Greetings,

The club aspires to cultivate and foster an elevated level of conversation, which requires a certain culture of civility & a modicum of elementary human decency, our agenda is outlined below.

1.) Abuse is not permissible in the club: intolerance itself can't be tolerated; including but not limited to any type of serious or egregious vulgar name-calling to insults, libel/slander or defamation, bullying and or threats, or any other behavior that goes against the law.

To save us from any undue confusion, that heretofore plagued other clubs, the criteria of conditions and prerequisites for *serious or egregious* abuse will be established—by defining its involved elements. There's precedent for these matters being settled and adjudicated in certain quarters in the past. Hence the following courtroom context laid down below.

⦁ A plaintiff must cite & furnish an example of a defamatory statement, transmitted in publication or communication, to and or by a third party subject.
⦁ The statement has caused offence, injury, or other harmful damages, fault amounting to at least negligence or malice.
⦁ The statement in question must be false, not merely scurrilous.

A) "Of course, for defamation to have occurred, somebody must have made the statement that is considered defamatory". "The statement must be ‘published’ to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed... the definitions of defamation, libel and slander vary" (for our purpose any case of abuse will be adjudicated). "While defamation may not be a criminal act, it is serious and can harm a person's emotional, physical, and financial well-being. With the rise of social media and online news sources, it has become much easier to defame and as such, the threat of various defamation suits is only increasing. Courts have tried to balance an individual's right to free speech with other's right to not be subject to defamation." (sic).

B) "A statement is harmful if it seriously shames, ridicules, disgraces or injures a person’s reputation or causes others to do so. Statements that are mildly embarrassing or merely confusing or inaccurate will not meet the “harm” test.", "In order to be “at fault” in publishing a statement, the reporter must prove that the reportee either did something they should not have done or that they failed to do something that they should have done." & "In the 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements regarding public officials unless the statement was made with actual malice — “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” "The Court set a new standard... the Sullivan court stated that "actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." "The Sullivan court also held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence standard." (legal eagle briefs).

C) "To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show... a false statement purporting to be fact".
"Truth is an absolute defense to libel claims because one of the elements that must be proven in a defamation suit is the falsity of the statement". "If a statement is true it can not be false, therefore, there is no prima facie case of defamation.", "There are numerous jurisdictions (including Florida) that have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine, which offers protection to a defendant of a defamation claim, as long as the “gist” of the story is true." & "The court held that in Maine, all defamation claims need showing of fault, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at least negligent."
Furthermore, take note, it's allowed that you may dispute and take issue with false ad hominem, but you're not permitted to bother the Admins with meritless reports of truthful ad hominem, such is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit case (italics are mine).

Sources/links: I. Aceto, Bonner & Cole; The five requisite elements of a defamation lawsuit?
II. AllLaw. Laws & Forms. Defamation Law: Legal Elements of Libel and Slander.
III. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, Defamation.
IV. Freedom Forum Institute | Champions of the First Amendment/faq/libel.
V. Carter-Ruck | Lawyers & Solicitors/defamation faqs.

Other honourable sources consulted include Encyclopedia Britannica, King's Law Journal & Oxford Journal of Legal Studies et al.

Abuse definition: as a verb "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse." and or "treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly."; as a noun "the improper use of something." & "cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal."

Third act, further assorted reading: To wit, quote; "Because reputation is such an intangible thing, and because of the tendency of some people to react strongly to perceived insults, defamation has evolved—over centuries of legal decisions—into a complex concept filled with safeguards and requirements designed to weed out weak or even frivolous claims. The right to free speech only adds to the complexity. It may be a common misconception that anyone can say whatever they want (other than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), but the right to free speech is not an absolute right in all situations. Fire! Fire! Fire, fire, fire… Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I realize I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining room. But the point is made." This House dissents with the above example cited by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (articulated as a response to a question of when it would be practical to limit free speech), for reasons that will be shared in the attached thread below check the thread for full context.

