CoronaVirusChess

[Terje]

Even as a european it's extremely obvious that the joke was about Trump. Insane response by chrisw imo. Maybe try "what do you mean?" first, next time

[Sam Hull]

Well, now that we are takening the broader view, perhaps we can use the opportunity to use this thread as a case study for the preferred style of moderation:

Some of the postings in this thread (not nearly the worst, IMO) were just reported with the complaint that they were 'CTF-level'. (Interesting in itself, since they were coming from persons that did their utmost to leep CTF open.)

Problem is that Chris would look pretty silly if I leave his postings, but remove the targets of his uncontrolled anger. So the choice is really between completely removing the entire thread, or just leaving it as it is, so that everyone can decide for himself who are the real shits here.

What do you think? Should these kind of flame wars be deleted altogether, or should they be left up for amusement value? Please provide some feedback!

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem."
--Salman Rushdie

If flames are tolerated every time someone's rattle falls out of his pram it's going to be a long winter in CCC, and you might as well just reopen the flame bucket forum. My $0.02.

-Sam-

[Ras]

What do you think? Should these kind of flame wars be deleted altogether, or should they be left up for amusement value? Please provide some feedback!

I think that the first heavily insulting post by Chris ("piece of shit") should be redacted, a warning issued for charter violation (with temporary ban upon repetition), and a friendly reminder for all participants to get back on topic. This split offtopic thread (good to take it out of the original thread) should then be locked. In general, users who counter-insult (e.g. "are you on drugs?") instead of reporting the posting should also receive a warning.

[towforce]

What do you think? Should these kind of flame wars be deleted altogether, or should they be left up for amusement value? Please provide some feedback!

When I was a CTF moderator, the software didn't allow this, but my preference has always been for rephrasing, so, "You piece of s**t" could be turned into, "Your humour hurt my feelings" for example.

[Harvey Williamson]

When I was a CTF moderator, the software didn't allow this, but my preference has always been for rephrasing, so, "You piece of s**t" could be turned into, "Your humour hurt my feelings" for example.

We use this on the Hiarcs forum for example if someone types the 'F' word it automatically becomes 'Hiarcs is great.'

[Guenther]

What do you think? Should these kind of flame wars be deleted altogether, or should they be left up for amusement value? Please provide some feedback!

When I was a CTF moderator, the software didn't allow this, but my preference has always been for rephrasing, so, "You piece of s**t" could be turned into, "Your humour hurt my feelings" for example.

That would be nonsense. Why should the mods pamper and soften insults by cryptic mantras? Rephrasing always was a nogo here.
This thread should have been gone already...it's just another anchor for CTF absurdities.

[mclane]

I am irritated that a computerchess Forum suddenly discusses moderation actions in public instead of posting computerchess topics.
Has the forum changed into Computer Inquisition Forum because Sam or HGM or Ras have nothing else constructive to say other then discuss moderation issues in public.

If a member has done something wrong in your opinion against the charter, you can complain via the ! Button and not spam the forum with your inquisition comments.

Try it with PGN or any other computerchess content in CCC, if you are capable to do so.

[Sam Hull]

I am irritated that a computerchess Forum suddenly discusses moderation actions in public instead of posting computerchess topics.
Has the forum changed into Computer Inquisition Forum because Sam or HGM or Ras have nothing else constructive to say other then discuss moderation issues in public.

If a member has done something wrong in your opinion against the charter, you can complain via the ! Button and not spam the forum with your inquisition comments.

Try it with PGN or any other computerchess content in CCC, if you are capable to do so.

Moderation policy is an issue members have been specifically invited to express opinions about in this thread by forum moderators, this being a democratic club with democratically elected moderators representing its members and all. I am a member, and I replied with my opinion.

What irritates you personally interests me personally not at all. If you don't like it, don't read it.

-Sam-

[mclane]

Its off topic in a computerchess forum.

You can discuss this in internal admin / moderator forum (or via PM) but discussing moderation issues in PUBLIC is inquisition.

Instead you should try with computerchess content.
If you are capable to to do.

[hgm]

We have heard you, so there is no point repeating your view ad nauseam.

This is not intended to be a discussion between moderators, but an invitation to all members to give some feedback. Moderators of other forum sections can of course voice their opinion too. It is taking place in this section because the discussion it pertains to was placed in this section, and feedback is wanted from those that read this section. The discussion did concern a computer-chess topic: whether CoronaVirusChess will be participating in the ACCA tourney or not.

It puzzles me a bit that only postings that are not obvious charter violations get reported long after the fact by members not involved in the discussion at all, while the charter-violating personal attacks are not even reported by those they are hurled at.

There still are 18 other computer-chess-related discussions on this page where you can enjoy yourself if this topic does not interest you.