ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1018 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-20-17
 | | Domdaniel: With apologies to the Beatles...
"When I find myself in posting trouble
That's when Daniel earns his dough
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it go..." |
|
Aug-20-17
| | Domdaniel: <CG> Re Rogoff: how about a system that confines people to that page once they've posted there a certain number of times? So that if you become a Rogoff regular - or, heaven forfend, *want* to be one - you get trapped there, barred from posting anywhere else. This might just clean up the Rogoff page, or even the site as a whole... |
|
| Aug-20-17 | | rogge: Ha ha, good idea :) |
|
Aug-20-17
 | | saffuna: <So that if you become a Rogoff regular - or, heaven forfend, *want* to be one - you get trapped there, barred from posting anywhere else.> Then I (<statler>) would just open a new account as <waldorf>. |
|
| Aug-20-17 | | Boomie: I apologize for opening this can of tomato sauce, as TGA aptly put it. Now children, go to your rooms. This page is for suggestions or comments to improve the site. |
|
| Aug-20-17 | | Big Pawn: What is the real reason to keep the rogoff page fllled with 11,000 pages of bickering? Indeed, why not just create a politics page?
I see that the webmaster said he is more interested in improving the chess stuff on this site and funneling traffic around the site is not his top priority, but creating a new link called "Politics" is pretty easy, and deleting the bickering on the <Rogoff> is easy too. Doesn't seem like it would have to be high on the priority list. So there must be another reason that the <admin> doesn't want to clean up <Rogoff's> page. Perhaps he think that deleting all that content would be bad for the search engine traffic? I don't know. There used to be a recent kibitzing link on the homepage for <rogoff>, which is how I found the page in the first place, but the <admin> has removed that, as though he didn't want people going to the <rogoff> page, as though the page had been ruined. So I wonder why not clean up the page and restore it? Maybe the <admin> has a sock on that page and he's actually one of the flame throwers? Maybe he enjoys the discussion there, despite his public objections, and doesn't want to interrupt the flow? I guess we'll never know. |
|
| Aug-20-17 | | truepacifism: the muppet show, maybe and very funny, or more like animal farm Yes, this is not the forum for the Rogoff controversy, let the posts remain there for a reminder, but create a new page for politics.
anyway just a thought,
I don't post there at that page very much for obvious reasons, but the problem is when the overflow comes here, where it is not wanted, or at least not needed. |
|
Aug-21-17
 | | Richard Taylor: I recall I think it used to be ICC had separate channels for politics, philosophy etc etc. I was new to the internet and eventually fell into the traps of ranting and so on. It is like road rage. So I simply try to stay away now. I think little is achieved. I have taken note of things said that have made me think what I have or the way I have said things. I agree that Rogoff is a kind of lightening rod for such as BP who is probably not as he sounds. The political situation is certainly heating up but it is always so. It is a kind of masochism or whatever the word is...But people are fascinated by it. Humanum est errare. |
|
Aug-21-17
| | Richard Taylor: Let us all try to be gens una sumus. |
|
Aug-21-17
 | | chessgames.com: If we made a page specifically for politics, I predict several things would happen: 1. Just as frequently as we get the complaint "Why do you allow such things to take place on the Rogoff page?" we would then receive complaints "Why do you allow such things to take place on the Politics page?" 2. In addition to the above we'd continue to receive the complaint "Why do you sanction political discussion on a chess site in the first place?" 3. Others will ask for a Religious Debate page, then a Athletics and Sports page, a YouTube Music Videos page, a Donald Trump Supporter page, ad nauseam. Again, chessforums were and still are intended to be the solution to off-topic discussion. Any one of you (with avatars) can start your own political discussion page right now. Even though the documentation says "A chessforum is not your political soapbox" the reality is that if you try to turn it into one, we'll probably turn a blind eye ... unless you're a frothing-at-the-mouth Neo-Nazi or something. We've considered the idea of political or otherwise off-topic pages, but no, I think things are simpler the way they are. |
|
Aug-21-17
| | chessgames.com: <This page is for suggestions or comments to improve the site.> A couple users have recently learned this the hard way. Do NOT come here to make backhanded jabs at other users, tell off-color-jokes, or do anything else that will obviously cause me to delete your post. If you violate this you'll find yourself in the penalty box for a short while. |
|
Aug-21-17
| | saffuna: OK, it wasn't backhanded, it was direct, but message received. |
|
| Aug-21-17 | | tuttifrutty: < "A chessforum is not your political soapbox" the reality is that if you try to turn it into one, we'll probably turn a blind eye ... unless you're a frothing-at-the-mouth Neo-Nazi or something.> Welcome to my chessforum...dedicated to all...
