Enter Your Reply

Far be it from me to shy away from controversy. :-) I have to agree with
George. I am in favor of an open comments system. With all its faults, I
feel it is the best way to encourage people to become more active. [And,
honestly, I think 'good' or 'poor' gives me a lot of info. Not nearly
as much as I like, but who is going to fill out a survey that includes an
essay, for me?] Further, consider the Rules of Chess sections. We got a
lot of apparently one-time messages from fathers and mothers and
schoolkids. All of them know about this site now, and that it's friendly.
It will even listen to a non-member, and various members will respond. I
believe all this encourages repeat traffic, and if we have that, we get
more variants players. [That last sentence sounded so much better than: As
an aging hippie, that's how I want my world to be, open and encouraging.
But that's not a bad reason either.]
There should be things we can do to alleviate the problem without shutting
the doors. Maybe editors could have an automatic pass or a fast lane for
game comments that only consist of a rating. Maybe we could weight members
ratings. Let 'bare' game ratings directly on; and weight members to
non-members 5:1 to 100:1, depending on how little weight you wish to give
'outsiders'. 
Finally, making it 'Members Only' also eliminates all the posts from
outsiders who leave thoughtful comments on occasion. That would have the
effect of driving people away. I want more people to see and play these
games. Maybe someday, I'll find a face-to-face opponent! [Okay, that's a
selfish reason, but I don't think it's a bad reason for all that.]
I understand the reasons and frustrations, and in some ways I like some of
the ideas - maybe members should have to leave at least 5 words. But I
don't want to see the pool of players start drying up. Don't cut off the
supply. Channel it if you must, but keep this Comments system open, please.