The secret of TalkChess

[tpoppins]

In my opinion normal users should never see the word 'troll' on this site. The only posts that may contain the word "troll" are those in reports send to the moderator team.

So maybe if one uses the word troll in its post to accuse someone he should be banned for a week or a few days.

The above post uses that word three times, does that mean that you advocate banning you for up to three weeks on the basis of that? :)

[tpoppins]

I consider any criticism by Ulysses as a counter indication: when he is unhappy, it means I am doing my job well, if he would approve of my actions, it means I must be grossly erring. Because he has openly expressed that he disapproves of the rules specified in the charter, which it is my job to enforce.

Very well put. That is the situation in a nutshell.

Anyone who talks bad of the mods here should be forced to read chess.com's forums at least eight hours a day for two weeks. The worst thing that can be said about the current mod team is that it is just one guy doing all the work.

[Guenther]

In my opinion normal users should never see the word 'troll' on this site. The only posts that may contain the word "troll" are those in reports send to the moderator team.

So maybe if one uses the word troll in its post to accuse someone he should be banned for a week or a few days.

The above post uses that word three times, does that mean that you advocate banning you for up to three weeks on the basis of that? :)

It also shows some evident (and reasonable) fear of being called 'it' (again) ;-)

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[moderation]

For the time being, I have moved the thread "the secret of chess 2" to the moderation archive. There was so much unrestrained name calling going on in there that it was not fit to see the light of day.

Just to be clear: it is not OK to address fellow posters as "you moron", or "imbecile".

It is also not OK to accuse others of things posted elsewhere under names that happen to be somewhat similar to those of TalkChess members. It is usually possible to register yourself on websites with any name you want, and names are not very unique. If members here take credit for things posted elsewhere, fine, but if they do not, assuming that they are responsible without evidence should be considered a personal attack in itself. And when they deny having anything to do with it, that should certainly put an end to it immediately.

Now Lyudmil will no doubt continue complaining that 'trolls', who should have been banned, have destroyed his thread, containing what he considers as a legetimate effort to market his book, the income of which he needs to prevent starvation. But most of the trouble is actually caused by Lyudmil himself. If you accuse TalkChess members that were not even in the thread of trolling and posting fake reviews elsewhere, you should not be surprised if they appear to show you the error of your ways in friendly or (unfortunately) less friendly terms.

There also seems to be a problem with the content of Lyudmil's book, the sales of which he does try to boost here against regulations. Many people seem to have legitimate concerns on whether games ascribed to certain engines in the book, could indeed have been played by those engines. Such concerns can be easily addressed by providing more accurate information on the conditions under which these moves were played, and showing some engine output produced under those conditions. Lyudmil, however, invariably chooses to counter such criticism by accusing his critics of being incompetent, ignorant, etc. This is not a good way to inspire confidence in the content of the book, and a very good way to induce the idea that the book is a fraud. Again, it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone will then actually mention this.

Note that to report a posting, it is not enough (and actually quite pointless) to reply to it with a posting that says "I report this". We have a report button for this ('!'), the use of which would prompt you for a reason, and then would see to it that the moderators get warned by e-mail. If you just complain in a posting, no one gets warned, and the chances that any moderator would see it are very slim. It would be very wrong to assume moderators are so interested in your stuff that they eagerly read every posting; most threads they would never open at all.

If people pay more attention to these guidelines, I am sure we could have a cicilized discussion on "the secret of chess".

This is an April Fool's joke, right?
Don't get me angry and just put the thread back.

I am too busy to exchange mails or PMs with you.
I don't know even what a mod's archive is.
Where is it visible?

The point of a thread is to be visible.
So that information is exchanged.
Why DID NOT you stop name-calling?
I did not call names anyone, for sure.

I suggested you delete the first time someone used a bad word for me, why did not you do so?
Again, don't get me angry and just bring it back.
If you don't immediately, you take the side of Brendan, Ulisses and other trolls.

I was right - there is no much distinction between you and Brendan.

