I think it's time for another mod rotation. I wish to step down, Mal is MIA, and I believe TGC is willing to stay on as senior mod (but TGC, correct me if I'm wrong).

This would mean that we need two new mods. Any volunteers, or nominations? I'd like to nominate SCK.

The main problem will be finding people willing to do the job who show up at CN regularly (this is why I argued against Mal during the previous series of nominations) and who have not yet acted as mod. With that in mind we might consider appointing regulars for a second time, and in that case I suggest inky.

As far as newcomers go SCK would be my first choice too, but I also nominate Guy Kerr, RingLord, Ed Yetman (though he will no doubt decline), littlefish (though he will likely decline), PircAlert, HK, and Chess Fan (yes, Chess Fan, seriously).

First off, off-topic, Happy New Year 2009 to you all!

Good job by Sach Binger and TGC. TGC gets my vote for the best moderator! He is the best diplomat behind the scenes in lessening the inter-ninja tensions.

Fantastic choices by Crumhorn! My nominations are SCK, RingLord and Sam Hardwick! SCK and RL are very respectful towards others when discussing polarizing issues. And Sam's knowledge, right choice of words, interesting perspectives (and change of sex) stun me all the time. They are super-stable and super-cool! And please allow me to say that our Canadian brothers (Crumhorn, Ken and TGC) have been impressive and so is Guy Kerr.

Also note that there are several folks like LF, HK, Ed Yetman, RB, NFM, Spock, Petrosianic, inky, FBX, Proloy etc who would be great!

My choices:
1. SCK
2. RL
3. Sam Hardwick
4. Guy Kerr

Well, as for me, any person who *would NOT* let their bias and dislike against *any* particular person, (and that person's views on things), affect their Moderating at all would be fine with me.

Along those particular lines, I just want to say here that both SachBinger and The Gelatinous Cube have done a *great* job as moderators.

They have done a *great job* in "walking the editing line" in allowing myself to be able to insert a *little bit* of "religious talk" into non-religious threads *when they see* that I am ONLY using that "religious talk" as a vital part on my making a point in my discussing something in a particular post of mine in a topic thread.

But, they have also done their job well as Moderators when they have used their discretion in telling me that I was going "over the line" when they judged that I was my using my "religious talk" in a non-necessary way in a particular non-religious thread.

Indeed, I have gained a great deal of respect for BOTH SachBinger AND for The Gelatinous Cube for the wisdom that they have shown in this area concerning myself!

So, once again, in closing here, I am fine with *anyone* being a Moderator, as long as they are a person who will NOT use their role as a Moderator to exercise their particular bias and dislike of another person in their *unnecessarily* censoring and editing and deleting that particular person's posts against that particular person with whom they have their own personal bias and dislike against.


Chess Fan

Well, I appreciate the fact that Crumhorn has nominated me as a possible Moderator for this Message Board.

IF enough people are okay with me being a Moderator, then, yes, I will accept taking my turn as a Moderator here at ChessNinja.

** I DO give my solemn word here that IF I am picked to be a Moderator, that I will strive NOT to let *any* of my personal irritations with, etc. of any person here on this Message Board affect and influence in a negative way the impartial fairness of my moderating in any way at all. **

However, it is totally up to all of you, in that, it is quite fine with me either way, whether you do or you do not decide to choose me as a Moderator for this next "Moderating session" here at ChessNinja.


Chess Fan

Oh yes! Sam Hardwick of course. He and SCK and 1 and 1a as far as I am concerned.

That last would be a good choice if you wanted to kill the board. I know of at least a half dozen people, including myself, who have this particular candidate on Ignore (and that's not counting people who left the board entirely because of him; which totals about a dozen more). You can't put a Mod on Ignore, so the likely result would be more departures. I wouldn't leave, but I would certainly delete any PM's I received from him unread, which can't be a good reaction for a mod to get.

I know what you're thinking. Something you once said about one of your past nominations; that maybe a little responsibility would help him mature. But a candidate who's been reprimanded by every mod in the past 5 years (yourself included) for habitual spamming and trying to drag religion into non-religious threads, isn't a qualified candidate. A Mod can't be someone that half the board wants to ignore.


As far as the others, SCK and Sam would both be great choices, as would Krish. The others you mentioned are all good too.

If we had a repeat offender, you, Spock and Ken would all be good choices, though I doubt any of you would accept. (Forewarned is forearmed, and all that). I'd serve if elected, but would really rather not, just because Mods can't use the Ignore feature and still do their job. Inky is fine too, though she's been a pretty infrequent poster lately, so make sure she wants it. Malthrope warned everyone that he didn't want the job and wouldn't be around much, they gave it to him anyway, and he disappeared for good a few weeks later. Let's not do that again.

Happy New Year, folks!

First of, thanks to the current crew of mods: SB, TGC (and Mal, who has been MIA, which is not a bad thing for a mod to do, IMO ) Great job by them!

I do think it is good to have more mods: 4 instead of 3, just in case one or two are MIA or unavailable. I also think it is good to have a mod emeritus, and if TGC doesn't want to do it, maybe we can bring back well-named (formerly known as octal).

As for the new nominations, I'd like to nominate the following:

-Sam Hardwick, IV
-Krish
-niceforkinmove
-Guy Kerr

As for Chess Fan, in the spirit of fairness and good will, I think he does deserve a moderator turn if he wants to do it. I do have some reservations about his ability to use moderator powers with sufficient caution- especially when it comes to certain religious topics. However, if he is able to contain himself and not moderate the religious(,etc) topics/offtopics -or at least appear like he is not involved in moderating them- I do think he could contribute as a moderator. A lot of it depends on how the moderator work is organized. When I was a mod, the decisions (or most of them, anyway) were made collectively, and I would stay away from moderating situations involving people I was, uh, not on good terms with (and so did some other mods). If such a method of doing things is in place, CF could be a useful contributor. If, on the other hand, moderators go about it more randomly, in a whoever-sees-it-first-gets-to-moderate-it fashion, the moderator regime is only as good as its weakest link. So, if CF is willing to go out of his way in making sure he won't get his personal feelings get in the way of the mod job, do things like the ones I mentioned above and assume more of a behind-the-scenes role, and work towards a framework in which his limitations are not a factor, I wouldn't be adverse to nominating him.

However, I do think it would be more favorable for the forum dynamics if CF became the mod in the next rotation and not this time around. That is why I haven't nominated CF in the list above. I think it would be easier for both CF and his critics if he got to be the mod not this time, but next time. Speaking of some CF critics, perhaps people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. People who have 14 000 messages with half of them being spam, (well you get where I am going)... Speaking of critics, some critics have been the weakest links (in a mod regime) I mentioned above, so if CF goes about it with any kind of common sense and genuine willingness not to get personal and not to repeat their mistakes, he could be a better mod than some of the critics. Hell, that can be accomplished by doing absolutely nothing, as no moderation is better than bad moderation.

Yes, Krish would be good too, though he rarely posts here any more. I have a feeling he is a frequent lurker, however, which is all that is needed for the job.

Forgot about FBX. He would be good as well.

