Please add a setting page where I can select countries to be blocked. The block should be based both on IP addresses and flags. Add also a switch specific for tournaments: if I decide that the block works in tournaments too, I'll accept a loss if a user from a blocked country is selected as my opponent, and then another opponent is selected immediately.
here
Please add a setting page where I can select countries to be blocked. The block should be based both on IP addresses and flags. Add also a switch specific for tournaments: if I decide that the block works in tournaments too, I'll accept a loss if a user from a blocked country is selected as my opponent, and then another opponent is selected immediately.
here
You are right.
Protesting a government or a state is very different from protesting the population itself. Radjabov and Aronian may have big disagreements and may not have talked to each other when they played a while ago, but they certainly still played and didn't say "I don't play with anyone from Azerbaijan/Armenia."
I agree. But I also don't think it's my place to tell someone else what they should or should not feel about such things. That's for them to decide, not me.
It would be pretty presumptive to tell someone else that I get to decide for them what conditions must be met for them to choose an opponent. Based on my own personal feelings. That should probably be their choice, not mine.
I cannot believe that people are twisting this to make it seem like 'just another option' and a 'personal freedom' We do not need to support xenophobia and racism through an online chess website. Exclusion should not be the goal of chess; we should promote inclusivity and unite people through the game of chess. It frustrates me so much that people are even suggesting this type of racist addition to chess.com.
How would such an option be any different than an athlete choosing not to participate in the Olympics (or any other event) based on the location of the event and/or participants? If a competitor chose not to participate because of that, how does it affect you (or anyone else) in any way?
Your analogy is incorrect. It is more like going to the Olympic Games, but submitting a list of countries that an athlete doesn't want to encounter beforehand...
I don't recall the OP suggesting that. I don't think he said he wanted any list of any sort. I think he wanted the ability to choose opponents and/or not be penalized for aborting games where the opponent was someone he didn't prefer.
I think the whole reason for boycotts is because a participant doesn't approve of something that refers to where the person or competition is located. The location of the participant is what bothers the other participant. Not the person themselves. Which is why the term "racist" is just a knee jerk reaction that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
At any rate, if someone wishes to choose opponents based on things like location, what difference or impact does it have on you?
Yeah, he demanded a list.
I agree that in history there are examples where a boycott of a country might have been legitimate, for example to protest against apartheid. But I still don't think that a chess server should be the battleground for political issues. And I suspect that 99% of the time the real reason for blocking a country is plain racism.
Why is this even a thread?..
Its never gonna happen. The O.P has closed his account BTW. 
I don't see this ever happening given chess.com's past decision-making.
From what I've seen over the years, they won't do anything that might put a barrier to entry (which is a good thing in most cases).
Its definitely a bad thing that cheaters can just as easily create a new account, and without being discriminatory; there are many countries where cheating is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged as a good thing. I've noticed this especially with countries that are in the middle-east where there's this pride for being clever that they pulled something over on someone. Its not everyone, but its a cultural thing.
When there are problematic regions, its not too much to ask them to do something about it, or at least give you the options that allow you to do something about it.
That being said, as for being impractical, that's not really true unless you factor in that no budget has been devoted to implement it.
Technically you can ban or even require enhanced authentication for ASN numbers (correlates more to regions), and it would be fairly straight forward to expose an interface internally (i.e. matchmaking) that allows filtering against values (most of the functionality already exists).
It takes resources though to implement anything (which includes testing) and blocking a region creates a barrier of entry which goes against their core decision-making guidelines. You'll never see it happen regardless of the negativity of the issue the solution is attempting to address.
I don't see this ever happening given chess.com's past decision-making.
From what I've seen over the years, they won't do anything that might put a barrier to entry (which is a good thing in most cases).
Its definitely a bad thing that cheaters can just as easily create a new account, and without being discriminatory; there are many countries where cheating is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged as a good thing. I've noticed this especially with countries that are in the middle-east where there's this pride for being clever that they pulled something over on someone. Its not everyone, but its a cultural thing.
