The Site's Comment Filter

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.

The Negative Railroad was a satire on the French government's attempt in the 1800's to stimulate economic activity along the railroad by requiring trains to stop more often than was necessary or desirable from the point of view of the rail lines. If slowing the trains down and making them stop more was good for the economy, then why not make them stop altogether? I remember where I was going with this, but I'm sure at this point that I can only attract more managerial ire, so I'm letting it go. Has to do with regulating speech. If it's good to limit the freedom of expression, why not just revoke it altogether, and call that progress? Shades of 1984, and reducing the force and scope of language.

Lol, anyone can file a claim, but that's a meaningless statement - the mere fact a person files a claim doesn't make the claim legitimate. Otherwise... anytime a man hits on a woman he's immediately guilty of sexual harassment if the woman decides she didn't like it - yet another nonsense definition. The word harassment has an actual definition, one that's coherent - it refers to something repeated and ongoing, it is not just a fancy word for 'insult' or 'unwanted behavior'. Of course, given the levels of duncery that have pervaded companies via their HR departments these days, where we basically have abandoned, begrudged housewives now in charge of everyone, it's not always guaranteed this small detail will be recognized in a company context... but nonetheless I am correct.

It's not all managers I have issues with, just the ones who adopt this false pretense of morality while twisting the rules to serve their own interests. People such as you - social parasites, they need to be ousted. And most people these days seem to agree with me on this one (if you couldn't tell from the recent election. But we can't talk about that here).

Keep trying though.

You're the only person who found that worth saying or reading.

Is that what you do - you try to appear imaginary to people? You try to appear to be many things, don't you? It's probably been your entire life, just dawning a mask at work, climbing your way up... over the housewives full of rage, past the power tripping and repressed LMNOP colleagues, fake smiling your way up... and now you're probably facing down the final 3rd of your life... sad story, bro.