As for CF, I do not think it would kill CN to name him mod. It might, to the contrary, do the entire community some good. To whit, wouldn't you agree that CN was never less fractious than when RB was mod? Not a coincidence, in my opinion. Won't know with CF until we try, of course, but in general I think you place too much emphasis on the role of the moderators here. So long as the mods have the good sense to steer clear of public disputes their jobs are usually relatively easy, though occasionally time consuming.

Spinning positively, CF: 1. Is here every day; 2. Has good relations with most of the membership (though there are several notable exceptions, natch); 3. May feel compelled by his increased responsibility to stop ignoring the long posts directed towards him in various threads; and 4. May not have the time to give us multiple daily reminders about the Rapture and/or your non-post post count . There! Four splendid reasons to name CF mod!

I didn't suggest CF in order to discuss his relative merits and demerits, however. Honest Petro, I just think it's time. He's overdue to put in some work. CN has neither crashed nor burned due to his daily presence for the past five years; neither will it flame out now. And who knows? Perhaps it will emerge healthier than ever.

Yes, niceforkinmove would be a good mod too. NFM tends to post regularly for a month or two then seems to leave CN altogether for a month or two, however. (It is possible that he lurks, but he is never shy to voice his opinions, so it seems unlikely to me.) It would be better to choose someone who posts more regularly, in my opinion.

Well, after my reading of Petrosianic's post, where he *totally insulted me* and made my name look "pretty much like mud", I think that, for the good of the Message Board, and, for the fact that I do NOT want to be chosen as a Moderator in any sort of an insulted "lame duck" situation at all, I am going to withdraw myself as a candidate for becoming a Moderator here at ChessNinja.

Believe it or not, I really DO care about this Message Board, and, I really wanted to "do my part" in helping out by my being a Moderator here on this Message Board.

However, after my being so very *totally* and in *such a very lengthy way* being insulted so *very badly* by Petrosianic, my heart is really not in it to be a Moderator here on this Board.

Indeed, I am now very sorry that I even offered to BE a Moderator here at ChessNinja!


Chess Fan

What, RB and I are chopped liver? Our opinions mean nothing to you? Incidentally, what did you expect from Petro? You must have known that he would strongly oppose your nomination. Besides, the only moderately insulting thing that he said was that in his opinion several members might leave if you became mod. The rest of his post was basically factual. Incidentally, I disagree with Petro; I would be very surprised if any of the regular members left CN if you became mod.

C'mon, stop ducking your responsibility -- there's work to be done!

Don't want to discuss him. What are you doing today, anyway? Trying to set everybody up for a good knocking?


Actually, I don't. I realize that the Modulators have very little actual role here. That exist to give the appearance of order without actually maintaining order except in extreme cases (and I'm not insulting anyone here, that's what Mig himself has said about the matter).

For evidence of that, you can just look at this thread:

Chess Fan's Neverending Autogiography

...set up by a sitting mod to try to curtail your candidate's habitual spamming by focusing it into this one thread and out of others. He simply thumbed his nose at it, continued doing the same thing everywhere else, and also used this thread, with no repercussions. Unfortunately, most of the board rules are voluntary.

So no, I don't have the illusion that the Modulators have any big role here. My point was about one specific thing: the fact that you can't put a Mod on Ignore, and the idea that trying to force someone that so many people wish to ignore on them can't be a good thing.

All right, here are some more reasons not to. 1) He's planning to be raptured within the next few days, and will just need to be replaced again if that happens. He can't guarantee his continued presence. 2) Before he developed his bizarre and totally unfair personal grudge against me, he used to complain bitterly to me in PM about the hardships he faced in posting on a "secular" board. Making him an official on a secular board might ruin his reputation with his church forever. Do you want that on your conscience?


No, not strongly. Mig will do whatever he wants to, of course, and it won't matter what I say. The Malthrope case shows that he might even pick someone who declines the nomination. I'm just pointing out that should that happen, I would continue to ignore him as best as possible, and delete all PM's from him unread. If that's not a problem, forget I said anything.


And even that's not insulting, simply an educated guess. If they gave me permission to do it, I could name a half dozen people who did exactly that (you're aware of most of them yourself). I'm simply surmising that more might follow. But possibly not. It might be no worse than before. Who knows?

If we're trying to nominate the worst candidates possible, I'd like to nominate Combo Kid and DeepNf3. Actually, there would be an advantage in having Deep as a Modulator. If he ragged anybody out, nobody would understand what he was saying to them.

@Crumhorn:

Well, I was very willing, (and happy), to take on the responsibility of doing my part to help out by my being a Moderator here at ChessNinja.

However, even the endorsements of me from you and Russianbear are, well, "less than ringing endorsements", and, really, *that's quite okay with me*!

Even now, Petrosianic continues to go "on and on" about all of this concerning me.

So, once again, I am just going to say again that I am withdrawing my name from being a Moderator candidate here on this Message Board.

** Indeed, after what has happened to me here in this thread today, I am now *very sorry* that I ever even offered to BE a Moderator here at ChessNinja, and, I will *never again* make the mistake again of my offering to BE a Moderator on this Message Board ever again!! **


Chess Fan

CF: Okay. It's really not a big deal. Just thought you might want to do it, is all, and also thought the community might gain from it. As for not giving you a ringing endorsement...well, yes, in my opinion there are better candidates to be mod; nevertheless, I nominated you because I thought that: a. we all might gain from your experience moderating the board; and b. ultimately you would do a fine job. But you're not interested, and that's just fine. No need to belabor this point any longer.

Petro: No, not interested in "setting anybody up for a good knocking" (not even sure what you're implying, to be honest) -- simply thought it was CF's time to moderate so made my case as forcefully as I could. Now it's all as moot as moot could be...

To get this thread back on track, I see multiple nominations for SCK, Sam Hardwick, Guy Kerr, Krish, and RingLord. A fine group.

I'd like to second the nomination for Ed, even knowing that he'll not only decline, but probably kill me for pushing it.

I think Kevin would do quite well in the position, but all the ones you mentioned are fine. (But are you sure you don't want Deep? )

Everyone mentioned is fine with me, even the joke nominations (except for the obvious one). I don't really get why CF has gotten people so heated up, but I guess it would be difficult to be a moderator in his situation.

As for me, I don't really need more excuses to spend time on the Internet at the moment, so if we have enough willing candidates I'd rather they took the job. But (there's that word starting a sentence!) I can do it if needed. Warning though: I'd be pretty hands-off; most times I don't really understand why the mods delete what they do.

I would endorse any/all of the following people in no particular order.

1. inky
2. Crumhorn
3. Russian Bear
4. Chess Fan
5. RingLord
6. Petrosianic
7. Krish
8. Saguni
9. Petrochess
10. BobRich
11. South Coast Kevin
12. Permanent Brain
13. FirebrandX
14. Combo Kid
15. Ed Yetman
16. Guy Kerr

There are others who escape me at the moment. All of the above make CN a better place to come visit when I am looking to be enlightened. Thanks for all the contributions to the board. I never thought coming here would be anything more than a cup of coffee. I have been here almost since day 1 now and I still enjoy coming, even if I can't afford to visit as much as I used to.

The current mods did a great job too. Thanks for all your efforts as well. All mods, past and present, have helped this board thrive. Hoping everyone has a good 2009.

