Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moderators moderated?
#11
Can the moderators let me know why my post was removed, without letting me know?

Can they also tell me what part was unacceptable so that I can repost the rest, as I feel that the information contained in it is of general interest to the public.
Reply
#12
can the moderators please tell me why my post was removed without telling me?

Also let me know what part of the post was unacceptable, so that I can repost the rest
Reply
#13
I see that yet another post has been removed...................sigh
In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.........
Reply
#14
Your pal Michael Hanley, I believe. He criticised the establishment.
Reply
#15
I see another post moaning about a post being removed. Sigh............... Sad
This is the thing, it's a ChessScotland official forum. Not your usual playbox with no reflection on whoever runs it, and the ability to hide behind an pseudonym and spout actionable drivel at your leisure. There are rules as defined by the membership, if you don't agree with those rules try making a case to change them instead of just taking the easy way out by piling on the constant criticism. Change is easy, make the case, define your new rules, present them at the AGM and get the votes. Simples.
Or all the seemingly negative people can be lumped in with "Tommy Lennox" who seems to think that the moderating regime is on a par with the 3rd Reich, but you probably secretly do, don't you all? Big Grin
Reply
#16
JMcNicoll Wrote:if you don't agree with those rules try making a case to change them instead of just taking the easy way out by piling on the constant criticism. Change is easy, make the case, define your new rules, present them at the AGM and get the votes. Simples.

It's not easy to stand up at an AGM or Council meeting and spend half an hour trying to explain a complex issue and its background to everyone attending. The ideal way would be to prepare a report and get it published to allow everyone to consider it beforehand and perhaps even discuss it on the forum. However when a report is censored (and I'm not talking about Michael Hanley's) and moderators don't allow discussion of any controversial issues on the forum then it's not so simples.
Reply
#17
It doesn't help when moderators themselves chip in with posts like the one on the Michael Hanley thread posted at Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:12 am , which, to paraphrase, basically says,
"Dear Mr X, I think Mr Y thinks you're mad".
That post is still there, of course.

It is all very well to go on about rules but Chess Scotland officials have broken the rules of "due process" and are preventing that fact getting to the audience it should i.e. the members.
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine
Reply
#18
Well said Derek Howie and Alan Jelfs. If criticism of CS is not allowed on the forum, it would save everyone’s time if the moderators would just say so. Regardless of one’s view of particular disputes and grievances, it should surely be regarded as a problem if criticism is simply suppressed and critics attacked - it means the ‘democracy’ part isn’t functioning.
Reply
#19
Alan Jelfs Wrote:It doesn't help when moderators themselves chip in with posts like the one on the Michael Hanley thread posted at Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:12 am , which, to paraphrase, basically says,
"Dear Mr X, I think Mr Y thinks you're mad".
That post is still there, of course.

You're at least the second person to mention that. I've now removed the part of my post that you are referring to. I didn't see it as offensive at the time.
Reply
#20
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.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)