When there are problematic regions, its not too much to ask them to do something about it, or at least give you the options that allow you to do something about it.
That being said, as for being impractical, that's not really true unless you factor in that no budget has been devoted to implement it.
Technically you can ban or even require enhanced authentication for ASN numbers (correlates more to regions), and it would be fairly straight forward to expose an interface internally (i.e. matchmaking) that allows filtering against values (most of the functionality already exists).
It takes resources though to implement anything (which includes testing) and blocking a region creates a barrier of entry which goes against their core decision-making guidelines. You'll never see it happen regardless of the negativity of the issue the solution is attempting to address.
I think you are probably right on almost every point. I don't see it as a barrier to entry unless one specific thing happened. The option became popular.
But the only way it would become popular is if it addressed a problem. If there are problems that chess.com isn't addressing, and the player had the option to address the problem, there isnt any reason anyone could complain.
So the concern seems to be that it shouldn't be implemented, because it could solve a problem.
"Would you like me to explain the difference between a forum and a thread"? yes please,...would you? https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/how-can-i-make-a-forum
there are many countries where cheating is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged as a good thing. I've noticed this especially with countries that are in the middle-east where there's this pride for being clever that they pulled something over on someone.
Stereotyping and stigmatising at its best. Bravo. But maybe that's a cultural thing too?
"there's this pride for being clever that they pulled something over on someone". Yeah, we have that in this country too.....
Would you like me to explain the difference between a forum and a thread?
Please, go right ahead.
#94, When you cut and paste, you should include the entire sentence paragraph.
You forgot to include the most important part. Way to cut and paste words in someones mouth, like its the entirety of what I said. Seriously, if a news agency or business did that they'd be in legal trouble.
If you don't have anything to add stop being a troll and not say a thing. People might actually take your comment seriously if it wasn't a total cut job.
@Than3to as you pointed out before editing your message, he omitted "it's not everyone, but it's a cultural thing".
If it's not everyone, blocking by country is the purest form of bigotry.
Definition of bigotry: prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Judging the attitude of a person based on his nationality ("cultural thing", really?) It's absolutely ridiculous. You should always judge the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, and block him if he cheats on chess.com regardless of his generic attributes like nationality, religion, culture, color of the skin, height or hair color. Because otherwise it would simply be asinine discrimination, block someone like this has nothing to do with "personal freedom", It's a toxic and nonsensical discriminatory mentality that shouldn't be condoned in any shape or form.
The thread is "option to block countries" the forum is site feedback
#94, When you cut and paste, you should include the entire sentence paragraph.
You forgot to include the most important part. Way to cut and paste words in someones mouth, like its the entirety of what I said. Seriously, if a news agency or business did that they'd be in legal trouble.
If you don't have anything to add stop being a troll and not say a thing. People might actually take your comment seriously if it wasn't a total cut job.
Dude, you literally said that due to their culture people in the Middle East are more prone to cheating. Instead of being so defensive, I suggest to think about if that's really a message you want to back. Here is a nice article you may want to read:
https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/its-not-a-bad-thing-if-someone-calls-you-racist/
I was gonna stand up for you Jenium and say that your not trolling. You copied & paste 1 bullit point from his argument and refuted it well. His comeback was thank god Chess.com is not a news agency. But then layers of morality started getting thick. I mean, you & I know that the middle eastern countries all have to be dragged kicking & screaming into the 21st century.......then I got my thoughts crossed when pondering his explanation that..."lying & cheating is encouraged". .....and I said to myself, I said....."MYSELF!
......what is this?....."The Godfather, part 37"? 
I find it interesting that so many people go dark so quickly. Human nature I guess.
When the OP made the suggestion I never really thought about any particular reason. I just figured he had his own personal reasons and that's the end of it. But some people can't help but be judgy.
For me personally, I think the option makes sense because some places don't have great internet service. So often a game can be very slow. There can be lots of disconnections. There can be tendencies to only play a few moves and then stall. These things, for whatever reason, can be area specific. If a player had the option of avoiding other players from places where these things happen frequently I don't see how that could be a bad thing.