COP

So, pretty much any regular poster then. In that case, I'd like to nominate you too. You shouldn't be left out of this list.

I don't care personally, I don't even see his stuff any more. It's when good posters walk out over it that I object. Nobody has an excuse for doing that any more, as the Ignore feature makes it possible to tune out people you don't want to hear. Except Mods, who can't be ignored.

As for why it happens, you might check out Gelatinous' comments in the first post of the Autobiography thread, for some clue. Some people get pretty heated, when he does things like tell them they're going to hell for disbelieving in Hal Lindsey (I don't care, I just consider the source, but some people get quite steamed about it). If nothing else, I'd be against him for the hit piece he did on Inky a few months back, about how she was a terrible Mod, deeply prejudiced against him, and how glad he was she was gone. I was modding at the same time she was, and can tell you from recollection that she supported him heavily, both openly and behind the scenes. But the minute she says something he doesn't like, snap, the proverbial "hand that feeds you" is bitten.

But it's all moot, if he's declined the nomination. At least I hope so. After all, Malthrope declined the nomination too...

One of my joke nominations was one of COP's serious ones, so I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I don't even know which one you consider to be the obvious one.

I think DNF3 as mod would be going a bit too far. No affront intended to him if he's reading. CK would have major, major comedy value.

Oh okay, I saw it the other way around. CK as a mod could be dangerous. He'd be able to look up the IP addresses of all the people he'd threatened to beat up, and really send people running from the board. I thought of Deep as the one with major comedy value. You know how the mafia makes you an offer you can't refuse? He'd make you an offer you can't understand. But, you know, different strokes for different folks. (And Diff'rent Strokes for Conrad Bain).

I have tried to separate out people that I personally agree with on most topics and people that I don't, as I don't think it is relavant to who would be a good moderator for this board. In my eyes, its not the job of a Moderator to have his/her opinion rule the day and either trump or close the threads because they don't agree with it. I see Moderator's reminding people when they stray off-topic too far, eliminating hateful, threatening or otherwise personal attacks, and closing topics that do nothing more than fill up the server.

By my nominations I see those people as people who frequent the board the most often (sadly, I don't visit as often as I like, mostly in spurts as opposed to consistent involvement) AND who care a lot about the board and want to see it continue successfully.

Since there are more than 1 moderator, I think having perhaps 4 or 5 in and of itself would present the necessary balance to continue the board without overworking any one of the mods.

If the mods end up doing the job as I understand it, then I think all of them (and a few I probably missed) would all do an excellent job.

I see that my name has come up as a possible mod. Thank you, but I respectfully decline.

I've gone over this on the occasion of previous mod rotations. I never (not just on this bulletin board) participate in, or even read, threads dealing with politics or religion. (Possibly I made a handful of exceptions leading up to the Nov. 2008 US elections, but I regret doing so, and the behavior won't be repeated). It's just personal taste; if y'all dig the discussions, go for them. But it seems to me that a mod would have to read all such threads, and I just couldn't stand to.

It's not like you'd be required to have an intelligent opinion about it (we don't hold posters to a higher standard than the candidates themselves). Just make sure people don't cuss each other out... too badly. Easy job. Like Vice President, only even easier. Just do nothing.

I'd like to nominate Arielbekarov for a Modding post. I know he hasn't posted here in about 3 years, but he was a heckuva poster, and if making him a mod would bring him back, I'd say go for it.

Few thoughts here:

1. It is really commendable that guys like rondino, RB and Sam Hardwick want to be nice to CF. Their positiveness is impressive, although I agree with Petrosianic's view point in all these.

2. Sam Hardwick's idea of not moderating the board is great. But, what if you a have a thread where A and B fight with each other endlessly, then we may need some moderation. However, in threads where 2 guys argue endlessly but with lot of logics (Proloy vs RB for instance), moderation is not really required. Moreover, I have always felt that the boards here are selectively moderated.

3. The problem starts really when threads go on a hijack mode. Many a time I made a point to focus only on chess-related threads but even those got hijacked on religious lines. Global warming thread is another example. Lot of good inputs and discussions by Ken, Ed Yetman, spock, Ringlord and occasionally RB, but some folks who have nothing to contribute hijack it. See this post for example:
http://www.chessninja.com/boards/ubbthre...0027#Post140027

The poster here acknowledges that he is hijacking and requests moderators not to delete. But, if I called him an idiot for doing that, moderators would jump in and delete my post. That is the kind of moderation I have problem with.

4. Sam Hardwick, I have to disagree with you on the issue of Petrosianic taking CF seriously. While I am impressed with your maturity on lot of issues, you easily ignore that the other side on this issue. In this case, CF's comments on Petrosianic. Guys like rondino and you give more publicity to attacks on CF than the other way around. CF has been throwing tantrums on Petrosianic on the "Nothing Thread" almost every single day. As always, you seem to simply ignore that.

Edit: Thanks for all those who nominated me. No I am not interested in moderating this board.

I find it to be *highly comical* that, even though I have now totally turned-down being a possible moderator, that, Petrosianic and Krish can *not* let it go without their continuing to take personal shots at me.

Indeed, Petrosianic and Krish, you guys are SOOOOO very funny, in that, even though you both *claim* that you are ignoring me, you just can *not* resist your continung to take both your direct and indirect personal *shots* at me.

Yes, it must be tough for the two of you in your continuing to live with such *utter personal bitterness* towards certain people in your lives.


Chess Fan

I've just noticed this thread and I can see that a few people have suggested I take a turn at being a moderator. Firstly, I'm flattered that you think I might do a good job - I know people have said it's not a major bit of work but, still, thanks folks!

Secondly, what does it involve? Would I be expected to visit every day and check for posts which break the board rules or is more reactive, mostly just responding to people's complaints? For that matter, what are the board rules?! I'm sure there are some but I've forgotten...

I'm certainly not saying 'No' at this stage but could someone give me a better idea of what's expected? Ta. And happy new year to you all. May it be a good one!

The board rules, as I've been able to ascertain them from tradition and Mig's few explicit statements about them, are the following:

1. Don't spam.
2. Don't flame or personally attack someone.
3. Stay relatively on-topic.
4. Post religious or political messages in the designated threads.
5. Explain links.


As for prevention vs reaction, I think that the team of moderators should strive to read every message as soon after it is posted as possible. Of course, by agreement the moderators can divide the threads so no one has to read everything. (I, however, tend to read it all; by the time I'm done I rarely have any will left to post.) It's necessary to read and react rather than wait for complaints and react because (1) Now and then someone will write something like "CK likes teh boyz" or "You mamma bein' a fishwife, yo," which should not meet the eyes of our delicate child readers; and (2) Letting flaming or other problematic messages stand allows the matter to escalate, and even dealing with the complaints is a bit of a pain.

Every moderator has to make a judgment call about when to delete, edit, or whatever (and here I'm partly answering Krish's point about jumping in only after the retaliation to an infraction). Sometimes I don't feel strongly about deleting something, so I let it stand. If the message proves inflammatory, I'll often go back and prune the thread, as I think the postership-at-large should determine what counts as inflammatory. Sometimes, then, I indeed wait for people to complain before I do anything (in fact, if you complain to me, I'll likely do your bidding as long as you're within reason). In these cases I think it's important, whatever you decide to do, to explain clearly your reasons for acting.