Few highlights of the above relevant remarks delivered at the University of Toronto’s Hart House Debating Club, during the motion of the chair before the House that “Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate.” Moderated on the occasion of the passing of Canada's hate speech laws (gleaned from "The Skeptical Libertarian"). "Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre."; "It is very often forgotten that what he was doing, in that case, was sending to prison a group of Yiddish-speaking socialists ... opposing President Wilson’s participation in the First World War... which the Yiddish-speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape." "In fact, it could be just as plausibly argued that the Yiddish-speaking socialists, who were jailed by the excellent and over-praised judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, were the real firefighters, were the ones who were shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre, indeed. And who is to decide? Well, keep that question if you would — ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, I hope I may say comrades and friends — before your minds."

Who is going to propose the rules? Well, to begin with for now we are proposing, okay. The above remarks are given by a man that wasn't fully committed to the idea that suggests all speech is protected, or exempt from the legal penalty, even as he characterized himself as a "First Amendment absolutist". Instead of the example cited by Oliver Wendell Holmes, we implement a policy that your right to "swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins", itself also cited by Oliver Wendell Holmes "a moment's insight is sometimes worth the experience of a lifetime." Your rights including that of free expression Et cetera may not trespass or interfere with other's right to freedom from, or to violate other members' rights. Freedom often has its basis in freedom from. Just because you have a right to freedom of speech and free expression doesn't mean you can or should speak evil without expecting consequences. Words do matter, speech is an act and carries consequences, sometimes it's more about consequence culture rather than cancel culture. There may always be some grey area but it is not a wise venture in adventure, for members to take it upon themselves to test these waters, or to try to exploit the proverbial "no man's land". There is the letter of the law or Code of Conduct (CoC or "Code" for short), but there is also the spirit of the Code. "Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."—General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army, author of a manual on parliamentary procedure, "Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised for Deliberative Assemblies". Aristotle advised not to waste time practicing reasoning with the average man on the street, but also, "Aristotle and other classical philosophers propounded the principle of the golden middle, achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and increasing effort results in diminishing returns". Voltaire related that "Perfect is the enemy of good", or more literally, "the best is the enemy of the good". Don't make the perfect enemy of the good. Don't say that just because we can't do everything we shouldn't do anything.

This is a link to the club's official thread on matters of free speech, it serves to demonstrate that, this club understands the pitfalls and subtleties of free expression and will proceed to navigate accordingly.

2.) Discrimination is allowed in the sense of distinguishing, it's welcomed in that sense. But, it's not welcomed in the sense of bigotry and prejudice against people, i.e. racism and xenophobia. Or sexism either as misogyny "hatred against women", or misandry "hatred against men", misanthropy as "hatred of humankind" is allowed in case any member wishes to agree or disagree with the work of the Father of Pessimism Giacomo Leopardi. You may attack people for what they are in terms of the positions and beliefs that they choose to adopt, at your peril, because critique and scrutiny of thoughts and teachings are part of the war and marketplace of ideas in the battle of and for the hearts and minds. You are free to attack co-members for their pronounced statements and stances, but you're not allowed to attack people for who they are, for things they have no choice in choosing. "I am allowed to scrutinise anything that is a choice.", agency matters here. People choose to follow a particular ideology or philosophy, but they do not choose their skin colour (congenitally), or sexual attraction.

The full application and employment of the n-word is forbidden on account of being color-blind tone-deaf and insensitive, except in exceptional cases of sharing content of redeemable artistic quality of remarkable nature, these will be reviewed by the hosts of the house that shall act as censors. For more on matters of obscenity or nudity in art see the relevant section 4 ("rules" can colloquially be known as "sections" in the club's applied vernacular). Properly, the racism encapsulated in the usage of the n-word betrays a history of shackles and mind-forged manacles, the term as entity channels a broader pervasive evil of diseased thinking that has suffused the world since time immemorial.

