Earlier a thread was  LOCKED OUT  because it was felt that it violated a policy against advertising  similar playing sites:

 

     "Please do not discuss or advertise other chess websites here."

 

While policy isn't really any of my business, nor do I plan to stick my nose too far in it,  I was a bit perplexed at the application of this policy.  While I can understand that no one wants to see people from other sites use the forums for promotional purposes -which seems to be the main intent of the policy (though I could be wrong) - locking out forums that mention other playing sites seems rather weak to me. I mean weakin the sense that it exudes a lack of confidence in our own site.  A strong sense of confidence would encourage folks to try other sites so they might see the difference.  If it's a matter of nipping something in the bud - limiting discussion before it gets out of hand, that also reeks of weakness to me, the logical extension of which would be to close the forums completely out of fear someone might say something inappropriate.

 

Ok, I'm through.

 

  "Please do not discuss or advertise other chess websites here."

Don't lock that topics.Delete them forever! 

Policies like this are in place because of legal reasons, not to stifle competition amongst sites.  I've posted links myself, but now I'm not so sure it's a good idea, since there's no way to control the content of the linked site.  Many large-scale web operations (a well-known MMORPG comes to mind) are now alerting their members that they are leaving the home site and navigating to a site that is outside their control.  Best bet is to use your discretion on this point, but if you're warned not to post, then it's a good idea not to post links anymore.

That some kind of ethical issue! Should we apply the rule of free speech looking forward to develop a real community or should topic about competing sites be deleted? First of all, a backgroung check should be done onver the players advertising, tu be sure it's not some kind of "infiltration". However, if the member is what we could call a "devoted member" then I'd say it depends on what type of advertisement it is. If it's adertising how some options are improved in other websites, then it would be best for that member to say it directyly to the webmasters, so they consider these improvements. If it's to say about how a website has a unique optionwhich does not compete with chess.com, then why not leave it. Rather than deleting adervtising comments , chess.com should find why people think this website is interesting. Then if these comments are not based on reliable facts, then the comment shoudl be deleted with a notice explaining why these where wrong unapropriate posts. AS a general rule, explanation is always better than censorship.

If somebody posted names of other sites,they would need be banned from posting in forum for 7 days if he/she didn't get lecture afther that then suspend him/she.It should be new chess.com rule.

Amen 

I certainly have never hesitated during a vote chess game to give links to games at chessgames, nor to their opening explorer. It's relevant information, not advertising in my opinion. I didn't know of this rule, but still. On another e-mail playing site (is that an ok way to put it?) there is even a thread in the forum created for the sole purpose of showing what other places there are to play. This site is one of those discussed there, as are several others.

I noticed the thread indicated by batgirl was ended and thought it was ended because it was devoted to discussing other websites. That is different from a thread in which another site is mentioned for a specific reason other than advertising it. It would be difficult to have some discussions without mentioning other sites or organizations. For example, I answered someone's question about FIDE titles by copying and pasting information from the FIDE rules and giving the source.

posting links to other sites is OK if it is reference material.

talking about "which site is better", promoting other sites, or making fun of other competitive sites is what is not allowed. it isn't a lack of confidence, it is a matter or courtesy. i have actually spoken to the webmasters of a few other sites and all are in agreement - it is just a matter of respect. (and yes, i respect your right to disagree :) ) 

i agree with erik...

Then I submit that the policy, as both written and enforced, is in error. 

The policy, by Eri(k)'s above explanation (which is what I assumed the intent was all along)  should be against Promoting competing sites and Bashing competing sites, and not against discussing competing sites or even linking to competing sites.  Those are entirely different issues. 

here's the solution: make a list of alternative websites on the forums, then sticky and lock the topic.  People can see the alternative choices without the "who's better" argument. 

My issue isn't that competing sites aren't mentioned somewhere (I couldn't care less), but that the policy, as it's interpreted and enforced, doesn't follow its intent and in overextending itself, gives the impression (whether or not that's the actual case) of weakness or even paranoia, as tunatin observed.

 

 

I have to agree with batgirl. After all, we're adults... acting like other sites don't exist is a little odd.

 

I once got scolded for explaining the punchline to a joke that one of the admins made. It looks like the accounts are gone, but one of the admins made accounts called hedrotpawn and knamegot... when I explained the joke so some people who were wondering, I got told not to. I wasn't bashing the sites, nor was I praising them. I was explaining a joke the admins themselves were responsible for.

 

I understand the whole idea of courtesy and all, but to act like it's "gasp! the url that shall not be spoken!" is a little over the top.

 

Oh and dalmatinac seems just lusty for modmin fascism. Do you know how shrill you're coming off, buddy? "Delete them foreeevaaaaaar!" Lol.

 

I understand modminning is a delicate art. Being too permissive and being too restrictive can both kill the vitality of a healthy forum.  

 

What was the middle thing ???

Oh, and wouldn't if be a funny way for the "word association" thread to end?

 

queenie: sky 

owenscowens: blue

Dog_Day_Afternoon: red

wayne79: hot

Rael: ... ppppppppppppppaaaaaaaaaaww

erik: [this thread has been locked]

 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers” From the WIKI Confidence

Now, extrapolating this to chess.com, Batgirl has opened a very legit discussion about if we are being rounded as a flock of some sort. What is religion? What is politics? What is offensive? Why not this and why yes to that? What is advertising and what is information?

Come on you all – this is the one where you all can really shine with your theories and opinions.  

Like James Brown would say: HIT ME!

tunatin wrote: Or just google "chess", or "chess links". I am in no way promoting google over any other search engine, I'm sure they're all equally lovely. Now, let's all lace daisies into each others' hair while singing the chess.com anthem...

---

 THE BEST

This isn't really about freedom of expression. One suspends certain rights when one engages in the privileges of a private organization, in much the same way cowboys had to hang up their guns before entering a courtroom.  Since the forums are privately owned and moderated, Chess.com has every right to set its own policies and hopefully have the wisdom and skill to achieve a workable balance  (as they do seem to possess) between free expression and approriateness.  My observations, never meant to question their authority, were offered to try to keep those scales in balance.

Rael wrote:

Oh, and wouldn't if be a funny way for the "word association" thread to end?

 

queenie: sky 

owenscowens: blue

Dog_Day_Afternoon: red

wayne79: hot

Rael: ... ppppppppppppppaaaaaaaaaaww

erik: [this thread has been locked]

 

---

hehe that would be hilarious....

I like the cowboy association, including the courtroom.  

I would never dare to think that Batgirl would ever question this site authority. And somehow the whole forum here reminds me of a past forum where the original thought was about balance, opinion, information restrictions and responsibility in this chess.com site.