Free Speech on chess.com

it alienates though  here on this site you have people of many creeds and cultures , many look to each other as teammates  but when politricks or reallyigion raise their ugly heads that team spirit comes under pressure as folk begin to take sides , and this can even cause insultfests that further cause division  

perhaps there is room in your life for a place where this is not allowed to happen ? i hope so  there are a gazillion sites online where you can express your politics or creed  is it such a bad thing to have a place where the divisiveness of those two topics isnt allowed to happen ?

I think this thread shows that these topics can be discussed intelligently. And with moderation (as found in other sites), can be had productively.  And yes, I will continue to use chess.com with this restriction (I've probably played 30 games today....I'll pay for it later though!! catching up on work I need to do!).  As I've stated many times, I believe communities (which chess.com is) are more culturally rich without such restrictions.

This being one of the few posts that warrants a mod potentially locking the thread ...

I wonder if the OP will exercise his right to block such contributors. The site does allow leeway, especially if an OP takes charge of his own thread. Sooner or later, the topic will attract unwanted attention. Is the OP's position that to block certain posts would be contrary to that persons "free speech"?

Ziggy starts up a political discussion, only to state "in before the lock". It's an all to common tactic of hijacking threads - to start discussion knowing responses will be inflammatory.

I'll dispute a claim made by the OP - that the sites he listed allow the type of discussion as he suggests. It was pointed out, a particular sites TOA's are far more restrictive on what can be posted in their main chat room. They too required such discussion could only take place at another location. Not a "Club" but a designated room. No real difference exists there, except perhaps one may be easier to access than here. 

The comment about beginnertriathlete.com is completely incorrect.  It allows the topics of religion and politics in the off-topic forum called 'cup-of-joe'.  It is completely different than chess.com.  You do not have to join a 'club' it is completely open to anyone on the site.  The repeated claims otherwise are just not correct.

Where you think "joining a club" is somehow different than going to the only room (Cup of Joe) where religion can be discussed is beyond me. Perhaps it's the terminology being used, the term Club invokes a response that denotes restrictions. Such Clubs were started by Staff as a place for discussion, moderated by Staff. They are not Private Clubs with arbitrary members acting as Admins. Another Club is the Cheating Forum. These clubs are open for anyone to join. Membership is not prohibitive, unless of course a members account is under restrictions.

Want to discuss cheating? Not in the main room. 

Join the Club created by Chess.com for such purpose. Everyone is free to join. The site could have just as easily provided another back room and called it Joe's Cheating Parlor. 

Is going to the 'off-topic' forum on chess.com joining a club?  Or is it open to any user?

It is of course, open to any user.  As is 'cup-of-joe' on BT.  Neither is a club that you have to be approved to join.  On one you can discuss Religion and Politics (BT) and on the other you cannot (Chess.com). I'm not sure why it is 'beyond you' to understand this.

if a picture is worth a 1000 free speeches, and an example is worth 1000 pictures ?....would the constitution be worth 1000 examples ?

....or is that just way too circular ?

****

Erik, this is a request for you to remove the 'religious/political' ban on the off topic forum. Free speech is how humanity learns and grows.

****

ironic that ive been blocked from contributing to this thread. Now thats FREE SPEECH !! 

I would be glad to do this. But I am not sure how. can you help me?

Please site where Chess.com stipulates that approval other than an account verification is necessary to join the Open Discussion Club, where Religion and Politics are open for discussion.  It's my understanding the club is open for all to participate in with one exception. The obvious exception is if an account is on restriction, muted, possibly kicked out, which happens. Naturally, a quick check is made, approval is made within minutes. But reinstatement comes easily with good behavior. I think the issue is as I suspected, the use of terms being used "Club". The Open Discussion Club is no different than the Cup of Joe room at another site, just different titles.

This is not to say the moderation is the same, which unfortunately might be at a mod's whim, but that's life. I agree the use of the term "Club" illicits a wrong impression.

Do you really think a Staff member or regular member/Admin is making decisions/approvals of who can join the Club, other than the account is already restricted for bad behavior?  That you'll be censored for expressing your opinion ?

I think I've explained the difference between an 'off-topic' forum and a club sufficiently.  Any user on the site can comment in the off-topic forum.  

