Unfair Poll

[Leo]

talkchess.com should be abandoned altogether. Those who want to stay in the Computer Chess Club could move to computerchessclub.com, and those who want to stay in the Chess Thinkers Forum could move to chessthinkersforum.com; both sites could be hosted by chessusa.com. That way the divorce is more like the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which doesn't exist anymore, having been replaced by the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

What a horrible idea.

[corres]

talkchess.com should be abandoned altogether. Those who want to stay in the Computer Chess Club could move to computerchessclub.com, and those who want to stay in the Chess Thinkers Forum could move to chessthinkersforum.com; both sites could be hosted by chessusa.com. That way the divorce is more like the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which doesn't exist anymore, having been replaced by the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Are you one of the owners of the Talk Chess site?
In this case you are right, in any other case this is a usual hostile viewing from a left side member.

[corres]

Not all ethnic cleansing is bad. If two groups cannot stand each other, it is best to separate them. It is the injustice that usually accompanies it that gives it a bad name. Often it is just an euphemism for genocide, and in other cases for robbing one group of all its possessions, and turning them into homeless refugees. That is of course evil. Having to move large crowds is of course bad, but it is better than a perpetual civil war. Of course peacefully coexisting would be best for everyone. But some people are just not capable of that.
Cyprus is an interesting example. These Greeks and Turks really hate each other's guts. In the long run everyone there is perhaps better off living in their own part of the island.
If cleansing only means you have to change ISP...

Sometime I can agree you, hgm. But if I were such a liberalized, multi-culti believer as you are in the time of
99 %, I ought to say this is a fascistic or maybe red fascistic that is - bolshevik - method for solving of the problems.
Stalin was the leaders, who ordered to deport Jews to Soviet far East, into the cold taiga to defend them from German SS and from the repeated progroms from the side of Russian and Ukrainian.
After the WWII. was the most bigger "population exchange" in Europe: Even peaceful German masses were deported from Poland, from Ukraine, from Hungary and from Czecho-Slovakia. The Czech who was thirst for revenge killed or even mercilessly beaten to death many Germans. Russian soldiers got orders to rape every German women - mclane, if you do not know or do not want to know about what your kamaraden did. The "heroic" red horde made it in Hungary, too.

[chrisw]

talkchess.com should be abandoned altogether. Those who want to stay in the Computer Chess Club could move to computerchessclub.com, and those who want to stay in the Chess Thinkers Forum could move to chessthinkersforum.com; both sites could be hosted by chessusa.com. That way the divorce is more like the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which doesn't exist anymore, having been replaced by the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

It is difficult to see how an account that signed up only 23 DAYS ago can have sufficient time and knowledge to have formed a valid opinion.

[corres]

talkchess.com should be abandoned altogether. Those who want to stay in the Computer Chess Club could move to computerchessclub.com, and those who want to stay in the Chess Thinkers Forum could move to chessthinkersforum.com; both sites could be hosted by chessusa.com. That way the divorce is more like the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which doesn't exist anymore, having been replaced by the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

It is difficult to see how an account that signed up only 23 DAYS ago can have sufficient time and knowledge to have formed a valid opinion.

Nohow.
If somebody is a believer of pol.correctness it will support any actions against unbeliever.
Maybe you would be happy about it.

[Sam Hull]

In the past I ran for CTF moderator 2 or 3 times, last time 12 years ago, or so. What I learned, you can not wait till people start to press the complaint button, that's maybe works for CCC, in CTF moderators need to actively monitor the forum on a daily base and act, put the fire out before it becomes unmanageable. The 3 mods can decide to divide the days they are active if there is a need for it. This did not happen during the last CTF period, moderators expected that people are responsible themselves and hit the complaint button, it did not work.

Several people offered their help to clean the place, there is a will among the members to improve. I want to make the following suggestion, give the CTF members a short time to sort out their problems, come up with a trio that is united, actively monitors the forum on a daily base and is not afraid to act, strictly following the charter.

As I have pointed out over and over, "strictly following the charter" does not let moderators proactively remove controversial material. There is no provision anywhere for removing a post because, for example, it cites scientific studies showing average IQ differences among races. But there are fair grounds for removing ANY material that generates member complaints; in particular, when multiple members find the material offensive and formally report it. It continues to amaze me that people are willing to fill threads with paragraphs of self-righteous ire about the tone of the forum, but they can't manage to click the report post button and empower moderators to remove the content they find so deplorable.

We have had more than one moderator in CTF who decided to do "proactive" moderation based on what he deemed personally offensive, and in those cases the membership rose up and demanded a special election and fired him. Any independent action by those "in power" that isn't firmly grounded in a charter clause is going to get attacked viciously by those who disagree. I speak from experience.

If you want less controversy in CTF but can't be troubled to help out by reporting offensive posts, I would suggest the solution is not new moderators, although a new method for appointing them board-wide is desperately needed. The solution is a separate posting policy statement for that forum with tighter restrictions on what may be posted, granting moderators greater official freedom of action.

-Sam-

[corres]

...
As I have pointed out over and over, "strictly following the charter" does not let moderators proactively remove controversial material. There is no provision anywhere for removing a post because, for example, it cites scientific studies showing average IQ differences among races. But there are fair grounds for removing ANY material that generates member complaints; in particular, when multiple members find the material offensive and formally report it. It continues to amaze me that people are willing to fill threads with paragraphs of self-righteous ire about the tone of the forum, but they can't manage to click the report post button and empower moderators to remove the content they find so deplorable.

