Debates forum suspended temporarily

@no1marauder said
I'd prefer non-subscribers have less influence over Debates not more. Perhaps they should be limited to a certain number of posts and/or participation in a limited number of threads per week/month.

Many of the most toxic and disruptive posters in Debates have no "skinny" in the game and some periodically start new usernames. It would be nice if something was done to control these problems.

I want to weigh in in agreement to this.

It's the 'account-of-the-month' non-paying user that has traditionally been the biggest agitators in these forums.

People feel free to give their internet disinhibition free rein when there is zero cost to them for doing so.

@russ said
Needless back and forth about why a forum post has been removed is unlikely to happen, and even less so in the future if the process is to be streamlined somewhat. Hopefully more of the worst offenders will be removed in future.

There are a few posters who have crossed the line.
In this case, I definitely saw one poster who probably caused this mess.
One person in particular (a non subscriber) with an unhealthy need for attention and sought to get that attention by removing all boundaries of decorum.
And I am pretty sure you know the usercode.

Unfortunate at the moment. But in the longer term, cooler heads will prevail.

I look forward to the debates forum being reinstated after the next President is inaugurated. 😛

@sh76 said
Why not just ban people who post anything that is antithetical to the principles of politically correct Orthodoxy?

That way we can have a nice echo chamber wherein all of our priors are nicely confirmed by all others around us.

That's what I look for in a "Debates" forum.

Well said.

Maybe when it opens back up it will only be virtue signaling whites who all agree with each other and they can pat each other on the back for ruining it.

Then when the forum dies and nobody posts there anymore they can blame white people and Trump.

@no1marauder said
I'd prefer non-subscribers have less influence over Debates not more. Perhaps they should be limited to a certain number of posts and/or participation in a limited number of threads per week/month.

Many of the most toxic and disruptive posters in Debates have no "skinny" in the game and some periodically start new usernames. It would be nice if something was done to control these problems.

I'm not sure about influence. The alert feature would simply prompt a moderator to take a glance at a particular post to determine whether any action should be taken against it. One can imagine that moderating the debate forum would otherwise be a full-time job of opening every thread and reading every post.

In the end it's still a staff member's call, not the call of any subscriber or non-subscriber.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I think perhaps the chap saying black people were disgusting might actually have been a factor, hey?

It is also not okay to make constant defamatory comments about other posters, especially when unsubstantiated. This is not something we would tolerate elsewhere in life.

If that is the case and it opens back up after the upgrade then fine.
I can agree to that.
But shutting it down for a lengthy amount of time hurts the site.
This site is famous for its forums.

@suzianne said
I want to weigh in in agreement to this.

It's the 'account-of-the-month' non-paying user that has traditionally been the biggest agitators in these forums.

People feel free to give their internet disinhibition free rein when there is zero cost to them for doing so.

This is true.

Why not let a non-sub have limited posting privileges for, say, the first year, whereafter they get (mostly) the same forum privileges as subscribers? That would help rein in the clowns who keep generating new accounts in order to trash the forums.

Non-subscribers still increase traffic on the site, which in turn helps boost ad revenue. I've thought of subscribing, but, I only average about 2 games per year, and am only an occasional presence on the forums. Buying a full subscription for me would be overkill, though I will look into the subscription options again, like I do every few years.

@russ said
When it returns, the process for alerting posts will be improved and open to all, rather than just subscribers.

I would encourage all to alert posts that they find objectionable when it returns.

This is a good decision, I will say. In the end this is a chess site, and not 4Chan.

@soothfast said
This is a good decision, I will say. In the end this is a chess site, and not 4Chan.

Quite a few don't play chess here but constantly post and more than likely had a part in this.

@uglytoproll said
If that is the case and it opens back up after the upgrade then fine.
I can agree to that.
But shutting it down for a lengthy amount of time hurts the site.
This site is famous for its forums.

I've played (and been an admin) on a number of chess sites and RHP does indeed have the best forums, based on quantity and diversity of posters. Russ just needs to get the balance of moderation right while not stifling debate.

@uglytoproll said
If that is the case and it opens back up after the upgrade then fine.
I can agree to that.
But shutting it down for a lengthy amount of time hurts the site.
This site is famous for its forums.

I'm guessing less than one-tenth of one percent of active RHP users actually ever read or posted to the debate forum.

@soothfast said
I'm guessing less than one-tenth of one percent of active RHP users actually ever read or posted to the debate forum.

True but a lot of debaters don't play or pay.
Those "people" have no right to complain.

@uglytoproll said
Quite a few don't play chess here but constantly post and more than likely had a part in this.

All of this is Russ's call, for chrissake. Go cry in his in-bin, if you must. You're morbidly obsessed with "whodunnit," yet you've only been around for, like, three weeks. Three weeks, right? Unless there is something you'd like to confess.

@uglytoproll said
True but a lot of debaters don't play or pay.

So? That's Russ's call. If you drive away too many nonsubscribers you lose ad revenue, but if you drive away subscribers by, say, having a festering cesspool for a debate forum, you lose membership dues.