Anti-semitism or 9/11 conspiracy theories are also exemplar litmus test case studies that betray these patterns of "thinking". Needless to say, Kristallnacht pogroms from crypto-brownshirts are strictly verboten, forbye the opposite of worthwhile discussions that don't add anything to the human imagination is not welcome in our humble agora precincts. To not lose meaning and to avoid confusion, our members are expected and trusted to exercise discretion and judgment, and self-censor whenever broaching the n-word in conversation. Failing to refrain from its full usage mandates a mute on sight effective immediately.

It's not up for debate whether the n-word is de facto obscene on a real visceral and guttural level, so while it may fly in other discussion clubs that are nuts on the issue it shall not pass here, we are not Mark Twain, this is not "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", the word is patently and inarguably offensive. It is said that "one can't be more offended than the victim", there doesn't have to be any black members present here to take offence at being the designated shooting targets or survivors of abuse before we act on the matter, as whites we're entitled to take issue with our history of supremacy. Perhaps the following formulation may be enlightening: "The phrases "black power" and "white power" hold different meanings and carry different connotations because the historical situations of people who might use these phrases have been different. "White power" derives from the point of view of white supremacy and "black power" derives from the point of view of black subjugation and consequent striving for empowerment and equal rights. Point of view depends on one's point of sitting."

Biblical literacy is necessary to understand much of western literature and poetry. Members are welcome and encouraged to explore the teachings of the Bible in discourse, on avenues and areas ranging anything from misogyny (feminist interpretations clearly couldn't be left out) to slavery or homosexuality, etc, but this has to be done in a civil and cogent manner and doesn't require homophobia or gay-bashing. We're endowed with free will, so we may have agency, hiding your bigotry behind books, even the Bible, is against the spirit of higher culture of the club's Code of Conduct. The Bible cannot be censored, but if you go out of your way to propound articles of homophobic gay-bashing, even if you cite any gospel you want you're acting on your own agency, so in that case the individual is uttering statements that may be deemed hateful rather than the book, these passages will be subject to review. "Hate the sin but love the sinner" is casuistry of the lowest sort, this has been covered earlier that freedom of religion has its basis in freedom from religion, it is a kind of voluntary association, separate but related is also the following concept, recall that there is the letter of the Code but there is also the spirit of the Code.

3.) Disruption of the club through any means is not allowed, such means might include but aren't limited to: a) attempt to derail other's threads either inside the thread itself or externally creating derivative duplicate threads and causing pollution by sowing weeds in the forum garden; b) clogging notes with unintelligible gibberish or gobbledygook and or excessive off-topic spam (members of that kind are unlikely to ever be admitted in the very first place); c) trolling officially known as the act of amusing oneself through the deliberate deception and gaslighting of others; d) sabotage of fellow members by misquoting them in the fora by editing and distorting or omitting and misrepresenting their argument & e) attacking the club's Admin team...

If you feel that someone is derailing your threads you may block or report them. If a dispute can be resolved by the club admins without blocking and per our conviction, in this club it can, then it should be instead of blocking each other into oblivion and stifling the flow and exchange of ideas. This approach ought to take precedence for our members, on account of this club forging its own path and being shaped to pursue higher standards, old habits that led to shutting people worked in other clubs but won't work here going forward. It's strongly advised that members of the club should not take upon themselves the priority of dealing with destruction & derailment of threads, as if, there weren't governing rules designed specifically for such occasions that may arise. Report a case of X derailing your thread to have the offending material removed. But it is also noted, however, that certain topics arise and follow each other naturally as conversations and threads develop, if there is a semblance of remote intersection or relation of topics, not every post will be feasibly subject to removal. Such measure is the means of last resort. Folk wisdom says, "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", people may ask for more light and truth, than heat or argument, but light comes from heat.

Attacking the Admin team is the single fastest way to get banned.

