The eventually upcoming police policy in the CCC....

[markboylan]

You can't blame all of CCC's problems on moderation techniques.

Computer chess enthusiasts are a generally humorless lot. If so many people here didn't take themselves so seriously this forum probably wouldn't need moderation.

[Henrik Dinesen]

You can't blame all of CCC's problems on moderation techniques.

Computer chess enthusiasts are a generally humorless lot. If so many people here didn't take themselves so seriously this forum probably wouldn't need moderation.

*cough*

[Zach Wegner]

Yes, I have a problem with spamming because it has become a pest for the last couple of months that made this sub-forum very difficult to read. I also have a problem with contributions that look nothing but a "soccer-like" support of certain issues. I hope this subforum picks it up, because recently, it sucks.

Agreed 100%.

[jwes]

You can't blame all of CCC's problems on moderation techniques.

Computer chess enthusiasts are a generally humorless lot. If so many people here didn't take themselves so seriously this forum probably wouldn't need moderation.

There are currently 952 registered users. Perhaps 10 of those are involved in 90% of the flame wars.

[markboylan]

You can't blame all of CCC's problems on moderation techniques.

Computer chess enthusiasts are a generally humorless lot. If so many people here didn't take themselves so seriously this forum probably wouldn't need moderation.

There are currently 952 registered users. Perhaps 10 of those are involved in 90% of the flame wars.

That sounds about right. Do you have any statistics on how many are offended?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

You can't blame all of CCC's problems on moderation techniques.

Computer chess enthusiasts are a generally humorless lot. If so many people here didn't take themselves so seriously this forum probably wouldn't need moderation.

There are currently 952 registered users. Perhaps 10 of those are involved in 90% of the flame wars.

[djbl]

a good moderator lets ppl talk about whatever they want to talk about, as long as they do so in a decent and respectful manner. i dont see them as being there to direct the discussions but to merely to set the tone. even if certain things are wrong, or even criminal for that matter it shouldnt make us silent to them, that is simply ridiculous and treating ppl like children. jeez, we should be able to mention a murderer without it meaning we condone murder. sweeping things under the carpet and not talking about them doesnt make them go away anyway, just ask vas. if a moral position is so secure it should be able to withstand a discussion, especially between chess geeks. is this talkchess.com or partialtalkchess.com

[djbl]

oh, and about the elections, well, what is the point in voting for censorship when u can find that in plenty of other places already. if you dont want to talk about something you can do that absolutely anywhere at anytime. it is a vote for nothing in effect.

[Graham Banks]

oh, and about the elections, well, what is the point in voting for censorship when u can find that in plenty of other places already. if you dont want to talk about something you can do that absolutely anywhere at anytime. it is a vote for nothing in effect.

See - the timing of your joining plus a search of your posts speaks volumes.
There's a forum that you possibly already belong to that would welcome you with open arms.
Let the established members vote for what they want.

[markboylan]

a good moderator lets ppl talk about whatever they want to talk about, as long as they do so in a decent and respectful manner. i dont see them as being there to direct the discussions but to merely to set the tone. even if certain things are wrong, or even criminal for that matter it shouldnt make us silent to them, that is simply ridiculous and treating ppl like children. jeez, we should be able to mention a murderer without it meaning we condone murder. sweeping things under the carpet and not talking about them doesnt make them go away anyway, just ask vas. if a moral position is so secure it should be able to withstand a discussion, especially between chess geeks. is this talkchess.com or partialtalkchess.com

Everything you say makes good sense, but only from the point of view of a member.

What you see on the forum is not everything that the moderators see. They receive a constant flow of complaints and private messages -- and the private messages are almost always complaints too. I think it's pretty rare for them to receive a thanks or a congratulations for a job well done.

I'm not saying that they need thanks, or even expect it. But, the continuous stream of complaints starts to wear on anyone after a while. And in a constant struggle to make the unhappy people happy, they often end up making the happy people unhappy. If you define the job as keeping everyone happy, it's becomes an impossible task. They can't define the job that way if they value their sanity, so neither should we.

I defined it that way when I was a moderator and it was my downfall. I believe I have the dubious honor of being the only moderator ever to surrender.