Moderation: questions, discussion and completely pointless whinging

[antichrist]

The way that some people carry on about American politics is a good illustration of the meaning of the American term "Get a life.".

Of course it's open to members either to not read the threads concerned or to hide posts from any especially egregious offender(s). However it seems that this ability is being circumvented by the Shoutbox being used as a supplementary debating forum, which has the problem of obscuring legitimate shouts. So I would like to propose that American politics be banned from the Shoutbox - or all non-domestic politics or all politics if that would be easier. I would further propose that it be enforced by zero tolerance, i.e. no second chances or appeals, just immediate suspension.

I can understand if you do not like how it should be modded is ? But the last chess shout was on 22/11 by Leon Sandler, I have noticed that on occasions the SB will keep the same shout on top for days at a time well I don't consider that a good look either which is this case would 6 days. Over activity is better than inactivity. At least politics is about serious issues and the particular recent topic we ODed on in the long term is also crucial for Australia.

[Patrick Byrom]

The way that some people carry on about American politics is a good illustration of the meaning of the American term "Get a life.".

We were discussing the impeachment (and possible removal) of a US President - a major issue which has dominated media coverage in Australia. That doesn't mean it belongs in the Shoutbox, of course.

Of course it's open to members either to not read the threads concerned or to hide posts from any especially egregious offender(s). However it seems that this ability is being circumvented by the Shoutbox being used as a supplementary debating forum, which has the problem of obscuring legitimate shouts. So I would like to propose that American politics be banned from the Shoutbox - or all non-domestic politics or all politics if that would be easier. I would further propose that it be enforced by zero tolerance, i.e. no second chances or appeals, just immediate suspension.

I don't believe that there were any legitimate chess shouts over the period in question. As AntiChrist points out, if there's no chess activity in the Shoutbox over an extended period, it's not surprising if non-chess shouts start appearing.

But I have no objection to a ban on political discussions in the Shoutbox.

[antichrist]

We were discussing the impeachment (and possible removal) of a US President - a major issue which has dominated media coverage in Australia. That doesn't mean it belongs in the Shoutbox, of course.

I don't believe that there were any legitimate chess shouts over the period in question. As AntiChrist points out, if there's no chess activity in the Shoutbox over an extended period, it's not surprising if non-chess shouts start appearing.

But I have no objection to a ban on political discussions in the Shoutbox.

Politics is okay in the SB depending on how it is presented. I think some lines that are show stoppers deserve coverage, a recent example being "the Russian hacking was a digital Pearl Harbour". Something a bit smart can be eye catching but sniping at each other is not good PR. KB has left the door a bit open for me and that is a good decision - he doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But nothing is worse than the same shout being up for a week - the place appears in the coffin. As some Yank famously stated "those born with fire in the belly find the calm boring".

[ER]

Richard Voon's passing thread has been hijacked by completely irrelevant topics.
That's unfair for his memory.
I 'd suggest PeterJansen's interesting reminiscence to be transferred to some other thread
such as Australian chess history or LLoyd Fell related threads.

[antichrist]

Should there be a rule that if someone states they are not talking to you then you should not be allowed to address or mention them? In person we probably wouldn't attempt to communicate

[Kevin Bonham]

Should there be a rule that if someone states they are not talking to you then you should not be allowed to address or mention them? In person we probably wouldn't attempt to communicate

No. This is a public forum and so someone is free to comment on what someone else has said even if the other person has asked them not to or isn't talking to them. If a poster doesn't like another posters posts they can put that poster on ignore (preferably without gloating about it.)

The exception is private messages. We have at least once taken someone's PM rights away because they ignored a request from another member to not PM them again. That's not to say we would always do so. If A sends B a PM listing 100 ways in which B is a loser and closes it with "oh by the way don't PM me again" then that's not valid.