The Site's Comment Filter

Apparently believing you have some right to speak in what closely resembles public is a form of "entitlement" in this persons mind. Free speech - an idea set in motion by bad parenting!

It was interesting hearing from that poster earlier who actually grew up in Bulgaria during communism, and had to cut his hair 1 inch short / trim his nails to the base or get caned in school. He seemed to have a very different perspective on this matter than you.

Oh no... the conversation is naturally moving into politics... someone CALL THE MODS!!!!!

The number one thing power mongering sadists will say to you is to not question authority. You're bad. Don't do that, bad person. Morality = conforming with the will of those in charge - of this forum, and elsewhere. Why? Don't ask that question... Because they're in charge, and you aren't. That's why.

Reason...? Authority is not beholden to reason. This is not your house, kid... quite a sense of entitlement you have there... foolish kid, authority has no reason to reason... are you gonna make them? Go ahead and try kid.

I do think people need to hear my opinion though, because not everyone understands science. Too many people are, unfortunately, easily confused by dogmatic posturing which misrepresents topics such as evolution... in reality, when you take a careful look, there's not alot of meat to these dogmas. Not much meat on the bone at all.

There's nothing public about chess.com. The easy-access facade of the internet has confused you, perhaps.

As for some posters' neverending misunderstandnings of the 1st amendment...xkcd said it best.

You heard it here, folks - there is nothing that even resembles public in a space that over 140 million users across 241 countries can come to, and converse with one another, at any time. This is a private place, folks. Infact... feel free to post all your girlfriends nudes here (but don't violate the forum rules).

Of course if the issue were so simple and clearcut we wouldn't have had a recent string of supreme court cases / government officials arguing that major social media sites are defacto public forums. But these are minor details.

Lol. Chess.com does not have 140 million active users, and the forums don't even have 1% of that. I guess there are other things about the internet that escape you.

Chess.com is also not a major social media site. Man, you're batting .000...

Well, for one... chess.com itself claims to have 140M users, which sounds major to me. Are you calling them dishonest? You should watch your mouth! You're a bad man to say that about chess.com. Secondly... the fact the entire public doesn't actually physically go to a public place does not make it no longer public. The point is that they have access to it, and random ones show up at random times. So... no.

Do you give all 140M people in India access to your mothers bathroom while she's showering? I don't think so! That is reserved for you and your father only.

They do not, in fact. They claim to have X number of accounts, which they do not guarantee to be active. You will find that the legalese is quite specific on this score.

Ahh, the rat shows himself once again.

Take note, Mr. Tanuki.

They said registered members, not "accounts". Members referring to people. I'm sure it's nonsense but it's irrelevant anyway - how many millions need access to a place before it becomes public? Irrelevant debate.

"To celebrate our journey to 100 million members"

Chess.com Reaches 100 Million Members - Chess.com

And how many millions need access to your mothers bathroom while she's showering before it's no longer private? That's a similar question, but when she's posting photos of herself online you ought to ask that question.

You seem confused again. That story is about accounts ("members") that logged in to watch a match. But if chess.com said they have 140 million active users to their advertisers, they could be sued for fraud. Some people are fooled by the little language gymnastics companies play, others are not.

Once again, the number of people using the forums is below 1% of that. I mean, use your head...if 140 million people were using the forums, you and I would not even run into each other, ever. Imagine all of Reddit, but with only 20 or so forums. Completely unworkable.

That's 2 reports for sexual harassment...keep going, I guess.

No, it's you who's confused because we're not debating whether those are real accounts, we're debating what chess.com said about them. You said that chess.com never claimed to have 140 active users, but a) I never said active users, I said users; b) we can see plainly they claimed to have 100M members as of 2 years ago, and 140M members as of recently... Members, users - same thing, actually. Now... you are correct to suspect they're being misleading in how they phrase this - as I have acknowledged multiple times (you're still speaking as if I'm under some illusion otherwise, very interesting), yes it's marketing jargon to a degree.... however, in typical fashion you greatly exaggerate this point - In the month of June 2023, again according chess.com, they had 57 million active users - unique users who logged in that month. Now, chess is a game that people come and go from.... people will play chess for a couple months, they'll quit for a year, then they'll come back and play intermittently for 8 months... they'll quit again, etc.. Chess is a lifelong game. So I think probably there are alot more real users than you are admitting here, it would not surprise me much if it did approach 100M, almost everyone who plays internet chess comes here, and chess is played throughout the entire world. But feel free to provide evidence otherwise.

But once again, it's a totally irrelevant point since it would be a defacto public place if it was only visited by 2M users a month. And again.... the fact the entire public doesn't visit a public place at once doesn't make it not a public place, it's open for people to access.

Furthermore.... your argument is justified by a specific set of laws which define public and private property. But how do you define the legal context when the site spans 251 nations? Go ahead and explain that one.

For it to be sexual harassment you actually would have to indicate it's unwanted, i.e. you don't find the joke amusing, you feel it's personally threatening to you in some way. You never actually indicated that, you just jumped at the chance to report because you love to abuse the rules and laws to serve your interests. Very typical manager type behavior I've come to expect from you.

I've called you a humorless yuppie before and I stand by that.

Toxic management. Manager fragility.

In my opinion, religion and polictics should not be allowed, but neither the existence of OTF. There are other sites to discuss that or messages and clubs if you really want to talk about something else on here.

Has anyone else heard the fable of the Negative Railroad, by Frederic Bastiat?

Nope, never heard of it. Still trying to figure out wtf otf is supposed to mean, none of these are ringing a bell-

AI Overview 
OTF has multiple meanings, including:
Only the Family: A hip-hop collective and record label led by Lil Durk. OTF is also a popular tattoo that symbolizes family, loyalty, and belonging. 
OrangeTheory Fitness: A fitness chain. Some say they love the community, workouts, and coaches at Orangetheory. 
Out of the Front: A type of folding knife with a blade that pops out from the top of the handle. 
Organized trading facility: A multilateral trading venue in the European Union where third parties can trade bonds, derivatives, and other products. 
Open Telecommunications Framework: An architecture that uses MSP Media Gateway PCI cards to offer analog and digital interfaces to the PSTN. 
Order of the Falcon: An order of chivalry in Iceland. 
Obstructing the field: An infringement in cricket. 
Ontario Teachers' Federation: A Canadian organization. 
Open Technology Fund: An American nonprofit corporation. 
Open Type Font: A font format that keeps all the fonts in a single file, making them easy to access.

Order of the Falcon. That's good. Alternately, off-topic forums.

OIC... WDITOT. IGY. C, ITIFMNFW

You don't understand that concept any better than anything else you're saying. If the law actually applied here, anyone exposed to the content could report it/file a claim, there'd be no requirement for anyone to make you aware of anything, either. Please just stop trying to argue anything law-related...it's cringeworthy. Your Law and Order level of knowledge is not getting you anywhere.

You "manager behavior" stereotype tells me more about you than the other way around.

It's a little late to try and appear imaginative when you couldn't figure out OTF in context.