On to the juicy business of picking new moderators. I'm willing to stay on as a sort of mod-emeritus as we've had in the past, but I won't need to if we can get enough new people. Recent history leads me to think two moderators are not enough. Four are needed simply due to the volume of text to read.

Sachbinger and I sent short messages to Mig some weeks ago to get the puck moving. We suggested South Coast Kevin, Sam Hardwick, and niceforkinmove. SCK has strong support, as is evident from this thread. Mig mentioned Sam as a candidate last time. NFM would be a good mod; we'd only need to catch him while he's here and ask if he could hang around for a few months.

I think any former mod would be a good pick. Beyond them, and leaving out those who've already declined, I nominate Josh and Ed Yetman. I can think of many others who'd do a fine job, but I suggest contacting the consensus choices before we go into a popularity free-for-all.

To those who've declined, especially Guy Kerr: You could opt to moderate only those threads with which you're comfortable. Say, everything but off-topic, or even everything but religion and politics.

Moderators' main and sometimes only duty is deleting rondinos*.

--------------------
* Obviously, a rondino** is an accidentally posted message or thread***.

** Musicologically, the term rondino is defunct, until people "compose" accidental works that would formerly have been called rondinos.

*** Yes, he accidentally posted a thread once.

Indeed, there are a number of people here on this Message Board who, (if their lives are anything like what they write in the majority of their posts), are among the very *most* un-happy and bitter people whom I have ever been exposed to in my entire life.

** So, it is a welcome "breath of fresh air" for me to read what ChessOutpost has written in his quote above in the midst of so *very much* anger and bitterness that a number of people here quite obviously live with who post, (both regularly and irregularly), here at ChessNinja.

Thank you, ChessOutpost, for your breathing a bit of *very welcome* fresh air into the dialogue here on this Message Board! **


Chess Fan

In the past there have been many cases where one person disrupted a thread (not always the same person, to be sure), and the response was to close the thread, rather than simply delete the offending posts and try to stop the one guy.



Perhaps, but the bias, if there is one, isn't towards a particular viewpoint, it's towards people who complain the loudest. You remember Gelatinous joking that with a 10,000 post mailbox, he'd never have to delete another complaint from Chess Fan again. Mig's "bias" (if you want to call it that), is to avoid arguments about moderation, period.

Like, if a mod went to you and said "Your post about the Petunia Festival was off topic in the Hari-Kari Thread, so I deleted it", you'd probably accept it without complaint. But if a person is the type to scream bloody murder if his Petunia Festival post is deleted, then mods are more likely to ignore it because Mig doesn't want the hassle. It makes no difference that the poster would be in the wrong, they simply don't want the battle to be fought at all. Unfortunately, this creates a situation where the people who are the biggest pests get held to a lower standard. They know this and how to exploit it.

When I was modding, I had an incident once where Matt and Russianbear were literally posting obscenities at me ("F*** you, Petrosianic"). I deleted them and they came back with "You can't delete our posts, if you do, we'll just post it again." Since the re-posts were also obscene, I deleted them too. Wrong thing to do. Mig absolutely hates discussions like that, even when the posters are in the wrong. It would have been far better to ignore the obscene posts and let the whole thing die, than to start a deleting war. (That's also why closing a thread is preferable to deleting offending posts; it takes action against nobody in particular.) It's true that the proper thing to do in that case would not be to delete posts, it would be to ban accounts, but Mig almost never does that, no matter how out of line a poster may be. The only time I can remember it happening was in cases where one person had multiple Ninja accounts. Combo Kid once even told Matt that if they lived near each other, he'd drag him out to the parking lot and make him beg for his life, and even then no action was taken.

So, Chess Fan is held to a lower standard than everyone else, not because they like him or his viewpoints, but because he complains. Long and loudly. But someone who operates by a lower standard than everyone else and constantly ignores moderator directives not to post in a certain way certainly isn't fit to be a mod himself.


The solution is to either a) grin and bear it, or b) become just as big a pest yourself. That used to be hard to do, but the new board has a "Notify" button on every post. Use it every time you see a thread hijacked this way. Complain "long and loudly". Maybe it would have some effect. Or at least you'd feel a little better.


Is that what that's about? I thought the Nothing Thread was awfully busy these days, but I assumed it was... well, nothing.

I just broke my policy and had a peek at it, and there's an example of the lower standards he's held to, in a nutshell. I could never call him a cheat for breaking imaginary rules that I'd just made up myself, and get away with it. But he can. Heck, he can tell people they're going to hell for not believing in Hal Lindsey, and get away with it.

But see, the difference is that I never complained about these posts, while he'd be in tears if even one of them was so much as touched. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. So, the solution is to accept the situation, or try to squeak more often. Take your choice. But if I were you, I'd just put him personally on Ignore, and complain long and loud any time the threads got hijacked. It doesn't matter what he says if you don't hear it. It's only a problem when other people get sidetracked too.

Ah, Petrosianic, it really must be quite difficult to live with yourself at times.

I just wonder, do you *truly* get any enjoyment out of life whatsoever; that is, outside of the times that you are running someone down, (be it me or anyone else?)

Petrosianic, seriously now, doesn't your living your life as such a cynical and bitter and quite obviously un-happy person *ever* really weigh you down at times?

Indeed, life must be *quite a drag for you* with the outlook that you have concerning things **that really do NOT matter at all in the long run!!**

Come on Petro, lighten up and smell the roses a bit!


Chess Fan

What exactly is a "Global Mod"? The new board shows colours for both Mods and Global Mods, though no Global Mods in fact exist here. What are they?

The software has the ability to have forum-specific moderators, those are normal "mods". global mods have mod powers over all the forums by default.

In importing the old config it seems like the mods remained "regular" mods but with power over every forum, so there is no distinction in practice.

Oh, okay. But theoretically there could be mods that had mod powers only over "International Events"? Or over "65th Square" and "To the Contrary", but nowhere else? And combinations like that?

What do you mean by "tantrums"? Do you reffer to the little reports CF does about Petrosianic's spam messages that Petrosianic does to stay the top of "Top Posters" list? That is hardly an attack on Petrosianic, that is just CF telling the truth. If you really feel that when CF reports the spam/forum abuse in a joking matter in the 'Nothing thread', it is CF himself that is the guilty party, perhaps you've let your personal dislike of CF get the better of you.

That reminds me, if there is one problem I have with the job the current crew of moderators has done, it is the way the whole Petrosianic spam thing was handled. Spam is one of the bigger offenses on the Internet. Petrosianic's thousands of requests to the server to post messages, then thousands of requests to delete them, - all of that takes up resources. Spam is usually prohibited in a contract between a user and the ISP, and some serious thought had to be put into the possibility of notifying Petrosianic's ISP about Petrosianic's spamming hobby. (I know Mig notified a poster's ISP for a case of an identity theft when an April Fools joke went wrong). Or at least Petrosianic should have been given a warning (which I assume he didn't get as he keeps doing it). But the reaction along the lines of "well, Petrosianic showed how post count doesn't matter" was close to abetting a spammer. No matter how tempting it may be for some to draw parallels between Petrosianic's spam and messages (of certain people) that are supposedly as useless as spam, I am afraid it is not the same.

