Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forum been made members only?
#11
And fixed... Cheers Alan
"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
#12
Andy Howie Wrote:worked it out. closing that loophole if I can

Curses .. foiled ...
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine
Reply
#13
Rather than having a public and members only section I would like to see a three strikes and out policy introduced. If three independent complaints for three separate topics are lodged against a forum user then the individual would be automatically referred to the standards committee.
The receipt of one or two yellow cards should curtail the behavior of some of the more over zealous participants. However, If they choose to disregard the warnings and their comments are deemed unacceptable by the Standards Committee then they should be removed from the forum for a fitting length of time.
Reply
#14
Andy Howie Wrote:The main benefit I see from the point of view of making the forum for registered users (I'll stop using Members as it is confusing) is that the moderation does not have to be as strict as there can be a frank discussion without the whole world reading it!

Well, that theory hasn't worked out. Big Grin
Reply
#15
Personally I do not see the point of a having ‘members only’ forum unless it is only Chess Scotland members who can view and post on it.

And now that we are trying this new format (not that I was asked anything about it as a Chess Scotland member) why is the forum being moderated to death??????
In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.........
Reply
#16
I should state here that I'm responding only as a poster - I'm currently playing chess in Andorra (lost to Bremner today; nightmare) and very much on holiday, and my internet access is intermittent. During this period, I'm leaving moderating duties to my (far more qualified) colleagues.

The forum is currently being 'moderated to death' because it is more contentious than I can ever remember. I've been posting on various incarnations of the noticeboard since 2006 (I think), and taken part in probably more than my fair share of dust-ups. I was an involved poster for a long time before I was a moderator. I've always striven to be polite, but I couldn't deny that I've posted in anger before. Nevertheless, the extent to which rancour and division is currently dominating the discourse is something new.

Andrew and Andy have an incredibly hard job. I moderate as well, but I kind of drop in and out, and unlike them I don't also take responsibility for administering the board. All of us have other things in our lives as well, and we each get emails or messages on a fairly regular basis, from multiple people, complaining about the content of noticeboard contributions. Perhaps we err on the side of caution in removing things too much. I just wish it wasn't like this.

The Chess Scotland Forum isn't meant to be contentious. It's not really a place for 'political' debates either, or at least it's not exclusively for that - that's what the AGM is for. It's meant to be somewhere we talk about chess. I understand that plenty of people have serious grievances about various matters, but I just wish that wasn't all people wanted to talk about. At the moment we've got various Scots playing chess - you know, that game we're all allegedly interested in - abroad. Yesterday Neil Berry beat a 2600, and Iain Swan had by far the better of a draw against the Andorran Open's top seed. Elsewhere, our Seniors team are putting in the usual strong performance, and thanks to Alistair White's excellent reports I've found out that we drew with Italy, which is awesome. We've also got a good few players in the Czech Republic, where Alan Tate has turned in at least one terrific performance. Not that anyone seems to be paying attention.

I'd love it if that was what people were interested in talking about, but instead we've got day after day of accusations, counter-accusations, 'explanations' and public statements. I entirely understand that a lot of people on various sides of various issues are unhappy, and want to have their say. I'm not under any kind of illusion that the problems which have arisen over the last year will dissipate if everyone shuts their eyes and pretends fairies are real. This also shouldn't be taken as any kind of statement from on high that posts about CS issues are forbidden - like I say, I'm posting 'off duty' here and am not threatening any bannings or deletions. I just wish it wasn't like this. As someone who has a lot of respect for various people on different sides of recent contentious issues, it's just really depressing to log in and read nothing but what we've seen for the last month or so.

To address the general thread topic: if things continue as they currently are, I can't imagine why any of us who support chess in Scotland would want the general public reading this forum.
Reply
#17
What a mess! At a time when we could do with a bit of positive ‘press’ we are in the unenviable situation where the behaviour of our own members on our own notice-board is considered unfit for public consumption. Or even in some cases for other ‘members’ (or should it be ‘notice-board users’) to view.

Frustratingly this comes at a time when we have 25 adult players ‘representing’ Scotland (at their own expense) in various capacities in tournaments abroad, in Andorra, in the Czech Republic, and with the Seniors in Germany. And we also have I don’t know how many juniors struggling manfully (or should it be ‘kidfully’) against more experienced opponents in the Glorney et al.

How much of all that is being reported in the national press? Certainly not in ‘Scotland in Sunday’ where Dougie’s column (along with former Glorney Cup player Ian Crorie’s Bridge Column) appear to have been axed as part of some ‘subtle changes’ made to the editorial policy there. As a consequence of which I will be forced to make some equally ‘subtle changes’ to my own newspaper buying habits. And if I published what I have said about of the Scottish Chess coverage of its sister publication ‘the Scotsman’ I might also fall foul of the censors myself.

In the 1970’s the reporting of Bobby Fischer’s exploits (and sometimes bad behaviour) made front page headlines in the media and resulted in an explosion of people wanting to play chess. That probably isn’t going to happen again, for a number of reasons. But we need to have continued active reporting of chess in this country or it will die a slow lingering death. In an ideal world that reporting should include public forums (fora?) which should report all that is good about what is going on.

If you want to have arguments, that’s fine. But there has to be a clear separation between genuine ‘reporting’ of chess on the internet, (which can then be picked up and reported further by the ‘media’) and all that personal stuff. Unfortunately I can’t see how that can be achieved in the current climate so we will just have to put up with it until the AGM. And for how long after that?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)