And yes, this team MUST GO.
It is ONLY YOU who run the forum, I tried to contact Hyatt, and he is always unavailable, while Harvey is only good at locking.

Harvey, why did you lock the thread again?

PS. I suppose you will NOT ALLOW Houdini, Komodo and others post here, BECAUSE, note this very well, the moment they post here, I WILL START calling different people NAMES on the thread, no matter how much I like Mark and Larry.
And will continue, until you lock the thread.
But then maybe you will consider banning me?

Why did not you ban now Ulisses and Brendan, the main scandal-mongers?

[Henk]

In my opinion normal users should never see the word 'troll' on this site. The only posts that may contain the word "troll" are those in reports send to the moderator team.

So maybe if one uses the word troll in its post to accuse someone he should be banned for a week or a few days.

The above post uses that word three times, does that mean that you advocate banning you for up to three weeks on the basis of that?

Yes that would be best. By the way I also don't like the word 'ban'. That would mean two days extra.

Don't like to read posts from arguing people too. People who like arguing should become moderator.

[noobpwnftw]

I'd like to hear what Ben Shapiro has to say on this matter.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[moderation]

For the time being, I have moved the thread "the secret of chess 2" to the moderation archive. There was so much unrestrained name calling going on in there that it was not fit to see the light of day.

Just to be clear: it is not OK to address fellow posters as "you moron", or "imbecile".

It is also not OK to accuse others of things posted elsewhere under names that happen to be somewhat similar to those of TalkChess members. It is usually possible to register yourself on websites with any name you want, and names are not very unique. If members here take credit for things posted elsewhere, fine, but if they do not, assuming that they are responsible without evidence should be considered a personal attack in itself. And when they deny having anything to do with it, that should certainly put an end to it immediately.

Now Lyudmil will no doubt continue complaining that 'trolls', who should have been banned, have destroyed his thread, containing what he considers as a legetimate effort to market his book, the income of which he needs to prevent starvation. But most of the trouble is actually caused by Lyudmil himself. If you accuse TalkChess members that were not even in the thread of trolling and posting fake reviews elsewhere, you should not be surprised if they appear to show you the error of your ways in friendly or (unfortunately) less friendly terms.

There also seems to be a problem with the content of Lyudmil's book, the sales of which he does try to boost here against regulations. Many people seem to have legitimate concerns on whether games ascribed to certain engines in the book, could indeed have been played by those engines. Such concerns can be easily addressed by providing more accurate information on the conditions under which these moves were played, and showing some engine output produced under those conditions. Lyudmil, however, invariably chooses to counter such criticism by accusing his critics of being incompetent, ignorant, etc. This is not a good way to inspire confidence in the content of the book, and a very good way to induce the idea that the book is a fraud. Again, it shouldn't come as a surprise that someone will then actually mention this.

Note that to report a posting, it is not enough (and actually quite pointless) to reply to it with a posting that says "I report this". We have a report button for this ('!'), the use of which would prompt you for a reason, and then would see to it that the moderators get warned by e-mail. If you just complain in a posting, no one gets warned, and the chances that any moderator would see it are very slim. It would be very wrong to assume moderators are so interested in your stuff that they eagerly read every posting; most threads they would never open at all.

If people pay more attention to these guidelines, I am sure we could have a cicilized discussion on "the secret of chess".

I can respect this. Not a problem from my end.

As you (whose name was also "borrowed" to make fake reviews of LT's stuff) know, it sucks when your name gets caught up in something that many are calling a "scam" now.

The burden of proof is squarely on LT and he refuses to acknowledge it, he simply cites endorsed reviews and insults critics.

An IM on chess.com has challenged LT to prove his claims, and again the response was dodging and insults.

Some other guy asked him for proof (and many asked him to at least play some games on chess.com as an indicator of strength) and he called the guy "Brendan's 10th Account" - much to the guy's confusion, I'm sure.

If LT mentions my name is a negative way on TC again, I will report it.

I wish absolutely no association with the guy.