I must make Crumhorn a prophet: I must decline. I thank everyone who has such a high opinion of me; obviously, you all need to get to know me better. Alas, in the last seven months I have taken on a very serious family problem, one that threatens to take me away from this board permanently. Many of you may have noticed that my posting has dropped drastically; the main cause has been this family problem.

I would like to support Kevin, Sam, PircAlert, and ChessOutpost. I agree with GCube that four mods are better than three, and I think these four would do a fine job. I would also like to see SachBinger and GCube stay on as Mods Emeritus.

Thanks a lot for this, GC, and for your further comments which I have not quoted. I think the approach you and other moderators have taken is sensible, and my only major issue is that I would feel much happier with a short list of official board rules. I guess that's up to Mig, in the end.

Petro: Yeah, pretty much. That's what is commonly done on large forums. c.f. forumserver.twoplustwo.com

There are lots of common sense choices for mods without re-electing old bitter burnt out mods.

Sam should be first choice. He should have got it last time except Mig mistakenly thought he was a new poster.

And I also vote for South Coast Kevin as mod.

Lots of others would be good too and I don't have reservations about any whose names are still standing (e.g. PircAlert, COP, etc).

I think it could be good if either a mod from the curent regime (TGC) stayed as mod emeritus, or if one from the former regime did - I am talking about wellnamed, who expressed interest in being a moderator emeritus the last time, but didn't get to be one. But other than those two people, I do agree that there are so many people who didn't get a chance yet that it doesn't make sense to re-elect the old and bitter mods.


Agreed.

My other nominees are either MIA (niceforkinmove) or have declined (Krish and Guy Kerr, though maybe Guy Kerr will change his mind, given that it is not a requirement to read the threads one doesn't normally read). Hopefully niceforkinmove will show up soon. He always seems to be on a little break from posting here whenever moderators are rotated. Meanwihle, I'd like to back a few more people: South Coast Kevin, Ringlord, and FirebrandX would all do a good job, I think.

Yes, a current or former mod should be onboard. Crumhorn was most helpful when I started. Wellnamed is a good choice too if both TGC and SB didn't want to stay on...for that matter, he's a good choice period.

Yes, I want to join Ken and Russianbear's very recent endorsements here in my saying that I also think that Sam is an *excellent* choice for Moderator!


Chess Fan

In that case, I'd like to recommend that after the rotation, all the mods (or at least the "Senior" Mod) be "promoted" to Global Mods.

Ok, a lot of good candidates have been proposed now. SCK has kinds sorta accepted ("I'm not saying no"), and there have been gracious declines by Guy Kerr, Krish and Ed.

Could the nominees who are willing to take a mod position please say so in this thread? As soon as we have two or (preferably) three candidates I'll notify Mig (probably in the Help Forum, as he doesn't seem to read his PMs).

Thanks all.

I'll change my 'I'm not saying no' to a 'Yes, I'll stand for election'. Be gentle with me though!

As I said previously, I'll do it if there aren't three or four suitable candidates otherwise.

In light of Mig's recent decision to ban Petrosianic for six days I withdraw my offer to moderate the CN forums.

Petrosianic was spamming the mods, and me, with notification emails that were beyond petty. After seeing how worthless the first six were I had no interest in wading through the next dozen. That is abuse, pure and simple. There was nothing in any of what he sent that I would call abuse, especially since it took place in the Off Topic forum.

More importantly, it was nothing that couldn't have been solved by using the ignore feature. It appears some people won't use that because they enjoy whining about others' posts too much. I have yet to see a good explanation as to why this simple solution doesn't work for anyone who is freaked out by a few over-enthusiastic posters.

It's probably the first time I've banned anyone in years. Hell, probably the first time in a long time I've used any powers here at all, to which I credit the capable mods. Tolerance is the only way these public places work. As for Cube's summary of posting guidelines, those are just that, guidelines. Other than the felony offenses of spamming, non-jocular flaming, and blatant hijacking (extreme or intentional off-topic), we can only hope people are civil and forgive us the netiquette sins we ourselves commit on occasion.

Mods are here to exist, mostly. Not to referee or take sides. The best moderation is no moderation, as ever. Sending the mods a dozen reports about perceived offenses that are, at worst, harmless and easy to ignore, is abuse. It's not the job of the mods, other posters, or me to attempt to enforce profundity, cleverness, or anything else content-related (other than the three things listed above). You always err on the side of tolerance and non-moderation or else it becomes a room full of tattle-tale second-graders saying so-and-so broke this rule and why did you punish me for doing X when so-and-so did Y. Horrible.

Personality clashes are unavoidable and we shouldn't try to stamp them out by force. If someone is annoying enough to drive some people away, perhaps that person should be spoken to and options discussed. (E.g. allowing the person only one post per hour, which often has a beneficial effect on just about anybody!) And/or perhaps the board lost some thin-skinned people who were always going to find a reason to leave in a huff. You can't moderate to the needs of the squeakiest wheels. The first question a mod must ask isn't "who's right," but "who cares?" If something is trending badly, a PM warning is a good place to start before blowing things up in public.

Anyway, more dead pixels lost in the eternal cause of bloviating about the obvious. I'll assign some mods this evening after I glance at the appearance rate and the last 20 posts of those nominated. I'll also post the fabulously brief official guidelines for mods and mortals again, as well my thoughts on the right way (and wrong way) to go about getting people to follow them.

If, in light of my explanation for Petrosianic's ban, SH,IV reconsiders his availability, let us know.

Saludos, Mig

PS The 'top posters' widget (now set to ("last 30 days"0 disappeared in last night's upgrade for some reason, along with the new "featured member" box that is supposed to be on the right side. Trying to figure that out.

Hello there Mig. As Crumhorn said in the Kramnik's Interview thread, thank you for setting up and hosting ChessNinja. I've very much enjoyed being part of the community here over the last year or two.

From what I can gather, all the steps you noted above (and more) have been taken with Chess Fan. Indeed, I've seen it claimed that moderation has been favourable and indulgent towards him, the 'squeakiest wheel'. I would say that things are trending very badly. Several people have made various complaints about Chess Fan's posts and yet he has mostly escaped moderation, at least until recently. In fact, The Gelatinous Cube said this on 9th Jan:



It's obviously your call as the owner of ChessNinja but it seems to me like Chess Fan's posting habits are causing much grief to several people. I am still willing to be a moderator but I urge you consider adding something to the rules about contentless posts. The sheer number that Chess Fan posts (updates on sporting events which anyone could follow over the internet, agreement posts, disagreement posts etc.) have caused much annoyance, I think.

Chess Fan has certainly been annoying enough to drive some people away, and I don't think those people, at least not all of them, were especially thin-skinned. Unfortunately, neither public nor private responses to Chess Fan have done any good. Limiting him to one post an hour sounds good, but would not help: CF's ultimate goal, it seems, is to increase his post count; if someone tells him to post only once an hour, he needn't comply since the moderators' only recourse is to delete the offending messages. And deleted messages still count toward post totals... Chess Fan has basically proved that the moderators are close to impotent. I'd really like to see the moderators, or at least the senior mod, given the power to dispense temporary bans. The official moderation policy is that less is more, but given CF's absolute refusal to change his posing habits, we can only post more and more passionate entreaties asking him please, please to see it our way (or anyone but CF's way, really). If the moderators could temporarily ban people, though, CF might have a reason to listen to us.



