Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forum Moderation
#21
Perhaps.

Greenwood all seem to have the same target however.

Why?
Reply
#22
Andy McCulloch Wrote:Perhaps.

Greenwood all seem to have the same target however.

Why?

Quite an accusation... also a little bit tribal =o I know I said I wouldn't post again but I felt this post required a response.

I have honestly not spoken to Pat regarding his post being removed and I would have objected to anyone's post being removed. Whilst myself and Pat are both members of Greenwood Chess Club we are not representative of the views of our club. An important distinction, I post here as an individual detached from my various roles in Greenwood Chess Club, the Ayrhsire Chess Association and CS Council. So respectfully, I suggest you leave my club out of this.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#23
Andy McCulloch Wrote:Perhaps.

Greenwood all seem to have the same target however.

Why?

Hi Andy McCulloch, when you say "Greenwood all..", I play for Greenwood and was not aware that we were targeting anyone, other than possibly Kilmarnock for next seasons Ayrshire League title.

I did miss much of what the fuss was about as I was playing chess at the weekend. From what I can gather though, it's about whether non-members should be allowed to post on the CS forum. Apologies, if this is not the case.

This is an issue which has been discussed with me in the past (when posters could remain hidden behind a pseudonym) by people from outside Ayrshire who found the comments of some aggravating. The opinion was that the offending non-members were happy to put their tuppence worth in to a debate but not into supporting Chess Scotland.

My personal opinion was and is, that I think all should be allowed to post on the forum. If you don't like what is said or don't agree, ignore it or debate the point. Your choice.

Apologies to my Greenwood team mates if I'm off message and we are actually targeting more than Kilmarnock. =|
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#24
Sorry, I would amend the post to 'a small group from Greenwood' if I could, but it is not possible. That was my intended meaning, and I should not have impugned the club, for that I apologise.
Reply
#25
this discussion is now at the laughable stage; and here I thought it was only Greenwood who had a persecution complex Big Grin
It is not paranoia if you know they are out to get you.
Infamy, Infamy.......... Big Grin
Reply
#26
Patrick McGovern Wrote:this discussion is now at the laughable stage; and here I thought it was only Greenwood who had a persecution complex Big Grin
It is not paranoia if you know they are out to get you.
Infamy, Infamy.......... Big Grin

Nah, Hamilton as well (quickly blocks Mikes number on his phone)
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#27
Phil Thomas Wrote:As for why me?

I respond with another question Why not? It could have been anyone from amongst the many notice board readers who is in the subset that feel competent enough to post on the mathematics of grading systems.
Actually to do so I need also be in the subset of those who feel able to handle potential notice board abuse. To misquote David Deary it takes guts to post on this board and it takes guts to complain to moderators about unacceptable posts. To help David's thought processes rather then blame the board moderators perhaps that anonymous person has a high strike rate because the posts attacking him/her are more worthy of deletion?

Phil, I believe you posted these on the wrong topic. They ended up in the Council Meeting topic but they should have been here. I'm not a fan of debating a point with someone on different topics so I've quoted your post here and will reply to it here. I’m quite happy to debate the points with you provided we both play nice. Tongue

As you have unveiled yourself above as what I referred to earlier as the "perpetual complainant" I'm curious why you choose the option of going to the moderators first. Surely, it makes more sense for you to point out why you are unhappy with the post in a PM or E-mail to the poster to allow them to make amends for their post? I think this would certainly get a better response than badgering the moderators (which doesn't take guts). Also, I'm not convinced your strike rate is that high I suspect you complain about 10 times the number of posts that actually get moderated in some way. So I guess your 'strike rate' is maybe 10% at best.

Phil Thomas Wrote:A notice board that is far from dead. I counted yesterday 16 threads that had been active within the last 7 days. Many more and this board will start to look like the ECF forum - now would that be a good thing? - new thread anyone?

I don't think the new board is as active as the old one. Perhaps the mods or forum administrator can post some stats but to suggest that the last 7 days of activity are more statistically significant than the prior 21 months since the forums inception is a stretch.

If you look at the Board Index and sum the topics I got 593 topics excluding the archive if I divide that by 21 months X 30 days (630) = I get 0.941 topics a day. If I sum up the posts I get 6133 divided by 630 gives 9.73 posts a day. It doesn't strike me as particularly active compared to other forums I'm on but perhaps those aren't like for like comparisons.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#28
David Deary Wrote:
Phil Thomas Wrote:As for why me?

