I don’t like moderators in general

equating civil chat rules to a dystopian police state's tyranny seems ludicrous.

we all know or should what we signed up to on joining chess.com 

me i have been muted for offensive language , and i got what i deserved , and accepted the mute and try not to break the terms of service now 

do i feel imposed upon , no , i actually think it good that the site moderate this behaviour even if ive had my wrist slapped for it 

for me i got what i deserved , and im ok with that , as who am i to insult another with profane language esp if by my ignorance i could have been saying this to a junior , 

now i moderate my behaviour its as simple as that

The duty of the State is to secure the natural rights of its citizens. That doesn't only apply to securing those rights from State action. Imagine applying this logic to any other concept of rule of law: "they are a private company, they can kidnap you if they want. you agreed to their terms." It's just a fundamental disconnect from the ideals of liberal Enlightenment which has informed Western society. Again, the OP is asking for an parallel unmoderated, not EXCLUSIVELY unmoderated. He's not asking for the anodyne status quo to be removed, just suggesting a place (or setting) where those of us who value freedom over cleanliness can converge. This takes nothing away from the folks who prefer moderation.

Hmm. I don't think that the OP wanted to debate a suppressed political philosophy.

He just wants the freedom to say whatever horrible thing he wants about his opponent, as long as his opponent agrees to such chat being allowed.

The problem I see is that he wants to engage in psychological warfare and hopes to achieve an advantage from it. I don't see that being very effective for him if people have to agree to it beforehand.

Now you are just saying, "no, that freedom of speech is only for political philosophy, not for interacting with others on a voluntary basis." And still ignores the problem that the request is stated as something mutually voluntary. He even framed it as such, "for those of US who want to" meaning he, myself, and others who think the way we do voluntarily clicking an option or entering a mode or whatever... to be free of speech moderation. You would know going in, this is the nsfw trash talk mode or whatever. Now, from a marketing point of view, you could make a good case for why this would be unfavorable and unlikely. But not a philosophic one. At least, not one that assumes the premise of free speech. The only reason people like moderation is thought control, in the end. You say it yourself; you dont want people to be able to engage in this adversarial psychological contest, as you call it "warfare," and EVEN if ALL parties agree to it!

No ones forcing you to NOT wear the mask, for example! This is exactly like people who are in favor of these mask mandates, and want to bar everyone else from society instead of just wear their own mask or stay home! It is 100% the same mentality. I would love to see what the overlap of people on this issue here are with the mask thing. 

it is just a fundamental chasm of misunderstanding between 2 parties who view what an open and free society ought to be completely the opposite of one another. It's completely bonkers to think that adding 1% unmoderated comms to something that will then be 99% still moderated ruins the moderation for the 99%. No sense AT ALL. 

anyway this will probably never happen but it's a fun argument for the sake of argument.  it is absolutely fascinating to see how the ideals of society have diverged so thoroughly since freedom became the norm and allowed people the comfort necessary to question their own fortune! 

The OP is the one who views the utilitarian value of the trash talk as "psychological warfare."

It's telling that the person arguing to remove moderation has a sonnenrad as their pfp (they're a nazi)

A perfect observation and your implied attitude proves my case for me. The truth fears no examination. Only someone interested in limiting the range of thought is interested in moderation or censorship. Look how limited yours is. 

OP made a great post, here. 

it's about house rules not 'free speech'.

your failure to grasp an alternative point of view on this matter is clearly informed by a bad faith motivation, very obvious at this point. OP is asking precisely and exactly for unmoderated comms for people who want to participate in moderation-free gaming, trash talk, and banter. That is the purest application of the free speech ideal i can imagine, and i have already refuted your illogical position multiple times. 

OP's suggestion remains a great one, and the lemming-minded, authoritarian screeching of most of these responses prove his case and mine better than we could hope quoting descartes and bacon lol 

Very sad times ahead for our civilization when this thought-policing approach is the standard rather than exception. 

I stand with OP in his harmless request for unmoderated spaces. 

typical 'philosopher' with an oversized conception of their own intellect & all-too eager to enlighten others about the 'extent' of it.

when you sign up you agree to terms of use, guy.

"when you sign up you agree to terms of use, guy."
that's irrelevant to a suggestion for an additional, parallel space free of chat moderation. again, doesnt violate anyone or force anything upon you. your rebuttals are all strawman arguments. in a few years you will learn argumentation.

again, he's not demanding moderation be removed, or that it is unfair or any of that. just saying another setting, or room or whatever, would be cool for the people who want such a space. it's a big ask, and like i already conceded, not a likely marketing win... but, conceptually, i find it very interesting and would use/enjoy it. i also find the response here extremely informative, when extrapolated out to similar issues in wider society. one of the great Blessings of the advent of the internet! 

This strawman has been pointed out several times; OP is proposing an additional, parallel space. rights were brought up as part of the ethical argument (why should you favor moderation in spaces you dont have to join), not the pragmatic one (why should a company acknowledge individual rights on their property). i already conceded the latter. the title is that he dislikes moderation in general. the body is that he suggests an unmoderated space as an appeasement to the players who might like that. the rest of the responses (when i chimed in)  went immediately to the ethics of needing to keep spaces moderated at all costs. no one brought up the pragmatic "you agreed" canard until the ethical "more space/more speech = better" suggestion for an additional, parallel space was lost. no one ever suggested that all moderation be removed; he made it clear that's what he would prefer, but offered this idea as a suggestion: another space, the 1% fringe area, where gamers call each other mean names to force misplays and rage quits. you would not be forced into this mode or room, you would not be subjected to the lack of moderation, at any point. you would simply know it exists. there it is, people saying things you dont like, interacting in ways with which you would not approve!
intolerable, i know!

"but you agreed to the terms!" LOL!! it's just missing the point on the most basic level it's hard to even relate. 

#20

Wow, that is a very ominous statement... 

I feel like i'm being watched

#30 

your friend will find this technique useful in several ways if they employ it correctly!

Tilting an opponent is a lot like playing chess and is not often easy, but to understand how to do it better, you need to understand the simplest of situations and work your way up from there. and perhaps tilted isnt the best word ither, and the reason why will become clear as you read.

A good example of an obvious case is where your opponent instigates first. The correct response is to wait and say nothing untill you have thought of a clever come back that is based on what they said.

another example as I mentioned earlier is pointing out a bad move on their behalf in an obnoxious way so they might become tilted and play another one. 

or take my name for example! chess is different from other games in that is has a significant boomer population base. this along with pollitical comments can piss them off and then they will make bad moves when distracted.

The moderator has a point that it isn;t that worth while if they have to agree to it, but I think a little mind games here and there are fair game if they provide an advantage

The whole forum is an unmoderated chat so long as you don’t mention cheating or lichess

Honestly, I thought about this! 

I think there should be an option in settings, "allow unmoderated chat", and when two users match then a message, "(user) allowed unmoderated chat" appears.  Just like a message appear when you disable chat, it messages me, "(user) disabled chat"

Then anything goes, you can message your opponent whatever smack talk during your game. 

what does this mean "lichess" ?? sorry, very new

very elegant solution, and well said!