I hope this widget never returns, as a few CN members simply aren't mature enough to live with not being number one.

I thought the 30-day post count would just be a nice way to show especially new people who are the more active people. But it occurred to me also when someone mentioned it above that just keeping it gone is the easiest thing to do. Few benefits.

Rationing someone's posts can be very effective. It teaches them to be more judicious. It can be one per hour or one per day, note.

i post on here only in spurts, and have also been extremely put off by a few posters around here. that said, i think limiting posts per day would ruin the ability to have perfectly pleasent back and fourths in semi realtime with the folks around here (bridging the instant messenger and email mediums).

i implore you not to let the bad apples ruin the board for everyone.

Dear Rockin, if I am one of the few posters who put you off, please PM me with what I did to do so. I'm always open to criticism. I don't want to be a bad apple.

And, please let me add here that, there are a few CN members who are quite obviously not mature enough to know when something is actually *really and truly serious enough* to complain about.


Chess Fan

I totally agree with the comments Mig has made regarding the outstanding issues on this forum. In fact, I wrote similar things before Mig, so maybe he agrees with me, and not vice versa

Anyways, not a lot of people have accepted the nomination to be mods - perhaps this is due to the fact we are now nominating people who are not as active (as the hardcore addicts have already had their turn). niceforkinmove has been gone for a while. I've just sent octal an email, so maybe he will come out of hiding.

Just in case Mig wants to open this up to people among those who have already been mods before, I want to nominate well-named, Crumhorn, Ken and spock. If there still aren't enough people who are interested in doing this, I would consider serving another term, if offered. Hopefully, this will be scary enough a threat that SHIV, Guy Kerr, FBX, RL, NFM, and others will either reconsider or step up

First of all, thanks to Crumhorn, Ed, Ken (and other I missed out if any) who have faith on me and who have suggested my name for moderator. I hadn't really given serious thought before. But like Sam had earlier said, I'll do it if there aren't really interested/suitable candidates, I mean, for the absolutely last and fourth mod. I would seriously like Sam to re-consider his decision.

I'll suggest these people.
Sam IV, SCK, Proloy, Ed, LittleFish, ChessFan (not in any particular order.) I'd like anyone interested who can make unbiased decision consistent within the rules stated, for the job. Not someone who can subject himself/herself to behind the scene lobbying pressure.

RB,

Thanks for the email and thanks for thinking of me, but I haven't really been reading these forums with any frequency the last couple months (and when I have been it's only been off topic stuff for a long time). So I think I'm kind of a bad choice.

Oh well. It was worth a shot. I don't think a mods needs to be extremely active. The forum itself - especially the chess part- wasn't very active the last couple of months, but these winter months are usually the off-season in chess, as well as forum activity, too. But I think it might pick up soon with Wijk, etc, and that will mean more activity even in the non-chess threads. Also, I definitely think it is fine if one mods reads the Offtopic forum or only reads the chess-related forums.

I am going to respond to the comments in the Kramnik's Interview thread here.


I disagree. I don't think CF has been given carte blanche at all. Mig has been critical of his posting habits. Of course, Mig also made it clear he doesn't think CF should be banned - and that makes perfect sense, to me at least. In any case, I don't think the next mod regime will not be able to do anything about CF after what Mig has said. There is apparently this new feature in the new forum software that allows to set a limit on how often a user may post, and Mig has even recommend using this feature on CF under certain circumstances. That is not to say it should or will ever be used on CF, but as the chess saying goes - the threat is stronger than the execution. But it appears the next mod regime will have this tool, and this functionality may be extremely useful in dealing with those who go for quantity rather than quality - and if we consider recent history, that describes Petrosianic's posting habits much better than those of CF.

Also, I don't think it is fair for you to mention Mig's "utter obliviousness to the day to day workings of this forum". Surely, he disagrees with your take on it, but it doesn't meant he doesn't know what is going on. I don't think one needs to be here daily for years to tell whether CF's posts are ban-worthy or not. There are certain people who are here regularly and who feel Mig has made the right decision by banning Petrosianic for spamming. Mig may not come here often, but he got it right on this one , IMO. I don't think the fact Mig doesn't come here often somehow hurts his chances of being an astute judge of certain things. There are also positives to that - one being the fresh perspective that Mig brings to this. (now, I don't like to suck up to Mig, but what can I do if he voiced what my exact feeling on the issues were).

Again, I disagree. TGC wasn't undercut. TGC wanted to report Petrosianic to Mig anyway, it is just that he felt CF should be reported too. The nature of the issue was such that TGC couldn't arbitrate it anyway, because mods can't ban people, so going to Mig for arbitration was the only solution. In any case, it was helpful that Mig voiced his opinion, and now that the policy toward spam and the policy towards CF-like posts are clear, it is all the better. TGC wasn't undermined by the decision Mig made, IMO. TGC went with his own interpretation of the guidelines, and Mig merely made the distinction between the two cases TGC felt were equivalent. No big deal.


Nah. It's all good With the new feature I mentioned earlier, and with the Ignore feature, it should be a much easier job than before. Remember how we had to do it without this new ("throttle"?) feature, and without the Ignore button working properly? It is all a thing of the past now.

Looking at things from the outside, that doesn't seem true. G-Cube posted an example of his e-mail being swamped by complaint notifications. One of the reasons P**r**i***c(k) apparently got banned was for excessive complaints to Mig, which I assume were also relayed to mods.

So if I interpret "active" as including the reading of multitudinous complaints, and consequently all the posts and dialogue which may have spawned them, as well as responding to the complaints (whether or not posts actually wind up being deleted), it seems like an unattractively high level of activity is required. Further, the complaints and related dialogue tend to come from posters and threads that one might ordinarily wish to avoid, which causes additional psychic stress.

Petrosianic pressed the "Notify" button whenever CF contradicted one of GC's recently restated posting guidelines. He informed GC that he was going to do this. GC, believing -- and rightly so in my opinion -- that this was the proper function of the "Notify" button, said nothing to stop him. For this Petrosianic was banned. Let me repeat that. He was banned for spamming Mig and the mods with what Mig considered frivolous notifications, not for spamming the boards with thousands of phantom posts (which you seem to find the more serious problem). Petro made a nuisance of himself and Mig banned him.

Should Petrosianic have been banned for making a nuisance of himself? Maybe. But his worst abuse was in interpreting GC's guidelines strictly; more strictly than GC himself would have interpreted them, to be sure, but that is a matter of personal perspective. Petrosianic followed the rules as stated explicitly by CN's head moderator and was banned for it. This undercuts GC's credibility, and the credibility of the moderators in general. If following the rules of the board to the letter as explicitly stated by the head moderator results in being banned, it is obvious that the mods have no real power here, and that their presence is merely symbolic at best.