We have had more than one moderator in CTF who decided to do "proactive" moderation based on what he deemed personally offensive, and in those cases the membership rose up and demanded a special election and fired him. Any independent action by those "in power" that isn't firmly grounded in a charter clause is going to get attacked viciously by those who disagree. I speak from experience.

If you want less controversy in CTF but can't be troubled to help out by reporting offensive posts, I would suggest the solution is not new moderators, although a new method for appointing them board-wide is desperately needed. The solution is a separate posting policy statement for that forum with tighter restrictions on what may be posted, granting moderators greater official freedom of action.

-Sam-

Controversial materials are good base for dispute. But such a heterogeneous community as Talk Chess is nobody can await scientific debate. Moreover nowadays a lot of problem are political question also and even scientist are rather divided politically. In this community in all time there are people who feel himself offended and I think with voting moderators can not be able decide about which post is very offending and which is not.
In general I think the clicking is a childish peaching. Adult can be able to handle the disagreements and his emotions, even offended personal vanity too and I accept the liberal (but not libertarian!) handling of issues among member`s opinions and posting also.

[towforce]

As I have pointed out over and over, "strictly following the charter" does not let moderators proactively remove controversial material. There is no provision anywhere for removing a post because, for example, it cites scientific studies showing average IQ differences among races. But there are fair grounds for removing ANY material that generates member complaints; in particular, when multiple members find the material offensive and formally report it. It continues to amaze me that people are willing to fill threads with paragraphs of self-righteous ire about the tone of the forum, but they can't manage to click the report post button and empower moderators to remove the content they find so deplorable.

We have had more than one moderator in CTF who decided to do "proactive" moderation based on what he deemed personally offensive, and in those cases the membership rose up and demanded a special election and fired him. Any independent action by those "in power" that isn't firmly grounded in a charter clause is going to get attacked viciously by those who disagree. I speak from experience.

If you want less controversy in CTF but can't be troubled to help out by reporting offensive posts, I would suggest the solution is not new moderators, although a new method for appointing them board-wide is desperately needed. The solution is a separate posting policy statement for that forum with tighter restrictions on what may be posted, granting moderators greater official freedom of action.

-Sam-

Of course: an inner city pub which aggressive young men go to is going to require heavier control than a rural cake shop that little old ladies visit.

[Sam Hull]

...
As I have pointed out over and over, "strictly following the charter" does not let moderators proactively remove controversial material. There is no provision anywhere for removing a post because, for example, it cites scientific studies showing average IQ differences among races. But there are fair grounds for removing ANY material that generates member complaints; in particular, when multiple members find the material offensive and formally report it. It continues to amaze me that people are willing to fill threads with paragraphs of self-righteous ire about the tone of the forum, but they can't manage to click the report post button and empower moderators to remove the content they find so deplorable.

We have had more than one moderator in CTF who decided to do "proactive" moderation based on what he deemed personally offensive, and in those cases the membership rose up and demanded a special election and fired him. Any independent action by those "in power" that isn't firmly grounded in a charter clause is going to get attacked viciously by those who disagree. I speak from experience.

If you want less controversy in CTF but can't be troubled to help out by reporting offensive posts, I would suggest the solution is not new moderators, although a new method for appointing them board-wide is desperately needed. The solution is a separate posting policy statement for that forum with tighter restrictions on what may be posted, granting moderators greater official freedom of action.

-Sam-

Controversial materials are good base for dispute. But such a heterogeneous community as Talk Chess is nobody can await scientific debate. Moreover nowadays a lot of problem are political question also and even scientist are rather divided politically. In this community in all time there are people who feel himself offended and I think with voting moderators can not be able decide about which post is very offending and which is not.
In general I think the clicking is a childish peaching. Adult can be able to handle the disagreements and his emotions, even offended personal vanity too and I accept the liberal (but not libertarian!) handling of issues among member`s opinions and posting also.

And that would be fine, members maturely tolerating disagreements and controversy, not reporting offensive opinions, etc., if they didn't then feel compelled to post endless rants about how bad the forum is and how deficient the moderators are. In some ways that's just as offensive and tiresome as the other and tends to intensify the objectionable atmosphere.

-Sam-

[Albert Silver]

What do members think about our Chess Thinkers subforum (CTF)? There are 3 options below please reply in this thread with either 1, 2 or 3. One post per member only. Any other content will be deleted. We can not run this as a poll as since the forum upgrade polls are broken. This will run for 7 days.

1. CTF should continue as it is now.
2. CTF should be closed
3. Allow CTF to continue as a hidden forum only visible to those who request access.

I was actually the very first moderator of CTF, so sympathize with the controversial feelings. I believe I shared this responsibility with Bruce Moreland, but it has been 20 years, and my memory of it is a bit fuzzy.

A lot of users, programmers and CC fans kept breaking out into random talks on a wide variety of subjects in the main, and only forum area dedicated to computer chess. Steven Schwartz decided that to reduce the problems of constantly asking for members to rein in their off-topic discussions he would create a forum for precisely that. Even then anti-semitism and more were visible in the discussions and comments and I was of a mind to moderate this. Schwartz, himself Jewish, asked me not to, and argued passionately and more than once that 1) if someone was going to talk crap about him, he would prefer they do so to his face than behind his back, and 2) he was a huge supporter of freedom of speech. I admired this position of his, and was also deeply grateful when my stint as moderator was over as I found it quite stressful reading all this almost out of necessity and responsibility. I don't support its removal, but understand those who do.