I respond with another question Why not? It could have been anyone from amongst the many notice board readers who is in the subset that feel competent enough to post on the mathematics of grading systems.
Actually to do so I need also be in the subset of those who feel able to handle potential notice board abuse. To misquote David Deary it takes guts to post on this board and it takes guts to complain to moderators about unacceptable posts. To help David's thought processes rather then blame the board moderators perhaps that anonymous person has a high strike rate because the posts attacking him/her are more worthy of deletion?

Phil, I believe you posted these on the wrong topic. They ended up in the Council Meeting topic but they should have been here. I'm not a fan of debating a point with someone on different topics so I've quoted your post here and will reply to it here. I’m quite happy to debate the points with you provided we both play nice. Tongue

As you have unveiled yourself above as what I referred to earlier as the "perpetual complainant" I'm curious why you choose the option of going to the moderators first. Surely, it makes more sense for you to point out why you are unhappy with the post in a PM or E-mail to the poster to allow them to make amends for their post? I think this would certainly get a better response than badgering the moderators (which doesn't take guts). Also, I'm not convinced your strike rate is that high I suspect you complain about 10 times the number of posts that actually get moderated in some way. So I guess your 'strike rate' is maybe 10% at best.

Phil Thomas Wrote:A notice board that is far from dead. I counted yesterday 16 threads that had been active within the last 7 days. Many more and this board will start to look like the ECF forum - now would that be a good thing? - new thread anyone?

I don't think the new board is as active as the old one. Perhaps the mods or forum administrator can post some stats but to suggest that the last 7 days of activity are more statistically significant than the prior 21 months since the forums inception is a stretch.

If you look at the Board Index and sum the topics I got 593 topics excluding the archive if I divide that by 21 months X 30 days (630) = I get 0.941 topics a day. If I sum up the posts I get 6133 divided by 630 gives 9.73 posts a day. It doesn't strike me as particularly active compared to other forums I'm on but perhaps those aren't like for like comparisons.




David,
for your information I can recall making two requests for deletion of an offensive post.
On both occasions my request was accepted by the moderator.

If my memory and maths are both correct that is a strike rate of 100%

Since we are trading statistical data. How many time this month have you been onto the notice board to complain about a perpetual complainant? Would that number be higher than 2 by any chance?
Reply
#29
Quote:I don't think the new board is as active as the old one. Perhaps the mods or forum administrator can post some stats but to suggest that the last 7 days of activity are more statistically significant than the prior 21 months since the forums inception is a stretch.

If you look at the Board Index and sum the topics I got 593 topics excluding the archive if I divide that by 21 months X 30 days (630) = I get 0.941 topics a day. If I sum up the posts I get 6133 divided by 630 gives 9.73 posts a day. It doesn't strike me as particularly active compared to other forums I'm on but perhaps those aren't like for like comparisons.

I don't have any data to back this up - and the old forum isn't up any more, so it's difficult to check - but from what I remember, that board also saw long stretches of relative inactivity, punctuated by occasional busy periods. The 'a few days of high activity' thing remains significant, because board activity has always been very patchy, depending on whether anything particularly controversial is going on.

Honestly, off the top of my head I'd have guessed at lower numbers than those, actually.
Reply
#30
Phil Thomas Wrote:David,
for your information I can recall making two requests for deletion of an offensive post.
On both occasions my request was accepted by the moderator.

If my memory and maths are both correct that is a strike rate of 100%

Since we are trading statistical data. How many time this month have you been onto the notice board to complain about a perpetual complainant? Would that number be higher than 2 by any chance?

Phil, it would be nice if you actually answered all of the questions posed to you or even acknowledged them. Why do you feel the need to go to the moderators in the first instance? Can you not resolve something with somebody on a one to one in a pm or an email?

So, you have only made two complaints to moderators on this forum? I know you mentioned requests but their is a difference between requests and complaints. I recall one where you emailed all forum users in August of last year and then there is the post that was removed last week? That makes two and these are the only two?

I don't think the number of times I have complained about inconsistent moderation exceeds the number of times the perpetual complainant has complained. ;P I'm opposed to the moderators stepping in. It should be as a last resort and only when someone crosses the line.

Hugh Brechin Wrote:Honestly, off the top of my head I'd have guessed at lower numbers than those, actually.

Andy H might be able to advise. I'm pretty sure he keeps the old noticeboard alive.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)