<Daniel> The world chess championship between <Magnus Carlsen> and <Hikaru Nakamura>, if I'm not mistaken. I can't wait!!

Is there any chance we can get <Nigel Short> back as a commentator?

He's not cheap but he's definitely a draw, especially on games that are a slow draw.

<OCF> and others:

<upset the entire culture of this site for its entire history> that might be a description of Tabanus's suggestion if taken to the extreme, but here's what actually happened:

As soon as I learned of even a small account of vandalism, I set upon a task to make vandalism effectively impossible, even if attempted by a trusted editor.

While I worked on that, I set Lee on the task of deleting things like the puerile name jokes, and some 2nd grade quality pun posts, but later when I checked up on him we was struggling with pages I just wasn't sure about.

After a few hours he was getting into tiny little enclaves were people had some harmless jokes, usually not very funny, some of them actually hilarious. I saw at that point he had gone, in my opinion, too far. I wanted the filth gone—not a discussion of how Bach's Air on the G String is actually in the key of D.

That was the point I told Lee, "stop." I was afraid he went too far, and by looking at some of the things deleted I am guessing perhaps he did. The goal is not to get rid of every off-topic post. I'm hoping nothing of importance was lost but I can review the deletions and even undelete if need be.

How (and if) to proceed, is an unanswered question. One opinion is that there never was a problem in the first place, except that some people posting potty-mouth jokes that never got whistles and/or deleted until recently. That's not a problem.

Another is that some software modification could be made to address the issue that there are a few players of note (GM Rogoff being an obvious example) who simply cannot be discussed on this site.

I regard that as a small problem, because out of 77,325 players you can surely discuss about 99.996% of them. I don't think anybody can argue that a problem affecting 0.004% of the pages is a big problem.

<But a bio vandal all of a sudden gets your attention?!>

Vandals get the utmost attention, because they have to be stopped. BTW new backup system is going to sever more purpose than just preventing vandalization; it will help editors do their job.

But you're asking, did he get our attention with the matter of "vandalized player pages"? Yes, over 6 hours of it.

Don't worry that the practice of "using the site in unorthodox ways" is going away. This process is something that springs up organically when you organize a database like we do. You can love it or hate it, but either way, it's going to happen.

Nigel Short

<N0B0DY>'s time-saving suggestion #1:

There is a proposal in the Bistro on creating themed chessforums on those big topics, while cleaning up offensive posts as time permits. With so many other things happening, this can hardly be a high priority project. But if you do make a real culture change to this site regarding off-topic posts and off-topic subjects, it should be clearly and formally announced for everyone to understand.

<He is also crucial for our group dynamics situation which your <<<Historians>>> don't even begin to understand. Thank you.>

Er.. please don't lump me in with that blanket condemnation. I did some chess history work for cg.com, and I fully understand the importance of <The Honorable Member from Ohio> to a healthy, robust and fun "group dynamics situation."

He's got my vote, which is more than <Donald Duck> and <Hill-Dawg> can say.

Hmm not to mention, <Ohio> is also a "Historian." He has logged thousands of hours (yes thousands) helping research and edit chess history articles at cg.com. And that's just the work I'm aware of. He's a cg.com editor and who knows how many more thousands of hours he has logged doing other "History" work to improve our database. There is no sense in which <Ohio Chess Fan> is not a "Historian" at this website.

Therefore, thanks to your idiotic blanket condemnation, you are saying:

"<Ohio Chess Fan> is also crucial for our group dynamics situation which <Ohio Chess Fan> doesn't even begin to understand. Thank you."

Maybe you should work on *your* understanding of this topic before shooting your mouth off like that?

Rest assured that there is no change whatsoever to our off-topic policies (and surely we would announce that clearly if it would happen.)

<now now now now now - which is coming across as special treatment> You can fairly call it placating. I took one fragment of his request which was undeniably valid (that we ought not have "dick jokes" on every page for a player named Richard) and went to town on it. Everything that was deleted should have been in violation of a posting guideline.

Meanwhile I battened down the hatches against this ever happening again. After all, once the other editors see how successful defacing pages works in getting our attention, the whole site would be graffiti.

<Daniel>

<<tpstar> I agree with everything you said>

I'm a historian. <Tony> just said this about <Ohio>:

<He is also crucial for our group dynamics situation which your <<<Historians>>> don't even begin to understand. Thank you.>

That's a blanket condemnation of all your "Historians," including, ludicrously, <Ohio> himself. Which I just pointed out before your post.

Do you even read the posts in here? Or do you just skim them? Maybe it would be more honest of you to just post <TL;DR>? (too long, didn't read).

Clearly <Tony> is talking about <Tabanus> but maybe doesn't have the guts to be that specific. So he includes me and all the other "Historians" in his IDIOTIC BLANKET CONDEMNATION.

So, I beg your pardon?

You agree that I don't understand how crucial <Ohio Chess Fan> is to our group dynamic?

After I spent months on end working with him, for free, FOR YOU, to do Chess History work to improve YOUR database?

After years of joking around with <Ohio Chess Fan> and generally enjoying his company?

The Magnus Carlsen page tension is being managed by the membership without wasting the Administrators' time. There is a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes cyberstalking. The site got involved during the <tpstalker> confrontation of 2012 and not since.

Don't even get me started on the Kramnik page or the Susan Polgar page.

<You agree that I don't understand how crucial <Ohio Chess Fan> is to our group dynamic?>

I've not been talking about the So, Carlsen, Kramnik and Polgar etc. pages. I've been talking about the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of pages of lesser known players. These pages were never intended to be a place for jokes, but about 20 members seems to have misunderstood that point. They have game pages to have fun on, and their own forums. And some pages of high-profile players. This should suffice, especially if some other topics forums are added.