AGM proposal on noticeboard postings

[amuir]

This noticeboard is over moderated. Several very reasonable posts of mine and others have been removed recently.CS is becoming a Stalinist secretive society. If anyone feels the same can we come up with an AGM motion to be proposed and seconded ?

[Andrew McHarg]

Well I disagree that the forum is over-moderated Andy Muir.

But I would support a motion to the AGM that establishes - in a more official sense - guidelines for forum moderators to follow. It would give all concerned (users and mods) a greater idea of what CS wants the forum to be used for. As I've previously said, I don't want to direct policy on here, and will happily comply with any changes agreed at the AGM.

[Andrew McHarg]

Further, I would like to say that I think some posters in the CS community make things very difficult for themselves and everyone else. I've never been a part of a community before that seems to be at constant war with itself. It's as if they actually enjoy it; and don't want to resolve issues. Perhaps that is the core of the problem here, and not how the forum is being run?

And by the way Andy Muir, if you are referring to your posts that I edited yesterday; I stand by that decision. At best the statements I edited were exagerations to enhance the validity of your proposals, and at worst they were a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

[Alex McFarlane]

Forum Moderation is a thankless and extremely difficult task. I haven’t always agreed with some of the decisions taken recently but I did in the case of Andy Muir’s recent ‘claims’.

I think we owe a vote of thanks to the Mods for the work they do.

To come up with a set of guidelines is also difficult. We don’t want unsubstantiated claims made, but neither do we want a toothless puppy. There must be scope to start debate and to introduce areas of concern.

The ECForum used to be part of the ECF but that Board in its wisdom decided to close it down. The result was that Carl Hibbard set up his own version over which the ECF Board has no greater say than any one individual. I believe this was realised as a mistake and there are now links to the forum from the ECF website.

Fora (or Forums) will always attract criticism but they can also be a force for good. They are a great way of passing news (eg Roddy’s potential world record). They can also be used to express concerns. It was the ECForum which revealed that the ECF Board had twice forgotten to tell its members that it was taking legal action against FIDE and that its President had not followed acceptable financial practices. One has to wonder if some of these things would ever have come to the knowledge of many chess players without Carl’s services. (Carl also hosts many of the live games broadcast in Britain, including much of the Scottish, for which much thanks.)

There is really only one rule that needs to be applied to a forum. “All posters should exhibit common sense.” Those that do not should be excluded.
Common sense is unfortunately not that common, so perhaps more prescriptive rules will need to be introduced.

[David Deary]

Has another topic been deleted btw?
You need to be quick to see topics on here these days... blink and you miss them.

[KevinCampbell]

This noticeboard is over moderated. Several very reasonable posts of mine and others have been removed recently.CS is becoming a Stalinist secretive society. If anyone feels the same can we come up with an AGM motion to be proposed and seconded ?

Andy i completely disagree, in fact I would say more moderation is needed.

There are posts on that have not been removed, that contravene the forum rules.

It's good that there is this forum for general chat/ debate about chess.

Was is not acceptable and should not be tolerated are;

Personal attacks, flaming, trolling, insulting, naming individuals.

Any such individual breaking these rules should be warned about their conduct, and then banned if their behaviour persists. The ban term being dependant on the severity of the offense from say a month to a permenant ban.

Also, any member should not relay a message on behalf of some one banned. I would incorporate that into the rules.

In the last week or so there has been numerous posts on here that I feel should be removed, yet are still up that involve flaming/ trolling/ personal attack.

In another community I am involved in it really is harmonious as the Mods deal with any banned behaviour swiftly and effectively. Inappropriate behaviour is not acceptable there, and the forum runs like a dream.

It should be the same on here.

[StevieHilton]

What everyone should consider when posting on the forum, is how the posts reflect on the chess community as a whole.

[WBuchanan]

Well I disagree that the forum is over-moderated Andy Muir.

But I would support a motion to the AGM that establishes - in a more official sense - guidelines for forum moderators to follow. It would give all concerned (users and mods) a greater idea of what CS wants the forum to be used for. As I've previously said, I don't want to direct policy on here, and will happily comply with any changes agreed at the AGM.

New rules are not needed IMO Andrew - following the existing guidelines would suffice. Rule no 1 says No personal attacks or inflammatory behaviour. Personal attacks on CS critics have been allowed to remain, whereas often legit criticism of CS is often quickly scythed as if it were oh so shocking. ‘Moderation’ should not be used to spare potential blushes. Officials will be criticized – or rather their decisions will be, that’s part of openness.

I did agree with yesterday’s deletions though as the discussion had become excessively hot in relation to the original topic.

I am not in any camp - I was unable to form a truly well-informed view of 'the incident' and fallout but I saw the accusations put to the Council meeting here before they were removed. Ironically, this secrecy meant that only the ‘other side’ was seen. Even then it seemed the criticism of CS was being cranked up to the hilt. But members were unable to comment on it. The secrecy gave it a measure of protection it may not have merited. This is how ‘Nothing-gates’ happen.

I think the membership would be a stabilizing force if treated with respect. Criticism just needs to be taken in a more relaxed way.

[Derek Howie]

I would agree that the forum has been over-moderated recently and there have been threads locked or deleted which don't contravene forum rules.

There have been inconsistencies with approach as well with personal attacks being allowed in certain cases but deleted in others.

However I'm not sure what an AGM proposal would do. We do need moderation and can't allow a free-for-all. We still rely on the moderators to apply their personal judgement. I have disagreed with much of that recently but it's a subjective issue.

[WBuchanan]

I did agree with yesterday’s deletions though as the discussion had become excessively hot in relation to the original topic.

Just thinking about this I realized had difficulty remembering what the original topic was. Does the whole topic need to be deleted? Can the good mods not majestically swoop down from high and just purge the offending post (or even part?) giving a reason (eg "please consult the guidelines on xyz") and leaving behind a shell of the orginal?

B**s
(Just testing material for my idea )