Moderators moderated?

[JMcNicoll]

And how come that "Tommy Lennox" post still exists on this thread? That is an offensive post if ever I saw one.

[23/07/2013 15:45 POST MODERATED: Insult removed]

[Andy Howie]

There are two on the grading Database and I know of one parent.

I also know three Tommy Lennox's in real life so unless you are suggesting something...

[Andy Howie]

Derek, perhaps you don't find it easy but there do seem to be like minded people posting here who may be able to present a case for change.
I do suspect that it is not the rules that are in question but the interpretation of them as applied by the current moderators.
If this is the case then that is more difficult to change as that would require regime change at the top. Though that may be easier than presenting a change of rules to a more rigid form with less room for moderators to allow a discussion ( not an argument ) to develop naturally.
It's something those pushing for change need to decide what way to go.
It doesn't seem to me, personally, that criticism of ChessScotland is arbitrarily removed as a matter of rote, though that is just my perception, others seem to think otherwise.
One thing could possibly help could be the appointment of more mods and perhaps 1 or 2 who have sight of the board during the day when other mods have a day job to go to.

Or we could just delete the board altogether as lets face it, it seems to be a "A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee."

[Donald Wilson]

Criticism of Chess Scotland on this forum is allowed - it has to be.

All organisations have faults, and the only way those faults can ever be rectified is if people draw attention to them and, ideally, suggest better ways of working. Any organisation that does not listen to criticism is on a one-way street to extinction.

But what cannot be allowed is personal abuse of unpaid volunteers. Regardless of whether those volunteers are CS officials, ordinary CS members, or non-members, they must be treated with courtesy.

So the moderators have a right (in fact, a duty) to remove any posts which contain personal abuse. But I think they should mark that action by posting a statement to the effect that they have deleted a post, and stating the grounds for deletion (e.g. "personal abuse"), though they should not name either the poster or his/her target.

[Andy Howie]

Thanks Donald

Can I draw everyones attention to http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewt...?f=4&t=727

[WBuchanan]

And how come that "Tommy Lennox" post still exists on this thread? That is an offensive post if ever I saw one. [23/07/2013 15:45 POST MODERATED: Insult removed]

Rules, anyone? If the moderation was even handed the above post, that insults a named person, would have been removed immediately. (The ‘Germany’ reference in the post referred to was to people ‘disappearing’ – a relatively normal political analogy, like ‘Stalinism’ – though these analogies usually misfire. It’s Godwin’s law).

Perhaps the moderating team could be ‘moderated’ so that it doesn’t merely serve the purposes of shielding CS officials from criticism and guiding flak in the direction of critics. Otherwise we should all perhaps just accept the board is simply not for the purpose of open discussion, and just post about chess itself. It would be a pity if this were the reality but accepting this reality might be better than what we seem to have at the moment - criticism is manipulated to such an extent that trying to discuss it is a waste of everyone's time

[Derek Howie]

Thanks Donald

Can I draw everyones attention to http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewt...?f=4&t=727

So is all criticism now banned?

[Andy Howie]

I see nothing about critism, only personal attacks.

[Mike Scott]

Must jump in here to support the Andys & Hugh

The fact that the majority of the censored posts are asserted to be 'criticisms' of Chess Scotland and its officials is more a reflection on the subject matter of the majority of the offending posts. To suggest that the CS president has nobbled the moderators (and the standards committee to boot) is just daft.

The fact that the moderators miss some posts is not evidence of some conspiracy. I have no doubt that, if you care to look, there are posts that are critical of CS et al that have not been removed.

[Mike Scott]

And how come that "Tommy Lennox" post still exists on this thread? That is an offensive post if ever I saw one. [23/07/2013 15:45 POST MODERATED: Insult removed]

I think that sums up the problem in the nut shell. A rather offensive post ironically objecting to a post that I certainly could not take offense to - nor could I imagine anyone else doing so. Rather than make an argument about why it was offensive, the poster simply makes an unsubstantiated personal attack.