Racist comments are not tolerated so don't even try. |
|
Aug-21-17
 | | WannaBe: <CG.com> I have a silly/stupid request, when a user's name's link is posted, is shows up as User: WannaBe Can the "User:" be removed and show up as the name? If not, I'm very curious as to why. =) Thanks. |
|
Aug-22-17
 | | Tabanus: So that CG could focus more on the chess related: "Dear US Government. I hereby apply for permission to create a Politics page on the internet, without having to monitor it or to be responsible for it. The page to be governed by US law, and eventual sanctions to be imposed only against its kibitzers (who would presumably mainly consist of chess players, since the page would be a separate part of Cg.com.). Whose identity will be made available for you (as my only duty and involvement) at your (and yours only) request." |
|
Aug-22-17
 | | offramp: <Big Pawn:...I think it would be a good thing if we came here tomorrow with the entire history of the Rogoff page wiped completely clean. The only adjustment that the webmaster would have to make, is to not discourage the use of personal forums for things like politics and religion. In other words, let the members use their forms like a personal blog. If this does not suit the webmaster, then it might be OK to put up a page for politics, religion and philosophy. Either way, I think it's very disrespectful, and I admit that I'm guilty of this, to fill up a player's page full of crap such as the Rogoff page.> I agree with ALL of that, part of which was, I think, Boomie's idea. But not two different Forums, Religion and Politics. You'd get comments like "Why dontcha take your comments to the Politics forum??" (And vice versa.) Just a single Forum, something like <Current Affairs>. Then wipe the Rogoff page of every single post. The idea of using the User Chessforums as a substitute is okay except that non-premium members can't make chessforums. Also, a User can delete swathes of posts without recourse. |
|
Aug-22-17
| | Tabanus: <CG> Champions Showdown (Rapid) (2016) can have a leaderboard, all the games (n = 2 x 3 x 2 = 12) are there. World Cadets U12 (2016) : the table is good-looking but totally useless because the sections (U8, U10, U12, x2) are mixed together (it's not only U12). (The bio says it better.) List of players would be better IMO. Millionaire Chess (2016) : no human being can understand the schedule, and the table consists of mixed events. List of players would be better IMO. |
|
Aug-22-17
| | Tabanus: <Just a single Forum, something like <Current Affairs>. Then wipe the Rogoff page of every single post.> I agree. I have a few more pages (apart from Rogoff's) to add (as you may have noticed), such as Norbert Assmann 's and others, but <Current Affairs> and/or <Politics> might divert attention and be a supplement to the The Kibitzer's Café. |
|
Aug-22-17
| | Tabanus: <how about a system that confines people to that page once they've posted there a certain number of times?> Perhaps not <that> page, but rather <a> page? A <Self-confinement page> (properly labeled as such) trapping the people posting to it enough many times. Just an idea ;) |
|
Aug-22-17
| | Richard Taylor: <chessgames.com> When there are tournaments is it possible to see cross tables on here? Rather than just from top down so to speak? To see who beat who, who drew who etc, in a more orderly way... |
|
Aug-22-17
| | Tabanus: I'm talking too much today. But if CG generated crosstables I'd make an effort in making those correct (at least game result-wise). Most TI events pre 2000 are already fairly correct (I believe). |
|
| Aug-22-17 | | zanzibar: <<Tab> I'm talking too much today. > Yes, on that particular topic. Today or anyday, given the history. <But if CG generated crosstables I'd make an effort in making those correct (at least game result-wise).> This would be a huge improvement. An important idea. (PS- I'd like to see <CG> do xtabs for on-going tournaments as well. Could be easily done automatically with a few software tools.) <Most TI events pre 2000 are already fairly correct (I believe).> I'd like to believe so as well, but I wonder... |
|
Aug-22-17
| | chessgames.com: <WannaBe: <CG.com> I have a silly/stupid request, when a user's name's link is posted, is shows up as User: WannaBe. Can the "User:" be removed and show up as the name? If not, I'm very curious as to why. =)> We're just follows the "best practices" of web design that dictate that "a link's anchor text should be honest and explanatory about where you are going if you click on it." No user likes surprise links that take them to some unexpected page. It's not needed for games because something like Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1922 is obviously a game, and Robert James Fischer is obviously a player, and openings like Ruy Lopez (C60) are denoted by the ECO code—but when it comes to user names it would be very confusing were it not denoted in some fashion. |
|
Aug-22-17
| | chessgames.com: <Richard Taylor> <When there are tournaments is it possible to see cross tables on here? Rather than just from top down so to speak? To see who beat who, who drew who etc, in a more orderly way...> Not yet, sorry—although it's been "by hand" by diligent volunteer editors on the excellent Tournament Index. Just look at any of the old tournament, e.g. Paris (1867), to see what I mean. What you're asking for, and what would really be awesome, is if a true crosstable akin to the Paris example above could be produced automatically for both past and current tournaments. The problem with making a generic crosstable has always been a technical one, the biggest problem being huge gaps in information like round numbers. But thanks to the good folks ("volunteer editors") at the Biographer Bistro we now have tournaments with completed round and date information, so it's actually possible that we can do what you're asking for. It will be great. |
|
Aug-22-17
| | chessgames.com: I'm going to say it again: If you post to the user support forum something that is bound to be deleted you WILL be placed on probation. I'm very sorry to start smacking people on the knuckles with my digital ruler, but it's become a waste of my time to come here daily and delete the bickering while attending to the legitimate ideas/questions. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1018 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
