There are already boards set up where a person can post offending & non-family type stuff, they are called fellowship boards. On those boards, the BIG BOSS can decide what stays and goes, with a few boards already set up for just about anything to be on-topic.

Fencer: Correct for the first part!
But the: "There are more important things to do and always will be." should not mean in any way that because there are other things to do, we should not correct some others.....

Walter Montego: Oh, you are going too far, i wasn't thinking actually of a change to the whole system but only of the philosophy of it.
But if we talk about changing the whole system then yes i agree with you. Freedom of speech without ANY restriction is what i prefer too!

Also a correction on the "I disagree with you. This is the system we have now." This is not what we have now, since now every moderator obeys to his own charter.


So suppose we allow 2 options: The sensitive one-> "with moderators" and the other that allows complete freedom of voice.
Well this is a bit odd since it would split the people into 2 categories. That's not the best but it's doable and worth looking at it as an option.....Actually this is the best option i can think of....

One easy way to create that system is:
Keep the current system as it is with an extra option available to choose from. That is to see the posts removed. As an option. So when a moderator deletes a post, the post would not actually been deleted but only stay hidden from people that haven't enabled that option. Others that have it enabled, can see every post and these that have been "deleted/hidden".

Walter Montego: I said it many times but I'll say it again. No matter what system you choose, there will be always someone who would complain "the system is not working for me and a lot of others". There are more important things to do and always will be.

Pythagoras: And I certainly don't want some moderator to force me as to what to post or believe. We can turn the tables and make them conform to how I believe if I was the moderator. I let eveyone post as long as it doesn't contain profanity or racial epitats. The topic isn't even that important in most of the cases, though it can be steered towards if it demands it. This is what I want to get away from, having it NOT matter who the actual moderator is. The system as is now is not working for me and a lot of others. It needs changing. It is too personality driven.

Pythagoras: I disagree with you. This is the system we have now. What we need is a different system. One that will let those of that don't mind what people post to have all posts show on their screens and those that are sensitive can choose to have moderators. We can all hide something we don't like, so why do I need a moderator to look out for me? I would like the ability to hide individuals posts too. That way I can still see other things that person has posted. This should at least be added to this site for the moderators now. The default set up could be the "Familiy" setting. One would have to purposely choose to have the unmoderated one and would be responsible for their account and their own children. I haven't seen anything on this site that a twelve year old would even bat an eye at unless their parents have been hiding out in the commune of puritanical beliefs somewhere.

Walter Montego:.
.
.
Agreeeeeeeeed!

The current system with the moderators:
-delete anything THEY think should not be posted or
-do anything THEY think is right, is not good at all....

The way the moderators should act is to have a charter and force the posters to follow it.
Anything that doesn't violate the charter should be allowed even if the moderator disagrees with that!
The charter of course SHOULD be crystal clear, without the slightest possibility to generate any different convenient interpretations, by the moderators in order to do again what THEY think right.

For example the charter could be like this:

The moderators should force the members to make posts that:

Are, within reason, on the topic of the discussion board.

Are not abusive in nature.

Do not contain personal or libelous attacks on others.

Are not of questionable legal status.

Are not obvious trolling.
Other of course can be added.
The moderators should force the posters to follow these and only these rules, without creating any new personal criteria.

Walter Montego: it is mostly due to Fencer wanting this site to be more Family oriented..

welcome to the wonderfull PC world

Walter Montego: To be honest i didnt think they were that offensive it had the word "Privates" in them, obviosly "Somebody" found that offensive, so i was asked to remove them.

WatfordFC: Just because someone doesn't like something does not make it offensive. Is the community standard going to be that of the most sensitive member of us? That's where this is leading. If people are that thin skinned they should get over it. I'm being denied the opportunity to read other people's posts because someone doesn't like them.
If you carry this to the extreme it will become impossible to post anyting but of the most banal nature, fluff, or inconsquential things. This would be a shame because I believe there's some very smart people on this site.
Any post can be deemed off offensive to at least one person. This system of moderation is a joke. Let's all become politically correct.

Even following a board's guideline isn't enough. Those that don't like the posts change the guidelines and still delete
the posts. I notice there's been a big drop off in the number of postings to my favorite boards. Is this a coincidence?

Fencer, please entertain ideas of finding a different way to moderate the public boards. It is too arbitrary and capricious as it is now.

harley: I put a couple of posts on the GC which were deemed offensive, the Mod pmed and asked me if i could remove them, this person ws very polite about it, so i removed them.

harley: it dont work for me that way....

There are always others to take there place, which is a shame.

Well up to now moderators generally ask people to delete their own posts if someone messages to say they find it upsetting or offensive. The problem is I think (and this is only my opinion) that we have been a bit too trusting of people who say they're offended. This hasn't been a huge problem by any means though and its good we have caught it early.

One thing remains unclear:
Tuesday said some of her posts have been deleted while the moderators agreed that her posts have been OK with nothing wrong at them.
There is a contradiction right?

If i am a moderator and don't find anything bad at a post but delete it, then if i didn't delete it by mistake, i'm a moron and have to be replaced with someone better.....!