Pawn355 - I joined it to see what the dialogue is like.  They do have a pretty heavy "warning" on their club description

I do not suggest the club is fair or worth the effort of joining. My point is that in principle, the original intention was to create an open discussion. Very likely, such rooms at other sites are more productive and worthy of participation. The point is that the "Clubs" intent is to provide such atmosphere, no different than other sites where discussion of Religion is not permitted in it's general forum format, but that it's necessary to enter another room.

I can well imagine what the Open Discussion Club has degenerated into. I have no desire to join. I joined the "Cheating Forum" another club. Stayed a bit ... concluded a waste of time. Same ole, same ole- nothing productive nor beneficial from my perspective. I only mention the Clubs are where such discussion is permitted. That Chess.com might do a lousy job of it is another matter. The intent is there, the implementation not so much. Does this mean peoples freedom of free speech is violated ? I suggest not.

If it's found that rational discussion of a topic to be quite disastrous in a Club that permits such topic, what hope is there that in the front room "Off- Topic" will prove to be any different? None. From experience Staff has learned not to take this course. The discussion here has been extraordinarily civilized, a rare observation. Religion and Politics get mentioned, but only as reference. If posts become religious or politically motivated with an Agenda to spread, we all know how quickly WWIII can begin. 

A perception exists that chess players are somewhat "smarter" than the general public. To witness chat rooms in live events or in the forums, this notion is quickly dismissed. I sometimes wonder how members actually know the rules, much less play.

The right to free speech ensures the freedom to freely express opinions. Not included, is the right to insult and disrupt others conducting themselves by community standards expressing their views.

As somewhat an aside - I actually went to the Open Discussion club and perused it.  

To be honest, I am shocked.  

Not by how degenerated the discussion is; but by how much it was not.  

To this point all I've heard about this club is that it is a morass of hate, name-calling, bigots, etc.  It is the place to go to see what 'religion' and 'politics' would do to the off-topic forum.  

Of course, I didn't see everything; but what I saw was intense debate, supported by posting of sources, much much back and forth discussion, clarifying of points, etc.  There were some very, very thoughtful discussions in a thread about God. And some not so thoughtful about the current impeachment trial. But overall, I was impressed by the tone of the exchanges.

And then, yes, of course - a few mentions of the word 'moron', 'bigot', etc.  But not nearly as much as I imagined after the horror stories I've heard of degenerate demons screaming nazi slurs from the bowels of hell.

I've seen much more intense debate on the other site I've mentioned (BT) than I saw in the open discussion club. 

Do you have to have some thick skin? Sure. But, so what.  

So of course, now someone is going to say, "That's what we've said all along - just go to the open discussion forum."   More on that below...

Why are we so afraid of vigorous and heated discussion? It is a valid question.   

Why is WWIII in the off-topic problematic? (obvious hyperbole)

Why is controversy a problem?

Why is contentiousness to be shunned?

To re-iterate my original point, free discussion in an open forum is how people learn and grow, and in which ideas advance or are pummeled into oblivion through logical observations.

The argument has been raised many times that discussion in the off-topic forum will spiral down into a cesspool of hate and name-calling if the topics of religion and politics are permitted. Perhaps that is so; however, no one has asked, "why is this a problem"? 

One of the points of open discussion in an open forum is for that very thing to happen.  Bigots can be called out as bigots, astute observations can be commended, examples of respectful and intelligent debate can be seen by all (and modeled for learning), and so can ignorance. It is how ideas advance.

In a moderated open-forum it's going to happen; but is that a bad thing?  If so, why? Is it better to have threads about bunnies and cats so that everyone feels comfy, or to talk about the direction of nations and philosophies and perhaps generate some heat because of it?

And the obvious alternative (which hasn’t been discussed to this point) for those who get offended by a moderated, controversial thread, is to walk away. Not unlike similar situations in real live public forums.

I'll repost a few key quotes from my OP which focus on the usefulness of open discussion in an open forum...

      "Reason and free inquiry are the only effective agents against error." Thomas Jefferson

      "I don't agree that when you become students at colleges have to be coddled and protected from different points of view." - Barak Obama

      "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties." John Milton

Please don’t give the solutions to “go to other sites” or “go to a club”.  Of course, we can all do that (and I do).

Isn’t the chess.com community of over 23 million people better with open forum discussion?

If not, why?