4.) Vulgarity goes against the spirit of the club and its code that governs the club. Language and vernacular are very much a concern in the context of a higher culture of conversation. We're not operating a barn or animal farm, in addition to forms and manifestations of vulgarity covered above, the official offence is taken to the following: excess and unwarranted casual usage of swearwords and cursing and any other offensive/vulgar language. Please be civil. No need to be rude or disrespectful.

Spamming as touched upon in previous rule, article 3 of the code, as "excessive or off-topic posting or screen-flooding" goes against the house culture. Especially in scenarios of intentional attempts to derail note or thread discourse. For now, in the early stages of the club, limit yourself to a workable post count of 5 both for the notes and the forums. Straying from club terms of post count limit in either notes/forums merits post-removal on sight. Random gifs/memes/videos aren't considered a worthy contribution to the discussion, in a nutshell, don't be childish.

Passion for integrity in this club demands that sexual harassment be sidelined and addressed in its own spotlight. Consent is a guiding standard, furthermore, there's a difference between consent and informed consent that is noteworthy. "The line between flirtation and harassment is a fine - and often blurred - one.", in other words, "Harassment is the imposition of verbal or physical contact without any cue that it may be welcome." Unwanted flirting will be punished whether seen either in notes or threads, regardless, Admins reserve the right of discretion to review and punish unrequested flirting. Even if the person that receives it chooses not to take issue with it because the flirting may also be unrequested by admins. If you see something say something, make it your business, "Always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel. "It's not about believing victims, it's about taking them seriously, with due process". If you're indecisive and neutral you're part of the problem. This is not a playground for playboys, take the awkward attempts at feeble flirting outside, thanks. Admins may report sexual harassment further down the line to site moderators.

5.) Accountability of Admins through a built-in mechanism is something that frankly other lesser clubs are currently lacking. The reach of fairness has to be applied evenly across the board, if at all, it can not stop at any immune pockets of resistance. It's highly unlikely that the admins of this particular club will violate the code of rules, on account of how difficult it is to become an Admin here and how qualified those that do are, but everyone is subject to monitoring and review without exception so if they do they'll be subject to a review of conduct and temporarily suspended.

We make no exceptions and should an Admin be guilty of having infringed upon our review, depending on the degree and severity of the offence, they'll be held to account "Be part of everything you indict, don't separate yourself, we are the enemy so at least we're not peerless." The measures of justice may include anything from seeking contrition and making amends, to issuing a public apology, to being removed as acting Admin. Should anyone exploit an Admin position to destroy the club they will be banned forever.

We extend the spirit of making amends to the club's Super Admins. The following should be instructive, here's an objective definition of government formulated by Ibn Khaldun: "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself"—the purpose of the state is to remain the state, so let's not be romantic about it. However, as far as the technicalities of the code of house rules go, this is apropos, "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.", Maximilien Robespierre (the code educates). All excesses will be prevented and or reviewed and punished. So not a carte blanche license to kill for any high Admin.

6.) This section will briefly cover notions of general obscenity and nudity in art.

On top of all forms and manners of obscenity already listed in sections 1 & 2, through to 4, and so on, the club further forbids the discussion of evidently obscene topics. We suspend all discourse on sexual matters until further notice (on account of the club's early state). The spread of propaganda as disinformation in the form of conspiracy theories is not welcome. It has been articulated that certain material can be shared if it passes the litmus test of redeemable artistic merit, this policy extends further to nudity in certain forms of high art (like the genre and style of the High Renaissance art), pornography however still isn't allowed. All of this goes against the spirit of the club's code and our ambition of higher culture of conversation.

The following paragraph is offered as an instance and a taste to illustrate just what is meant by a higher culture in this club. W. H. Auden remarked on the occasion of the death of W. B. Yeats, "Time is kind to those who live by and with language as well as for it." Matthew Arnold observed that "The men (or women) of culture are the true apostles of equality. They have a passion for diffusing, for making prevail, for carrying from one end of society to the other. The best ideas of their time." To paraphrase the sages of the ages, Prometheus of the Renaissance or rebirth of the Age of Enlightenment is what's needed here, ladies and gentlemen. This is the rallying cry and call to action of our Code of Conduct that acts as our club's official manifesto.