Mig further pointed to one of CF's posts in the "Religion" thread, arguing that it was perfectly reasonable to suggest that others were going to burn in hell if they didn't convert, and fast. Okay, maybe looking at this one post out of context it can be argued that this is a reasonable position. Certainly one post in one disagreement with SCK over Christian dogma doesn't make much of a case against CF. But when almost every serious discussion with CF (or without CF in many cases) on any topic results in the same puerile (for me, although for others hurtful, annoying, exasperating) conclusion, it becomes a little more serious. People, good people, interesting people, have left CN because of CF. It's not enough to suggest, as you have, that they would have left regardless, or that they are thin-skinned. I can confirm the opposite. And GC has confirmed the opposite as well.

Can you think of even one person that has had a serious discussion with CF that didn't end up with CF: a. stating that the other person was going to hell if he didn't shape up fast; b. complaining that the other person was biased against him because of his faith; c. abandoning the discussion without a word when it became obvious that his position was untenable; or d. arguing that the conversation itself was useless because of the TRULY IMPORTANT THINGS in life? May I suggest, ever so gently, that you don't have a problem with CF partly because you have had the good wisdom -- or the lack of intestinal fortitude? -- not to engage him in conversation over the years?

Some have suggested, further, that this isn't really about CF, that this is about Petrosianic and Petrosianic alone. Wrong. Petrosianic may be a little CF obsessed, but his actions are the direct result of years of CF abusing his posting privileges with nary the faintest sniff of Mig's intervention. Moderators have bent over backwards for CF, and he's thumbed his nose at them time and again. GC is merely the latest to confirm this. Moderators have sent countless PMs and e-mails to Mig regarding "the CF problem," almost always without reply. Is it a coincidence that Mig has shown up now, only when he himself has been inconvenienced by an influx of Petrosianic inspired notifications? Obviously not.

This isn't the end of the world. This is merely a blip in CN history. And Mig, obviously, is perfectly entitled to do anything he wants, to ban whomever he wants for whatever reason. A month from now, who will care? No one, likely. But I must stand by my belief that Mig has made the wrong decision here, and has sent entirely the wrong message to the CN community.

I think the two things are actually the same thing. Petrosianic used the "Notify" button to complain about a large number of CF's posts. Apparently, the button triggers an email to all the mods (or maybe it sends a PM to all the mods, which then trigger the emails). So, TGC (who, I think perhaps tends to take the hardline on CF) posted the screenshot of the emails as an example of how many complaints there are about CF, while Mig used it as one of the reasons to ban Petrosianic for spamming. In any case, I doubt those complaints/emails are representative of how much mods have to deal with. This is just Petro trying to make some sort of point and failing.


Just to give you an idea of what the load might be: I was a mod for about 8 months and we have mostly used emails to communicate with the other mods. For those 8 months I have about 150 moderation-related emails in my email account, of which about a quarter are my own. Many emails were longish (think an average Crumhorn post-long, not an average CF post-long), but some are brief such as ("ok i agree let's do that"). Also, I had about 40 incoming PMs that were moderation-related (unless I deleted the corresponding email notifications, which I doubt I did). Maybe 40% of the PMs were complaints or follow-ups to complaints, while the rest were back-and-forth between the mods. Only a handful of emails were complaints. Anyways, I was a mod at the time the forum was rather trouble-free. Also, there was no "Notify" functionality - though I doubt it makes that big a difference.

I guess it depends on how mods choose to split the work. They can be rather random and deal with things on their own as they encounter them. Crumhorn, Ken, well-named and I did consult with each other on many, probably most of the decisions (except for the obvious ones that could be done on the spot) - hence the amount of emails.

GK: Wise choice. If you dislike discussions about religion and politics and how member A thinks member B should be censured for off-topic comments and how member B thinks member A is a whiny punk, then moderating is just not for you. If I were you I would avoid the moderating gig like the plague. At any rate, if one were interested in general in moderating, this would be the worst possible time to head into the fray. In all seriousness, I don't envy the new crop of mods in the slightest...

Apparently I misunderstood. Well, he was still kind of being a moran but not as much as I thought, although I think the stupid post wars thing was worth a bannination too. Anyway, my bad, sorry for making a bad assumption.

I'll show you sorry, buster.



So...you're not playing chess at all? Not even of the functionally obsolete correspondence variety?

I finished a correspondence game a week or so ago, but it was the first one I've played in about 6 months? I'm accepting challenges though...

Crumhorn, what if you were you? I nominated you, too, you know

I don't think Mig sent the wrong message at all. And enough with CF already. He is not an issue here. If Petrosianic could spam the server all he wanted and got away with it - THAT would have been the wrong message. The final "Notify"-spam may have been the final straw, but it was NOT the ONLY thing that was the problem. So the talk about Petrosianic "interpreting GC's guidelines strictly; more strictly than GC himself would have interpreted them" is, what's the word... unconvincing.



We are going in circles. You and I didn't have THAT many problems with Cf. And what was the point (of the bigger spam), anyway? That CF's posts are exactly like spam? Really? Says who? And to whom? I honestly don't understand not only the constructive idea that is supposedly behind the spam, but how can anyone can honestly think the spam was supposed to have made a point to someone. Those who hated/disliked CF still do it after Petro's "point". And those who didn't still don't. And those who didn't care one way of another still don't, though they may now think Petro is himself the bigger problem. I fail to understand what his target audience was. Was Petrosianic's idea to get CF's banned? That doesn't seem likely, as he was clearly putting himself at a greater risk. Or was it to convince Cf of CF's own wrong doing? That doesn't seem likely at all. The only people who are defending Petrosianic's spam are those who tend to think CF's posts aren't any better - but those people had thought the same thing about CF even before Petro started spamming, so he was really preaching to the choir. If he wanted to preach to the choir, it could have been accomplished without spamming.

Also, I don't understand the obsession with CF. Now that the president of the anti-CF society is banned, people are bringing up every single complaint they ever had against CF, but my question still stands - why not just Ignore CF if you find him annoying? granted, you can still see small parts of posts of the people you ignore in "Active Topics", but that is no big deal, given that you only get a small fragment of the posts and noone forces you to read that fragment, anyway. And yes, you still see the disabled posts of the person you ignore in the threads. But that is for you own convenience - so that you could read them if you decide to read one of them once in a while. It also let's you know there was a message there - so that you know you are missing a part of the discussion, as it could be a problem if you didn't know it.

I've said what I hope will be my last words on Petrogate in Ed's thread.

As for mod rotation, we don't seem to have a mob clamoring for the position. Perhaps Mig could sweeten the pot, as it were. Custom titles for life would be a good way to reward the weary and/or entice the foolish.

On the advice of my lawyers, I'm re-withdrawing my offer to moderate (whatever that even means at this point). Sorry about the back-and-forth.

in for supreme overlord, on condition of being granted power to arbitrarily apply filters to posts.

I want to be able to make sam hardwick's posts read like the swedish chef, TGC's in ebonics, and shornrum's in pirate.

I, fur oone-a, vhule-a-heertedly sooppurt oooor noo deeelectizing muuderetur ooferlurd, um de hur de hur de hur. Bork bork bork

If Crumhorn were truly me, he wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, being of sound mind and stiff body (too much shovelling snow). As I am from time to time Crumhorn, I continue to persist in pursuing all things fruitless and batty (or is that batless and fruity?).

