Puzzle of the Day: 0.5%

Game of the Day: 0.5%

Reviewing DB Games: 10%

Opening Explorer: 5%

But as a scientist I am pained by illogical reasoning and inconsistency. If you shut down political arguments on the <Kenneth S. Rogoff > page because they are "off-topic" (or because you object to some of the opinions posted there), will you also feel obliged to purge the math and logic puzzles posted on the <Louis Stumpers> page, my second favorite?>

No.

You see, you either missed the other factor (beside being off topic), which is driving the decision. Or else your reasoning skills are exaggerated.

That other factor is the controversy, heated arguments and drama incited by Rogoff activity, and the snowflakes who get their feelings hurt (e.g., <mckmac> running to momma to complain about <George Wallace>).

Nobody comes here demanding that some logic puzzle or other get deleted from the Stumpers page. Nobody threatens to not renew premium because of Stumpers page content.>

Well said.

And besides, why is <CG> going to spend money and resources to preserve a half-million, ten year old flame war?

Just so 4 or 5 political trolls will be happy that their flame war, their ten year troll rant is preserved? It costs money to host all that crap. It uses up resources.

It makes the website load slower!

I have a lot of posts on that page, and they're good posts too, provocative, interesting, fun, insightful - and I don't care if they all get flushed down the cyber toilet because I'm a grown man and I can handle it.

I don't think it's a good idea anymore to have another page for politics and debates. I now agree with others who argue that it's counterproductive. It's still going to generate the same problems. People will be blowing the whislte all the time, hounding the admins if their complaints aren't heard and so on.

I'd like to see in %>

Possibly. I don't spend much time on this page.

Do you know for a fact that it is being done to suppress <speech that some people consider controversial> i.e., that the administration objects to some of the comments posted there? >

I never said that is a reason for closing Rogoff. I agreed with your one reason, <off topic> posts, and added a second reason.

<However>, I do not believe the discussion to clean up the website has anything to do with anyone being offended. Daniel seemed like he was not easily offended unless you attacked or were looking to damage the site. I remember in our discussions we talked about how he preferred to leave some room for people to express themselves freely.

I think <Susan Freeman> shares this attitude but is facing something Daniel always avoided; the legitimization of CG.

Either CG continues to function as-is, holding on largely due to the generous patronage and donations from premium members, or it needs to change and open up to a larger audience so it can attract enough members to sustain it for the long-term.

I believe there are 3 major changes that are needed -

1.<Must be able to play Chess>

2.<Must improve forums (the kibitzing editor for instance is ancient)>

3.<Better integration/use of the (existing) content of the site (There is an insane amount of potential!)>

I feel all these problems are trivial to fix because I "know-how" to fix them. It's a bigger discussion for whether or not CG and its members truly want to change.

Um, no. There's lichess for that and CG can't realistically compete. To each his place: CG is a chess-oriented forum.

Instead of closing actual active pages, concentrate on the -still relevant:

<Cg's front page is probably the worst I've seen, and that's saying something. Cluttered by 90s style "Example searches", "What's new" stuff from 5 years ago, huge space wasted around the daily puzzle... While the important stuff, the active topics, is reduced to a tiny column at the bottom right.>

See that? Like I said, it's all about EGO. Got news for you <keypusher>, nobody values your crap posts on the Rogoff page, so if you want to save them, go use the search kibitzing function, find them, save them in a Word doc and keep them on your PC.

These arrogant people actually think their political rants have genius level value, as if they should be enshrined forever in the annals of history.

Are you kidding me?

These eggheads are not well-adjusted.

Nobody's posts, on the whole, are of greater value than mine on the Rogoff page and you don't see me trying to save them.

<nok: nok: <Must be able to play Chess>

Um, no. There's lichess for that and CG can't realistically compete. To each his place: CG is a chess-oriented forum.>

I might have to agree with this. Perhaps CG should focus on completing player bios so that this database becomes the Wikipedia of chess history.

However, just because CG may not be able to compete with chess.com and lichess (playing games), that doesn't mean that it can't still be a useful addition to add to the site. It's not like CG has to be able to blow chess.com out of the water in terms of how many people play here. Why does that have to be the case?

Why can't playing games be added to the site? It will attract new people. It's also another way to boost premium memberships.

We have to wonder how much further into the future a "forum" type website will be considered an interesting place to visit on the internet. In 2002 when the internet was new, people were happy to find a place, any place, online to read about chess. The internet has advanced since then and user expectations have become more sophisticated.

It may be a good move to meet those evolving expectations by augmenting this site with the ability to play games.

chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #29950)

Though I might be guilty of obstruction of justice, given that my $10 offer still stands!

Next to Impossible to claim, especially if done before inauguration.

Basically, one posts a flood of drivel in order to force all other discussions into the ditch,...>

Just use the ignore button.

Problem solved.

This is a basic technique, related to dog-packing, but only requiring a single determined individual.

Basically, one posts a flood of drivel in order to force all other discussions into the ditch, hopefully trolling those you're crowding out. Ideally you get others to join in the fun as well, leveraging the chaos.

Of course, this technique requires a complete disregard of the resources of the sponsoring host - as they're required to provide the bandwidth and storage space for the deluge of crap being posted.

Do you want an example of this technique?

Ah, look to the master, <BP>. He uses it quite often, most recently under the guise of User: User: george wallace

[Remember his threat to <CG> to unleash his puppets?]

The best, and perhaps most egregious, example of flooding the zone was his 239 part posting of <Lady of the Lake> on the <Kibitzer's Cafe>.

Kibitzer's Café (kibitz #210245) (Lady of the Lake - part 1, not of 9, but of 239)

He didn't make it all the way to part 239, since he switched to the Illiad soon after part 111 (I'll omit posts 2-110):

Kibitzer's Café (kibitz #212644) (part 111 of 239)

Why would <BP> exhibit such utter disregard of <CG>'s resources? He himself explains his rationale much earlier in his campaign:

Kibitzer's Café (kibitz #209783)

* * * * *

So, Susan, go ahead and close Rogoff, allowing <BP> yet another opportunity to gloat, while dragging <CG> down:

Kibitzer's Café (kibitz #210727)

Closing down <Rogoff> is just pulling off a band-aid. The underlying chancre will remain.