Jeremy Silman is a thief, who stole A.J.'s way of thinking. All his books are based on A.J.'s genius.

Well, if you personally think that, then just put him on IGNORE then. What's the problem?

Yes, indeed. What's the problem..

Daniel Freeman, one of the most reasonable and patient man I have ever known banned this man.

Nakamura is a cheater.

Silman is a thief.

< He never deleted a post because it "hurt his feelings" eh.>
It's demoralizing. I'm one of many that refuse to work in a toxic environment. We lost good help in the past due to disrespect from users, most of which brings zero value to CG, but somehow have a sense of entitlement. We decided to try resolve this issue. Sorry(not really) if our current plan isn't to your liking. Any type of disrespect is deletable(How some feel when they get deleted: https://imgflip.com/i/2ue0t4 ). Guideline #8 widened the grey area.

<Under your present "plan", there is only chaos which increases, not decreases, the noise, not to mention the unpleasantness.>
Please elaborate. We seem to be down to handful(prove me wrong) of people who are still unsatisfied with our progress. It IS a work in progress. Granted, they've been increasingly unsatisfied but we're working on it. It's difficult to please everyone.

<Chess.com, and the ECF forum for example. No trouble of this sort there- ever.>
I'm sure they deal with their fair share of nuisance, multiplied by a million.
I'm pretty sure their solution isn't "By having one (1) person" do it all as you have suggested... So we'll just disregard that statement.

<Shangri La>/<fredthebear>(and many other "aliases" who are not allowed to post comments anymore):
<You're killing off your own business by angering clients.>
As mentioned above, it seems we are down to a few unhappy users.
Most of them were your sock puppets.

<it's too big a problem for one person to handle>
We agree. We now have 3 main moderators that communicate often.
It's definitely our least favorite task on CG but we are now obligated to do so.

<Do ya'll really wanna spend 12-15 hours a day here dealing with the same old re-occurring problems >
Unfortunately, We only have 20hrs/wk dedicated to moderating hence why we can't do too much bickering about a 4hr deletion we may have done for a possibly minor violation.

<I tried to help find a solution>
What was your recommended solution?

Good day to have just laid low and watch developments.

1. <CG> could add a feature to allow user's to check other user's ignore-lists (either generally, or just specifically for themselves).>

Frankly, this sounds like Stalinism. Something Lavrentiy Beria would be in charge of.

You are not even a premium member, and you want to go around poking your nose into other people's private info?

@cg.com:

For starters, you launched an air raid on Tokyo. No one can say you do little.

Frankly, this sound like hysterics.

Stalinism? Beria? Really?!

This sort of exaggerated vitriol belongs on Rogoff, not here.

<You are not even a premium member, ...>

What's this got to do with the price of bread?

<...and you want to go around poking your nose into other people's private info?

@cg.com:

This is a horrible idea! Ignore lists should always be private.>

Did you even read my post?

<CG> already makes ignore-list info public - in the particular case I outlined. My post didn't advocate a solution per se, but did alert people to the asymmetry the current system exhibits for information.

For the record, if there is a public discussion and I'm addressing a point made by another member, then there is a valid case to be made that I might like to know if that member has me on there ignore-list.

I believe in this case <Messiah> and I handled the exchange rather amicably.

And without inflammatory rhetoric.

It seems <Missy> wants <CG> to assume the position, sorta speak.

That's the PG version.

The ads seem to suggest they offer more.