The secret of TalkChess

[hgm]

[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".

[BrendanJNorman]

[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.

[Ovyron]

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.

[Ras]

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.

[Guenther]

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.

Yes, this is a censored board. When registering to it you are noticed about this and have to approve.

[Ovyron]

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"?

[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.

[hgm]

Well, to satisfy your curiosity: I did decide to move the thread to the archive on my own, after Harvey had already locked it, informing Harvey by PM of my action. I don't feel inhibited to take such a solo action, because the thread can always be moved back if the other moderators would not agree. But Harvey since has expressed by PM that he approves deletion of the thread.

I consider it unwise to leave exchanges of rude insults visible; there will always be participants that feel they are behind in such a shouting match, and will seek possibilities to get even elsewhere on the earliest occasion. It is just a way to breed discontent. If all insults are deleted, no one has any reason to think he has to get even for anything.

Removing the entire thread is indeed a somewhat lazy solution, but it is technically rather difficult on this forum to clip off the part where it derailed if a thread does not have a linear structure. (I.e. if many posters replied not to the latest post, but to someone earlier in the list, so that it gets a branched structure.) I am not sure if I want to make the effort in this case, since it was doubtful whether the original posting wasn't already a violation of the charter, and the original poster was responsible for most of the derailing anyway. Why should I work hard to clean up other people's messes?

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.

[MikeB]

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.

+1 Good suggestion...

[MikeB]

Well, to satisfy your curiosity: I did decide to move the thread to the archive on my own, after Harvey had already locked it, informing Harvey by PM of my action. I don't feel inhibited to take such a solo action, because the thread can always be moved back if the other moderators would not agree. But Harvey since has expressed by PM that he approves deletion of the thread.

I consider it unwise to leave exchanges of rude insults visible; there will always be participants that feel they are behind in such a shouting match, and will seek possibilities to get even elsewhere on the earliest occasion. It is just a way to breed discontent. If all insults are deleted, no one has any reason to think he has to get even for anything.

Removing the entire thread is indeed a somewhat lazy solution, but it is technically rather difficult on this forum to clip off the part where it derailed if a thread does not have a linear structure. (I.e. if many posters replied not to the latest post, but to someone earlier in the list, so that it gets a branched structure.) I am not sure if I want to make the effort in this case, since it was doubtful whether the original posting wasn't already a violation of the charter, and the original poster was responsible for most of the derailing anyway. Why should I work hard to clean up other people's messes?

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.

+1 The moderators' actions here were appropriate.