is 99% guaranteed of removal.
The last sentence is what creates the confusion. One plausible interpretation of the paragraph is:
When one member alerts a post, the moderator assesses the validity of the claim and removes the post, or leaves it, based on that assessment, but if a post is alerted by two members, it will be tossed 99% of the time.
In other words, if two people alert, there's no need for the mod to waste time making a determination whether the removal is reasonable or not. One corroborating member is enough to justify removal.
(If I am reading the intent of your latest post correctly...) The paragraph should have made it clear that the mod's assessment of the complaint's validity is a more important factor in deciding a post's fate than quantity of users who alerted it. The last sentence of the quoted paragraph above should be something more like, "A post alerted by two or more users is more likely to draw a moderator's attention than a post alerted by a single user, or a post alerted by robo-mod."
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks for your clarification SG, that's exactly what I was trying to say, you're just SO much better at it than I am!
(If I am reading the intent of your latest post correctly...) The paragraph should have made it clear that the mod's assessment of the complaint's validity is a more important factor in deciding a post's fate than quantity of users who alerted it. The last sentence of the quoted paragraph above should be something more like, "A post alerted by two or mor ...[text shortened]... oderator's attention than a post alerted by a single user, or a post alerted by robo-mod."
P.S. interested in a ghostwriting job?
🙂
06 Apr 08
Originally posted by xnomanxI agree with you 100%.Do you know that statistically,most bad comments and profiles being suspended either temporarily or permanently,originate from the blitz rooms on all sites?I myself,had my profile suspended once on Gameknot because of giving a rude player a taste of his own medicine.he complained to the site administrators,and since i was a 2200 player,and they said I should know better,they suspended me and left the other player who started using foul language against me,go!
Does anyone else here get the feeling that the forums are degenerating into a mess of inside politics, egos, feuds, and accusations?
I grow weary of clicking on a chess thread that sounds interesting only to find that it's become a name-calling match within a few posts. No, I don't have to visit the forums, but it would be nice to see a higher premium plac ...[text shortened]... e of no tolerance for BS has been set by users, admins, moderators, and the group at large.
Either way,I try not to make any comments anymore,especially in someone's messaging center,no matter what.The best thing to do is just complain to the site administrators to try and get the other player thrown off the site!On Instantchess,for example,my rating is 2400.I can't tell you how many times I have been acused of cheating and foul language has been used against me,but i try to stay emotionally seperated from these comments.if there is a block comment's button,i always click on it if possible,unless i know the opponent.