Disclaimer

updated: April 2025

[As per our footer, continued] This website is for entertainment purposes only, take it with a grain of salt – hence, our not so serious domain name (considering the context). Meaning, we are not official pollsters, or govt funded. We pull sources from Wikipedia, and some from OpenParliament, maybe some news sources too. If you’d like to clarify/update any data about “you”, see those sources first. If you’d like to claim your page here – we’re working on that.

Please see our first post to get a better understanding why we even started this project. When we say not so serious, it’s because by pollster standards – online polls/reviews might not be taken so seriously. Pollsters have their own mathematical jenga of processes and/or “ethical guidelines” they believe works. Yet still, sometimes, they go out of whack. This could be due to many factors – bias, turmoil, small sample sizes, old/substandard lists of people they poll, online polling, public revolt. So honestly, who’s to say.

Reviews & Comments

We do our best to read through all the public comments and will not tolerate any types of abuse, personal attacks or swearing. We understand people can be frustrated, but believe there are more constructive word choices to get your point across. Please remember, these are people too – focus on policies, real issues, and the TRUTH above all. Any comments or messages that go over our threshold or even make us pause will be removed or not accepted (1st posts). Other than that, we have no control of how people rave or critique their public figures. Further it is impossible to moderate the “possibilities” of any false statements unless they are blatant. All comments, reviews, messages are as is, we do not edit.

We assume good faith. The views and opinions contained in the comments and or messages belong solely to the individual user and do not reflect our own views and opinions. The reviews and or comments on this website are not intended, nor should they be construed, as claims that the user had any personal dealings with the subject they are reviewing. We do not go to any great lengths to verify anyone or where they are from – aside from doing our best to eradicate bots. Interacting with this website in terms of comments, reviews, voting, messages, personal polls, bookmarks – or any type of sharing means that individual had to register their email with us. We realize emails can be falsified – yet we have no way of knowing this. If we suspect any nefarious intent with any individual, they will be promptly removed as with all their interactions. If it was a misunderstanding, they can email us to explain.

No fabrication anywhere. We do not inflate reviews with bots, activists, or by payment coercion. We don’t care if we have 10 reviews or hundreds. It will remain the way it is – by the people. Of course, depending if the website grows, we may have a “buy us a coffee” – so that you can help keep the website going if you wish – but for now, we will absorb the cost while it remains quiet.

Listings

We are Canadian, and this website is intended to be focused on Canadian Public Political Figures. We chose .com because it’s the top tld. We also chose a name that reflects our fun nature, and doesn’t come across as overtly business-like and “definitive” because it’s not, and surely we’ll be reminded of that from the “experts”. Going forward, all of our listings will be of active PUBLIC individuals. Any politician that retires, quits or is fired – we will indicate this on their page and remove any further ways to review/vote/comment – their listing will be archived, yet still accessible.

Unless we are restricted to further api usage, we pull our content from sources such as Wikipedia, or OpenParliament – they do an excellent job to keep the public up to date (fyi: to no fault of theirs, some of this data here may lag as we cache the information for hours/weeks at a time to reduce the load on their services). Otherwise we make no plans to add any content about an individual ourselves. If an individual does not have a wiki page or usage is restricted, we will do our best to find the most basic information about them in hopes to be neutral; information such as a current picture, their roles, party status, ridings, external links etc.

Removal requests & transparency

Full removal: Foremost, you’re in a public role – shaping “our” future – You’re all over the internet already. Information about you is not even written by us – so we don’t see any sane reason to do so. However we will comply – verified individuals using their govt contact email can request removal of their “functioning” page. However by requesting a full removal, a ghost page will be left indicating you requested to do so, including a screenshot or archived links of your last summary so your constituents at least know why you’re unavailable here. *If you’re still active in your job we will leave links to your wiki page (if any), links to any parliamentary dealings (if any), and keep your trend-line active. Your page will basically be bare bones.
Partial removal: You can request to remove parts of your page such as “further” ratings and/or comments. Those will remain seen but stuck in time as users will no longer be able to “continue” rating or commenting (whichever you choose), however users can still contribute to your trend-line (up/down votes). Once again users will be made aware you personally requested to turn these off.
Per comment: Although we have some strict guidelines for commenting, we understand some may slip through that you may not approve, for reasons such as inaccuracy. Please be fair though – if a comment is truthful (within reason), yet unfavourable to your “review”, that should not be reason enough to request removal. If we find that a user is speaking truthfully in regards to any policies, bills, actions, services, that can be found easily online – we may dispute your request. Canadians are free to speak in reasonable truth, this is the law. Please message us with the comment in question and we will further scrutinize the comment and remove it if need be.

Bottom-line, our goal is to see how politicians/parties are fairing over time, perhaps calm the waters when the polls go wild. The latter is extremely important, and one of the main reasons we are here. We are not here to shine a light on degradation or elevation. Social media does that well enough on it’s own, and sadly it’s a harsh world out there. If the comments section ever outweighs its benefits, we may remove it system-wide. So to our wonderful users, please keep it clean – discuss what matters (bills, policies, services, customer service, community engagement, listening, skills, platform etc). Leave the hate-speech, defamation, dirty language, personal attacks, wild accusations/theories for another platform. Have a peek at what the law deems reasonable when speaking your truth.

Replying to comments as the individual in focus

We do not offer a “claim your page” type of service at this time – but we are working on something that will allow you to distinguish that it’s you on the page. You can still reply without that badge. If we have a feature requests section, please feel free to use it to share ideas.

For further reading, please see our privacy-policy.

More on freedom of “expression” – speaking your truth

In Canadian law, while speaking the truth can be a defense in certain circumstances, it does not automatically supersede all legal obligations or restrictions. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression, but this is not absolute and is subject to reasonable limits. Some laws, like those related to defamation or hate speech, may still prohibit certain truthful statements if they cause harm or infringe on other rights.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

1. Freedom of Expression:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression (section 2(b)). This includes the freedom to express both truths and falsehoods.

However, this freedom is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (section 1).

2. Truth as a Defense:

In some legal contexts, proving that a statement is true can be a defense against certain charges. For example, in defamation cases, proving the truth of a defamatory statement can be a valid defense.

However, the truth defense may not be available in all situations. For example, in criminal cases involving hate speech, the fact that a statement is true may not be a sufficient defense, as certain expressions are prohibited regardless of their truthfulness.

3. Limitations on Freedom of Expression:

Certain types of speech are not protected under the Charter, even if they are truthful. These include speech that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination.

Laws related to defamation, privacy, and other areas may also restrict truthful statements if they cause harm or infringe on other rights.

4. Balancing Truth and Other Rights:

Canadian law often involves balancing the right to freedom of expression with other rights and interests, such as the right to privacy, reputation, and safety.

When determining whether a statement is permissible, courts will consider the context, the nature of the statement, and the potential harm it could cause.

In conclusion: While speaking the truth can be a valuable defense in certain legal contexts, it does not automatically trump all legal restrictions. Canadian law recognizes the importance of freedom of expression but also acknowledges the need to balance this right with other important values and interests.