7.) Directives of membership: a) given the open nature envisioned for the club we have a policy of an age cut-off, you must be +18 to be eligible, adults join at their discretion. b) you must be a member of chess.com for +5 months before joining this club. & c) it's expected that members are capable of communicating in the common tongue (see rule 10).

This club doesn't discriminate on any basis, including that of age or ageism bias. The age cut-off is not tied to the ambition of ensuring higher culture but rather to the presence of adults that may disturb it. The content is adult and not juvenile and certain things should be kept away from children for their safety, if things seem overtly controlled at first, that's because they are but there's no telling what kind of material could be covered in the club's future.

The standard of +5-month site membership in order to enter is related to our ban of certain undesirable elements.

8.) Reporting an offence: Use the club's complaints thread; "The Complaints Thread".

Let it be explained how all this will go down. Public accusations and airing of complaints in the open are disruptive to the business of the club. Members are prohibited from it and subject to an official warning, to violate this directive trespasses on the code of conduct and a higher culture of civility, muting will be applied to cool off the embattled parties. Regarding the thread, read the rules of use that are provided in bold text, you may report a violation of the code but refrain from making public accusations by name while doing it. Members should report a grievance individually to @DavidCharleston. A grievance reported in the thread may be taken up by SA DC. However, it's strongly advised that a grievance be both reported to a SA and publicly in the thread, per and in accordance with the guidelines of how to register said grievance.

Regarding the 3 strikes rule, this standard is not envisioned in the future scenario for this club of the franchise. But, in a situation where a member is warned not to repeat a previously committed offence and they don't listen to Admin warnings, to the amount of 3 times right in front of an Admin(s) they'll be subject to the rule of 3 strikes. The penalty is being muted indefinitely and subjects to further pending inquiry and conduct review.

9.) "No advertising and/or promoting your own clubs or those of others." This is a point of particular passion because it'd be a vulgar attempt to take advantage of this club by advertising the opposition. It's also against site rules.

There's also a flip side to this coin. In reverse order, this club doesn't see any actual competition in other clubs, it's too different for that. But reputation matters and the ambition of the club's founders is to keep it secret at least for the time being. Advertising and reputation are matters tied together. Members are prohibited from advertising other clubs here and they're prohibited from advertising this club in other clubs, in a way that, involves speech that damages the club's reputation.

Do that and you're banned forever.

10.) Club's official language(s). Until we grow, for now, it's the airport language of the world—English. Internationalism is encouraged, but in that spirit, we must also be able to understand each other, literally.

"The language of this club is English. No lengthy, protracted foreign language conversations, since it alienates others in the room who do not know that language -- please, use a private chat for that purpose."

This may be subject to adjustment in the distant future.

Furthermore: Feel free to follow the rules of the site, publicly religious and political discussions aren't allowed but we're a private club, so that caveat doesn't apply to us here.

“A successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him.” Today's talents are tomorrow's legends. “Whatever you can do or dream you can begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Note that established forward above here are house rules and a broader code, a superior club must have a superior code of rules, a manifesto of club philosophy, hence its span, hope it serves. Our framework is meant to be instructive, brevity wouldn't cover enough ground or capture as much substance of policy, so provided is a system not being of intersectional political correctness, but of being correct politically, period. Ergo dear reader, play ball but don't play the man. Think on this: "Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact."; "The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said."; "War is what happens when language fails."; "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."; "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."; "The man who throws the first punch has clearly run out of ideas." & "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Hit instantaneously upon the golden middle of logic instead of to and fro personal ping pong. Skip the middle man when you can. Now, let the games begin!

— Regards, the Adminship.

The Acropolis of Discussion HQs

Super Admins