A moderator locked my thread

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/site-feedback/chess-com-banning-religion-is-persecution?newCommentCount=1&page=1#first_new_comment

What was wrong with this thread? Is it not permitted to address and discuss the site's policies in the SITE FEEDBACK forum?

I'm kind of irritated that a moderator locked a thread that was directed towards the discussion of a specific policy before there was much discussion or before anyone could respond to their input. It's irritating because a thread like this https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chess-com-sucks-1 that addresses no specific issue is allowed to go on and on, but a thread that gives feedback on a specific issue isn't.

It's seems safe to say that chess.com prefers vague, meaningless and ineffective gripes from its customers to authentic site feedback.

Moderator @justbefair wrote:

"It's not persecution if it is banned for everyone.

Yes, exceptions do slide through but limiting the amount of religious spam or the number of religious flame wars helps keep chess.com a nice place to play chess."

Was it fair to lock the thread after posting that without giving me a chance to respond? I'm not debating religious topics in the post, I'm questioning whether the prohibition of doing so is a good policy for the website. Giving the site feedback on the impacts of its policies isn't forbidden, is it?
Anyway, by his/her reasoning it appears that it's better to persecute more people for their beliefs than fewer. The only people on the website who are restricted from expressing their convictions are people who hold religious convictions. Nonreligious people are permitted to express their convictions openly, but religious people are shamed by the site's policy. That amounts, in my opinion, to a denial of equal service on the basis of religious belief, and I would like the site to consider whether this policy might not in fact be discriminatory. That's all I want. I don't appreciate having conversation about it blocked without sufficient explanation.

Religious discussions are allowed within clubs. That is the site policy.

Debates about some specific policies, such as Religion or Politics are likely to become discussions on those subjects.

I guess different religious beliefs can lead to conflicts, so chess.com is side stepping the issue. It's not only non-religious groups, it's Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, they have different beliefs that can clash, so makes sense you can't bring up controversial topics on public forums.

I can see why they banned religious topics. But it does seem kind of unfair to lock your other thread

Freedom of speech for everyone is protected nowhere on chess.com. The clubs are autocratic communities, where anyone can be silenced for any reason. Chess.com needs to allow freedom of speech across its platform, or risk being labeled autocratic itself.

I just saw the mentioned thread, and I agree with it's point. However, the examples you brought up were rather poor.

Firstly the "CaUgHt A pReDaToR" thread that you mentioned was a blatant joke thread mocking cc's "catfishers" rather than the account. The account was clearly a troll and the point of the thread was not to state the obvious but rather to mock people who act like this obvious fact is a shocking discovery.

Your second example, being the "Stop bully me so much" thread was also a joke thread and was not meant to single Janko out or anything. In fact, he says that as well as most of the rest of the posts content everyday. He is most likely a troll, and even if he isn't, there's nothing wrong with having a laugh at his absurd presumptions about the ELO system.

But I do agree with the point you made in that post, being that religious posts are not always harmful and shouldn't always be banned. I fully agree with this. It's entirely possible to have a post that is 95% polite religious discussion or more, case in point, Alph1ne's "Proof God exists" was a polite essay with nothing provocative or angry in the content, and that lasted for I think over a month if I recall correctly, until Rev arrived and ruined it by turning it into a debate.

I think such posts should only be banned in specific contexts where it is clear that the post is only generating negative energy. A worry over "what might happen" should not be legitimate cause for locking such threads.

You're just too young to understand. You've been here for 2 yrs. The site has had the same policy for 15 yrs. NO religion,....NO politics, & NO cheating. If you don't like it, just leave. Stop complaining or start your own club. Try joining "open discussion".

Thanks, Will. Like I said, the only reason I mentioned those 2 threads of yours was because I had just seen them and they point out that banning some subjects doesn't keep other subjects from becoming contentious, resulting in hurt feelings and anger. People who want to be rude and angry online are going to find a reason to do it regardless.

Rude and dull-witted, but still better than what I've come to expect from you, blocker.

Complaining about my complaining. Brilliant and hypocritical.

start your own club. Try joining "open discussion".

That's a pretty lame response. I'm getting a "Oh, well they've been doing it this way since forever, so that means it's automatically right, and if you've got a problem with that, well shut up" kind of aura coming from that post

I was in open discussion for a while, but I noticed that the epithet 'flaming pile of garbage' got thrown around a little more than I liked, so I left.

Open discussion is still somewhat restrictive in the sense that you'll get ganged up on if you have any unpopular opinions.

No kidding. I haven't seen so much rage and gang activity since I left cell block D.

For a long time open discussion has always been a viper's nest.

Cell block D, with an anime avatar? Now who's being disingenuous? I'll un-block you but don't destroy my Pet thread.

I wanted a bikini girl, but they were all out.

Sure, unblock me. I mean no harm.