Chompy Guy, the great freedom fighter is fighting for the free speech of dubai spambots.
you don't know if they're bots or just a random person who got lost and advertising dubai girls.
Chompy Guy, the great freedom fighter is fighting for the free speech of dubai spambots.
you don't know if they're bots or just a random person who got lost and advertising dubai girls.
Chompy Guy, the great freedom fighter is fighting for the free speech of dubai spambots.
mods have practically confirmed they aren't bots, but rather real people advertising those threads.
Chompy Guy, the great freedom fighter is fighting for the free speech of dubai spambots.
mods have practically confirmed they aren't bots, but rather real people advertising those threads.
That's even worse, right? Fighting for the "free speech" rights of pimps.
Chompy Guy, the great freedom fighter is fighting for the free speech of dubai spambots.
mods have practically confirmed they aren't bots, but rather real people advertising those threads.
That's even worse, right? Fighting for the "free speech" rights of pimps.
just pointing out how you're always wrong in every one of your posts
You agree with the guy who says the opposite of what you think?
No, they shouldn't!
I've seen some good arguments for banning people below 500 rating, but I also think free speech is an important right and chess.com shouldn't ban anybody from forums.
How about just leaving people alone and let them carry on the forum as they have been?
As I was advised by a wisely elder gentleman, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honestly, what are these "good arguments" anyhow?
The only arguments I've heard are the ill-developed
- "Low-rated players all tend to go off topic", and
- "Low-rated players just don't care about chess very much"
Neither of which is true.
Petition to ban all under 500 rated players from chess.com forums - Chess Forums - Page 69 - Chess.com
you posted on this forum for making a separate area for<500s and now your saying the opposite?
lol