Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think people should be allowed to discuss whatever they want in game logs anyway (the public comments sections could be kept pretty vanilla, much as they are now).

It's a slippery slope to censor all talk of politics (or religion, or the lack thereof, for that matter). Politics affects everything at some level - it cannot be escaped. From global warming talk to the direction of science in general, to economics, to internet social media policies such as those of left-wing facebook's, to why there are not enough hospitals in one's local area...

I think off-topic discussions in game logs are fine. They are basically discussions between two people which are generally not seen by others and other people cannot easily participate in. Third parties could place Kibitz comments but that doesn't really happen and the no politics policy should apply there. But game log comments between players I think are fine and individual logs could always be made private if it became an issue.

I think off-topic discussions in game logs are fine.

Okay, I have made it clear that game logs do not have any particular topic.

It's a slippery slope to censor all talk of politics (or religion, or the lack thereof, for that matter).

I have changed my wording on that and moved it to the conduct section.

At first sight the terms of service seem okay now. However I do wonder if, say even in a game log, someone might take offence about the direction a discussion of e.g. so-called scientific beliefs might start to take. Say on whether global warming is manmade or whether evolution is a theory, but not a law.

It depends how an editor might see the conversation and its context. Some might argue that global warming is a political issue, and questioning whether evolution is a certain fact must be from a religious viewpoint (not necessarily, as e.g. an elderly physicist at my chess club has serious doubts about the details of the theory of evolution).

Then there is the example of transhumanism - is that a scientific question or largely political (or philosophical/religious matter)? Perhaps anything that is controversial, except when discussed between two old friends in a game log, might be seen as off-limits or even trolling/soapboxing? I don't know a clear policy I personally would set. Best left to editors, in the event of a complaint, I guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

I'd like to also note how controversial off-topic discussions have played out on Canadian chess message boards. The largest is chess talk, which had its highest traffic of visitors when hot-button issues were being (ferociously) debated, such as Global Warming or (now ex-POTUS) Trump. Some posters complained that discussions ought to stick to chess, but they kept visiting anyway (no longer reading the off-topic stuff, I guess).

The Chess Federation of Canada discussion board by contrast has a sparse number of posters (and far less visitors than chess talk). In recent years there's been a sub-forum devoted to off-chess-topics discussion, but so far I am by far the main contributor, often giving links to hot-button topics (sometimes with my sparse commentary attached). Unfortunately, chess talk is de facto the main discussion board for Canadian chess, and my efforts to generate more traffic (which includes personal CFC blog entries) have had mixed success at best.

The Chess Variant Pages by contrast to Canadian chess message boards caters to a different, and arguably larger crowd of members and (especially) regular(?) visitors (global), and has a wider choice of usual subject matter since there is more than one chess variant (besides chess or chess politics/[meetings on the CFC board]); so, there seems (to me) less need/use to spice things up with hot-button off-topics, in the name of generating more traffic to CVP.

I removed the last part of your comment since you were going out of your way to discuss a controversial topic on the very page telling you not to do that.

I removed the last part of your comment since you were going out of your way to discuss a controversial topic on the very page telling you not to do that.

I did update this page since it said to avoid controversial subjects. It now says to not use it as soapbox to preach political or religious opinions. I'm not sure what you deleted, because I didn't see it in time.

I gave a link about a 2010 Guardian News article re: certain scientific doubts about the theory of evolution, in case anyone doubted my earlier mention of it in a previous post.

I wasn't sure it qualified as preaching on politics or religion, or as trolling, even - always avoiding controversial topics wasn't something I had read in the latest version of terms of service (which I did not assume were finalized yet, all the same). Nevertheless I should have resisted the temptation - sorry.