Low rated Mods should not be monitoring the forums

Chess.com forums need mods who can maintain high standards and credibility. Allowing low rated players to moderate the forums doesn’t reflect well on the platform. There should be a minimum requirement of 2400+ rating for mods to ensure they have enough experience and respect within the community.

Low rated mods are often slow to react when real abuse happens, yet they’re quick to close posts or ban accounts unnecessarily. This inconsistency hurts the community and creates frustration for users. A minimum rating requirement of 2400+ would help ensure that mods are more experienced, fair, and better equipped to handle forum issues properly.

I recently created a post where many users accused me of having an alt account and playing against myself. I did nothing of the sort, but guess what? I received a message from a mod warning me about "abusing the platform" and "manipulating ratings." I assume a lot of people reported my account.

Guess the rating of the mod? 1700. I bet if they were 2400+, they’d be able to see through all these nonsensical false reports.

Chess.com forums need mods who can maintain high standards and credibility. Allowing low rated players to moderate the forums doesn’t reflect well on the platform. There should be a minimum requirement of 2400+ rating for mods to ensure they have enough experience and respect within the community.

Low rated mods are often slow to react when real abuse happens, yet they’re quick to close posts or ban accounts unnecessarily. This inconsistency hurts the community and creates frustration for users. A minimum rating requirement of 2400+ would help ensure that mods are more experienced, fair, and better equipped to handle forum issues properly.

I recently created a post where many users accused me of having an alt account and playing against myself. I did nothing of the sort, but guess what? I received a message from a mod warning me about "abusing the platform" and "manipulating ratings." I assume a lot of people reported my account.

Guess the rating of the mod? 1700. I bet if they were 2400+, they’d be able to see through all these nonsensical false reports.

Chess.com forums need mods who can maintain high standards and credibility. Allowing low rated players to moderate the forums doesn’t reflect well on the platform. There should be a minimum requirement of 2400+ rating for mods to ensure they have enough experience and respect within the community.

Low rated mods are often slow to react when real abuse happens, yet they’re quick to close posts or ban accounts unnecessarily. This inconsistency hurts the community and creates frustration for users. A minimum rating requirement of 2400+ would help ensure that mods are more experienced, fair, and better equipped to handle forum issues properly.

I recently created a post where many users accused me of having an alt account and playing against myself. I did nothing of the sort, but guess what? I received a message from a mod warning me about "abusing the platform" and "manipulating ratings." I assume a lot of people reported my account.

Guess the rating of the mod? 1700. I bet if they were 2400+, they’d be able to see through all these nonsensical false reports.

Chess.com forums need mods who can maintain high standards and credibility. Allowing low rated players to moderate the forums doesn’t reflect well on the platform. There should be a minimum requirement of 2400+ rating for mods to ensure they have enough experience and respect within the community.

Low rated mods are often slow to react when real abuse happens, yet they’re quick to close posts or ban accounts unnecessarily. This inconsistency hurts the community and creates frustration for users. A minimum rating requirement of 2400+ would help ensure that mods are more experienced, fair, and better equipped to handle forum issues properly.

I recently created a post where many users accused me of having an alt account and playing against myself. I did nothing of the sort, but guess what? I received a message from a mod warning me about "abusing the platform" and "manipulating ratings." I assume a lot of people reported my account.

Guess the rating of the mod? 1700. I bet if they were 2400+, they’d be able to see through all these nonsensical false reports.

Chess ability has nothing to do with being able to moderate.

Regarding the message you received, that sounds more like a staff message and not a moderator.

@Martin_Stahl

I would appreciate it if you could forward this feedback to the staff and close this thread.

I posted this as feedback, not for back-and-forth discussions with other users.

When I mentioned 2400+, I meant that moderators at that level would have more credibility and better experience in identifying actual cheating, sandbagging, and similar issues...things I’m frequently accused of.

I understand that a high rating isn’t necessary to moderate general discussions. However, for serious matters like cheating accusations, lower rated moderators may not have the required experience to handle them effectively.

To be clear, I’m not disrespecting lower rated players. I’m not 2400+ myself, so if this were intended as an insult, I’d be insulting myself. It’s similar to how citizens expect credibility from government officials... pointing out a lack of credibility isn’t the same as disrespecting candidates.

Also, if you're up for a blitz game, send a challenge when you're online. I still need this thread closed.