You BS.
You have sent 10 mails to my mailbox, letting me know YOU are the culprit.
You want me to post screenshots now?
Your place is NOT on this forum, neither on Chess.com.
You should be banned from both.
I have 2 GMs, the last one Jon Ostricus, the correspondence GM, and 2 IMs claiming the book is excellent, innovative and useful, one of a kind work, who the HELL are you to deny that and TROLL my threads.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

There was so much unrestrained name calling going on in there that it was not fit to see the light of day.

People deciding for us what are we allowed to see or not is just censorship.

And inconsistent, we've had threads much worse in the past (including one where you call someone an asshole, multiple times) and they were allowed to stay, so what is different this time?

I have always been against the hiding of threads, people that were absent don't even know what they missed, which is unfair (I almost miss the thread and wouldn't have known what was it about!).

For us, it's not different that you moved the thread from outright deletion, because it has the same effect: we can't see it. Threads can be closed for a reason.

I fully agree with this one - this was the WRONG decision on the part of the mods.
On the part of HGM single-handedly, as the 2 others don't take part in the decision process.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

People deciding for us what are we allowed to see or not is just censorship.

1) It is a normal way of proceeding when a mod wants to have the opinion of other mods to have a consensus driven decision.
2) It gives time to the participants to cool down. There is nothing so urgent here on TC that it can't wait for a week or two, and patience has always been a virtue of chess.
3) This is not an unlimited free speech platform; the limits are the terms of usage that every participant has agreed upon while registering.
4) In my opinion, constant bickering about the moderation is annoying.

But there is only a single mod here - HGM.
The other 2 don't take part into decision-making in any way.
So many messages that did not have their place here have been allowed to stay.
And so many, that were fully on topic and good ones deleted.
I could have talked to HGM until now, from now on, he is my enemy.

I am like that, I tolerate things until a certain extent.
Worse names have been called on this forum, let's rememebr the threads about Rybka, Houdini etc. Why were those allowed to stay until 2000+ messages or so?
What is the difference with my thread?
Why were not the abusive posts deleted?
You don't know where the 'delete' button is, HGM?

Now, it is obvious Brendan is behind all this?
He instigated the whole affair with the HGM review, you will not like your name visible in that manner on the forum and you will take action.
You removed the thread because you are concerned for your credibility, and that was not a principled decision, following the rules.

Why not ban Brendan instead, which is the obvious and only right solution?
This guy should be banned and everything will be fine.

I hope very much you restore the thread within the next 1 hour.
I am fine with name-calling, if you are fine too.
If you are not, just delete the posts that are abusive.
Is not that your primary duty as a mod, actually?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

1) It is a normal way of proceeding when a mod wants to have the opinion of other mods to have a consensus driven decision.

I'm not sure this happened. It's not clear if HGM decided to delete the thread on his own.

2) It gives time to the participants to cool down. There is nothing so urgent here on TC that it can't wait for a week or two, and patience has always been a virtue of chess.

That'd only work if the thread is going to eventually come back. I guarantee the Moderation Subforum is full of threads that were moved to it since Talkchess's inception, to never see again the light of day.

Also, I never cool down. We can have a discussion today, and halt it, and I'll be as passionate about it 6 months in the future, as if what was said was yesterday, so let's not do actions that assume people's emotions will just fade away.

3) This is not an unlimited free speech platform; the limits are the terms of usage that every participant has agreed upon while registering.

And what's the benefit of what was done against just closing the thread?

What Talkchess needs is a place like Rybka Forum's Drama Llama, the thread moves out of view for everyone, but people that want to keep their freedom to keep reading the thread can access this subforum. Threads could be closed so that subforum is only read-only and works like an archive. Moving a thread to moderation is the lazy way to solve the problem.

4) In my opinion, constant bickering about the moderation is annoying.

Define "Constant". Something that happens once a month is "constant"?

No matter how much I hate it, I have to support Ulisses here too.
Chess.com has an option for blocking specific users from posting on the threads created by you.
Similar option would be good here too.
I would have blocked Brendan and everything would be fine.