Speaking on behalf of Crumhorn, he doesn't want the gig.

How 'bout you, buckaroo?

fixed your post.

Is there any reason for the quote divs to not be sized to fill the container post div? It's tilting me.

It could happen if <div> tag is set to specific height (or width) and you specify the scroll to auto. But, more than my guess, a quick look at the stylesheet could help you.

Temporarily, to avoid this problem, you can simply avoid quote-inside-quote and go quote-after-quote (which you probably already know).

Strangely this look and feel problem happens on all browsers (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari-on-IE). Shouldn't be that hard to fix it.

Top-class work, well-named! I laughed out loud.

PS Sorry for the content-less post. Hope I can get away with it just this once.

Booooooooooo.

I mean, yayyyyyyyyyy.

Funny.

For a Montanananananer.

FZ for honorary mod:

I might be movin' to Montana soon
Just to raise me up a crop of
Dental Floss

Raisin' it up
Waxin' it down
In a little white box
That I can sell uptown

By myself I wouldn't
Have no boss,
But I'd be raisin' my lonely
Dental Floss
...

I don't think WN should be a mod. His avatar might attract moose hunters like Sarah Palin.

-- Ed "teenage girl filter" Yetman

You're one funny moose.

They serve moose at Montanan Jack in the Box? All we can get in Tucson is rattlesnake. It tastes like chicken, only without that real chicken flavor.

So I leave for a day or two, come back to see if this is all sorted out, and I get moose and rattlesnake at Jack in the Box? Oy. Okay, I guess I have back through the other pages. Curse you.

Rattlesnake is best eaten al fresco anyway.

Speaking of curses, check out my last post in "World Religions."

Mods: PircAlert, Sam Hardwick IV, South Coast Kevin, The Gelatinous Cube.

To injure Shakespeare, some are born Mod, some achieve Mod, and some have Modness thrust upon 'em. If after reading all these threads I erred and you don't want to be a mod, just pretend you aren't.

First, thanks to SachBinger for his eons of servitude. I can't remember if I sent gifts to the last batch of exiting mods. I know I did to some at some point but I probably shouldn't bring that up in case it pisses off people who didn't get gifts. Never mind.

I have to go on the air live at Chess.FM for Corus round 1 with Svidler in, oh, 3.5 hours, so I'll be brief. Just about everything I can imagine wanting to say about moderation has been covered in the past few days. You can check my recent posts if you like. TGC has some guidelines in another Feedback thread. I don't take technical protocol "violations" so seriously as long as it's not abusive. E.g., not explaining a link is a not polite, or it can be funny, but it's not abuse (harmful) like spam and flaming. Same goes with me-tooism. You're not here to enforce the sparkling nature of the conversation.

TGC is Mod Emeritus and just for fun I made him a Global Mod, which has no more power than the other Mods since they are all in all forums. He does, however, appear with blue lettering, so there's that. As far as I can tell, everyone else either volunteered, declined, begged off with martyrdom in full effect, or all of the above. Suck it up. Time to help your fellow Ninjas. Thanks much. And you get a custom title. Woo-hoo.

The Mods main job is to exist. Good job already, Mods! This means showing up regularly. NOT showing up looking for things to moderate. Just go about your usual business. It helps for members new and old to see the place is moderated by such fine, intelligent and handsome people.

Flaming, spamming, and blatant hijacking are the only real crimes. Not the humorous non sequitur, not the enthusiastic me-too, not the friendly jibe. Someone asking a semi-related question is not a hijack, even if it would have been better to start a new thread. Conversations evolve. Don't read each thread now as if you're looking for something to mod. Chill. It's all right if a long thread no longer fits the topic title exactly. As long as it's not going to confuse people. "Is it abusive?" is the only real question. Abuse can, in rare cases, be cumulative. If someone is consistently annoying, warn and explain.

The Off-Topic and To the Contrary boards deserve lighter treatment in every respect for what I assume are obvious reasons. Arguments evolve quickly if they are any fun. Unless it's incredibly blatant, it's hard to imagine anything counting as a hijacking in Off-Topic.

Use your Mod powers sparingly. Unless an offense is blatant and an easy call, give a warning either in the post or as a reply. A PM is also possible if it's touchy, but usually public is good. Explaining what you did and why is also good. New mods, please let me know by email the first time you use your powers.

Moving, closing, merging, and stickifying topics should also be done rarely. If a topic has long outlived its natural, on-topic life, it can be closed. That forces people to start a new one with a correct title. Sticky is nice for general event discussion threads so we can find them easily. Just remember to unsticky when the event is over.

Encourage people to use the board features to control things themselves instead of running to mommy and daddy mod. E.g. the ignore feature. It works.

Admin powers that can dispensed on request include temporary banning and post throttling. These would only ever be used if everything else has been tried and at least one warning given to the member in question.

Answering questions is another part of the job. Not mandatory, but appreciated. Reading the FAQ is a good idea.

Post count has been as removed as possible. Too few benefits to compensate for people getting excited about it one way or another.

Thanks to the Mods new and old and to all the members. Click a sponsor banner now and then so we can pay for these upgrades. Heck, even buy something!

Saludos, Mig

I did actually say I don't want to be a mod after all, but in the interest of minimising fussiness I'm ok with it. And the other mods are so good I trust they've got my back when the excrement hits the rotary blade -operated cooling device again.

There are a few other features we don't use much that you can fool around with if you like. Mods can add items to the public calendar. So tournaments, famous chess anniversaries, solstices, whatever. In case you're motivated and bored some snowy night.

Thanks Mig for unmodding me, and good luck to the new mods!

I'm surprised!

You know what, I know it is because of the recommendations of three of our top rational and level-headed members Crum, Ed and Ken!! Also thanks Mig! Nice way of listing the mod names in the reverse order! Members, our eyes will be all over you! Be very afraid!!

Well, PircAlert, I'm not surprised.

I am glad to see that you got picked to be a Moderator!


Chess Fan

(and some are born-again Mod).

Big thanks to SachBinger and The Gelatinous Cube for modding shorthanded for such a long time.

And congrats to PircAlert, Sam Hardwick IV, South Coast Kevin and The Gelatinous Cube!

Thank you to the outgoing mods; welcome to the incoming mods; sympathies to The Gelatinous Cube, who is neither coming nor going.

Thanks ChessFan, RB and Ed for the welcome and the wishes.

Yeah I know, not many names, but you know, I haven't visited forums other than chess events, international events and off topic in a long, long while. I think I just went there to suggest others when the thread caught my attention and I saw my name being mentioned. I just wanted to acknowledge that and I am a mod now thanks to Mig!! I can add this to my chess resume if ever have that!

All right, enough of my me-ism.

I, for one, welcome our new moderator overlords. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I can't see the picture. Anyway, thanks for welcoming us!

I think I've said this before. I'm saying it again.

Do right and fear no man! Do write and fear no board!!
Be yourself either way!

Ah. I see what the problem is. I've loaded the pics (and my avatar) to the wrong account. Soon as I sign out of my account the pic and the avatar disappears from here and I have to go back into my profile and reenter them. Will repost them tomorrow sometime.

okkkaayyyyy...they're back...I think....????