Naming people isn't a great idea, they feel the need to defend themselves then arguments and accusations start. Much better to keep posts neutral and inoffensive.
Tuesdays problem has been passed to the mod squad fellowship so all moderators can be aware of this particular action that some users have been taking lately. I don't think the person in question has any hold over moderators (to answer your question, Pythagoras), its more because moderators act when they are messaged saying someone found a post offensive. Its a shame that some members play on the good intentions of moderators and use this as a means to 'get at' someone they may dislike. Hopefully we'll find a middle ground where offensive posts are dealt with ASAP, while people claiming they are offended to cause problems are spotted and not allowed to abuse the system.

Pythagoras: I don't think that names are important...they know who it is....oh well,to each his/her own,lol....I know I don't try to offend peole on purpose...sometime I just blurt stuff out though,LOL!!!

Tuesday: Is he a moderator or even a global one? And if not, how he can affect so much the moderators in order to delete your posts.....?

Also i don't agree with this secrecy of you. Although it shows your decency and good manners, you should say who is this person....

anastasia: Reminds me of a story I read once about a Utopian society that had only two rules:

1. Thou shalt not bother anyone.

2. Thou shalt not be too easily bothered.

Tuesday: she's right...I was also aproached by a mod and said that she saw absolutly NOTHING wrong with my post but since this person didn't like it,she still took it down...I said ok,I didn't want to offend ANYONE and wasn't really sure how I WAS offending anyone,and she agreed,but still took it down...

Tuesday: If the mods disagree then don't worry about it!
I do know what you're talking about though, I'll put a note in the mod squad (for any mods that don't read this board) for them to keep an eye out for it happening. If you still have problems them PM a global.

Tuesday: good advice from Hrqls.

Tuesday: report it to a glob (or more than 1 if you dont think any glob can/will handle it)

dont post it on a public board, this will just start another flame war

Goonerg: I didn't.

rod03801: Well actually the Paid Membership page will only show you new memberships, and not any renewals of current members, so it is only goot at counting new members (or at least from pawn to knight/rook memberships)

Goonerg: did you really??!!?? lucky person you are!!

I got a 50% bonus.

I am curious what the stats are for the membership "action" for February. It would be interesting to know how many memberships were bought (information I know I can find by going to the "Paid Membersip" page) and how many of those got the random 50% added to what they bought.

ScarletRose: very clever

Click it good

Hrqls: I think it's a great idea too.

wekke: yes please...AWESOME idea!!!

Hrqls: I 2nd that idea.

are there any fellowship or team ratings or rankings ?

now there will be a lot more team tournaments/challenges it might be nice to view which team/fellowship ranks where in each game type :)

shagglbrox: The games will remain as they are, it won't affect them.

Fencer: The team I'm on is in a team tournament. The team I want to join will be doing a team match.

shagglbrox: Do you mean a normal tournament, a team tournament or a team match?

If I'm on a team for a fellowship involved in a tournament currently, and I want to leave the team to join the same game type team of another fellowship, what happens to any current games in my first fellowship's tourney?

There is a lot of discussion wanting to "do away with" auto-vacation, some component of the weekends and even possibly predetermined vacation days.

Firstly, I am pleased to hear Fencer will be revising at least some of these. One of my gripes is that auto-vacation days (and at times vacation days) are not actually vacations, they are just "non-time-out" days. A vavcation day, I beleive, should step EVERY game back 24 hours, not just delay the ones which were going to time out to not time out till the next day. All the present system does is give you twice as many games to catch up on the next day, hardly a vacation.

Secondly, I try not to use auto-vacation days but there are times when I simply cannot get on for some periods of time because I have work to do or like BBW am not near a computer which is quick enough to play many games - try playing Jarmo on dialup!. When these days occur I get online if I can and play a few games, but am not able to play them all, and yes i am selective about the games I play and don't alwyas make the decision on whether that particular game will time out - there are many deciding factors in which games I play, time left is only one. Play less games you say ... well I play the amount of games I am comfortable with for 95% of the time and rely on auto-vacation for the other times.

Thirdly, also as said before ... only play in the games you are comfortable with. I do not play any 1 or 2 day games. I do not play any fischer clock games. I do not play any fixed weekend games (except where I missed it when signing up). I have adapted to what suits my style of playing, I think you all need to do the same. Because I don't play particular styles of play I do not call for the whole site to change to suit me, so please do not reply in kind.

Elsewhere Fencer has (recently) stated that this site offers many options ... use them if you want, or not.

And lastly a poignant offering ... I notice that two of the protagonists for doing away with autovacation still have their own autovacation set to on .... is this a double standard or just and oversight?

furbster: I've been wondering about that ever since, lol. I wonder what the details of the change are..

Fencer How come you didn't announce the Knight tournament allocation change in News? Seems to me it's the removal of a major restriction. Surely all Knights would welcome hearing that?

Yeh i don't think Fencer has updated the paid membership bit where it says you can only joing one tourney of the same type. Only reason i had an inkling it had changed was that i saw some subtle remark on one of teh discussion boards a week or two ago. At least you know now

emmett: Not sure if this is correct, try signing up for a tourney where u already have one running in. Eg. try joining anotehr loop chess tourney