Just because a player wants a more enjoyable experience does not mean he is a "bigot" or "racist". Or as my grandfather used to say, someone that looks behind the door when entering a room once stood there himself.
I find it interesting that so many people go dark so quickly. Human nature I guess.
When the OP made the suggestion I never really thought about any particular reason. I just figured he had his own personal reasons and that's the end of it. But some people can't help but be judgy.
For me personally, I think the option makes sense because some places don't have great internet service. So often a game can be very slow. There can be lots of disconnections. There can be tendencies to only play a few moves and then stall. These things, for whatever reason, can be area specific. If a player had the option of avoiding other players from places where these things happen frequently I don't see how that could be a bad thing.
Just because a player wants a more enjoyable experience does not mean he is a "bigot" or "racist". Or as my grandfather used to say, someone that looks behind the door when entering a room once stood there himself.
Utter Nonsense. You doesn't have any good evidence to support your argument, prove it. I've experienced almost everyone I play have a proper connection. So I think the percentile is pretty less.
No. I "doesn't" have to prove anything. If someone encounters repeated bad experiences with people form a particular location, that's pretty much where it ends. There is no "argument".
You could be one of the lucky few who never experiences spotty internet, but the rest of the world might not be as lucky as you.
I find it interesting that so many people go dark so quickly. Human nature I guess.
When the OP made the suggestion I never really thought about any particular reason. I just figured he had his own personal reasons and that's the end of it. But some people can't help but be judgy.
For me personally, I think the option makes sense because some places don't have great internet service. So often a game can be very slow. There can be lots of disconnections. There can be tendencies to only play a few moves and then stall. These things, for whatever reason, can be area specific. If a player had the option of avoiding other players from places where these things happen frequently I don't see how that could be a bad thing.
Just because a player wants a more enjoyable experience does not mean he is a "bigot" or "racist". Or as my grandfather used to say, someone that looks behind the door when entering a room once stood there himself.
Utter Nonsense. You doesn't have any good evidence to support your argument, prove it. I've experienced almost everyone I play have a proper connection. So I think the percentile is pretty less.
No. I "doesn't" have to prove anything. If someone encounters repeated bad experiences with people form a particular location, that's pretty much where it ends. There is no "argument".
You could be one of the lucky few who never experiences spotty internet, but the rest of the world might not be as lucky as you.
Bearing in mind the fact that a member here only for a day and starts complaining about the people having a poor Internet connection. What evidence can a completely new member have? It's like I'm a Politician (which I'm not) and claiming to have much better contract (understanding) than scientists do in Astronomy. Maybe you are one of them consistantly having adversity?
He didn't complain about poor internet connection. Regardless of how long he had his account.
The point is there are many reasons why someone might want that option, (the most important reason being no reason at all). If chess.com cannot fix a particular problem, why deny the solution to it's members?
I cannot believe that people are twisting this to make it seem like 'just another option' and a 'personal freedom' We do not need to support xenophobia and racism through an online chess website. Exclusion should not be the goal of chess; we should promote inclusivity and unite people through the game of chess. It frustrates me so much that people are even suggesting this type of racist addition to chess.com.
How would such an option be any different than an athlete choosing not to participate in the Olympics (or any other event) based on the location of the event and/or participants? If a competitor chose not to participate because of that, how does it affect you (or anyone else) in any way?
Your analogy is incorrect. It is more like going to the Olympic Games, but submitting a list of countries that an athlete doesn't want to encounter beforehand...
I don't recall the OP suggesting that. I don't think he said he wanted any list of any sort. I think he wanted the ability to choose opponents and/or not be penalized for aborting games where the opponent was someone he didn't prefer.
I think the whole reason for boycotts is because a participant doesn't approve of something that refers to where the person or competition is located. The location of the participant is what bothers the other participant. Not the person themselves. Which is why the term "racist" is just a knee jerk reaction that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.
At any rate, if someone wishes to choose opponents based on things like location, what difference or impact does it have on you?
um, he did want to have a list of countries which are blocked...