and also the connection issue is due to chess.com being based in usa(i think, california) and that means the connection is bad because of the physical distance, so that is not the fault of you're opponent
also even if a country has not good connection, the specific player might not
this is judging people by judging a group they fall into, which is called stereotyping
I also think this is a good idea. Chess is a social game, so it only makes sense to pick and choose who your opponent is. Just like you pick and choose who you associate with in real life.
I've played about 100,000 games in my life. Never once did I associate my opponent's play with their country.
Good players, bad players, aggressive players, passive players, fast players, slow players, they come from everywhere.
Of course people imagine these things all the time (that players from ___ are ___) but it's as ridiculous as all the people who complain about being forced to play black more often than white when 5 seconds after checking their profile you see it's 50/50.
There is no rational reason to block opponents in this way.
The rating filter has a reason to exist, because it can balance the game based on user preferences. Blocking specific nationalities doesn't have a logical reason to exist nor to balance online games in any way, therefore is an irrelevant filter to implement.
I guess that depends on who gets to decide what logical is. Is it logical that people choose to play against only their friends and not strangers? Is it logical that people choose to play only black, and prefer not to play white? Is it logical that people choose to play only people rated below them?
That's the problem with people, they are always wanting to do something someone else doesn't agree with. I don't see the harm in allowing people the ability to choose whom they play with, regardless of their reason.
All of those have a direct impact on the game.
Playing with a friend is different than playing with a stranger.
Playing with black is different than playing with white.
Playing a lower rated player is different than playing a higher rated player.
Playing someone from India is no different than playing someone from the United States.
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.
Then pair by connection strength, not country.
In any case that's not what the OP wanted. The OP wanted to block countries. There were even people arguing that it doesn't matter if someone selects a false flag, go ahead and block them too.
Purely irrational. The only reason to block a flag that may not represent someone's country is xenophobia to the extent that even the appearance of someone being from a certain country is seen as distasteful.
At any rate, if someone wishes to choose opponents based on things like location, what difference or impact does it have on you?
Assuming that we've agreed that it's a reasonable option to have, and assuming that people are already using it, then sure, it has no real impact on me and I don't care.
But these are the very things we're debating, and no one has used the argument that it's not ok because it directly impacts them.
A bit racist but idk
Yyyyy
The difference between a forum and a thread A forum is equivalent to a folder which contains a collection of one or more discussion topics. You post to discussion topics and each post within the topic is called a thread.
Sooo...RJC was correct...
I think he is partly correct, the discussion and each post within the topic is called a thread.
A thread is one post and any/all replies to it, whether there are nested/hierarchical replies or not. A forum contains threads. Not sure how you are defining "topic".
The difference between a forum and a thread A forum is equivalent to a folder which contains a collection of one or more discussion topics. You post to discussion topics and each post within the topic is called a thread.
Sooo...RJC was correct...
I think he is partly correct, the discussion and each post within the topic is called a thread.
A thread is one post and any/all replies to it, whether there are nested/hierarchical replies or not. A forum contains threads. Not sure how you are defining "topic".
A topic is matter dealt with in a text, discourse, or conversation; a subject. I was referring to the topic and every response in is a thread. I think you are confused.
Lol. You're the one who is confused. I say this as someone who has written forum software, debugged forum software, and used and managed forum software/messageboards for decades.
You wrote:
"You post to discussion topics and each post within the topic is called a thread."
...which equates posts with threads. That is incorrect.
"A thread is a string (or collection) of posts [thus the name "thread"]. A post is each person's comments within the thread. A question is a post. The reply is also a post. Combined together (and including all other replies after), they make a thread. A thread may have many posts; a post is part of a thread. The forum will have many threads, and each thread has its own topic."
...is a much better definition.
Interesting how this "thread-topic" argument is the most constructive thing within this thread-topic.
Interesting how this "thread-topic" argument is the most constructive thing within this thread-topic.
I'm talking to him not to you. You have no need to come in between.
I wasn't talking to you, there was no need to answer.
Of course this should be an option. I have yet to see any normal person that is against this.
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.
Chess.com doesn't have a peer to peer connection, therefore you connection is not influenced in any way by your opponent connection. A part from that, in almost 2 years on this site the disconnections of my opponents were extremely rare and definitely not associated to specific countries (granted that after 30 seconds of my opponent being disconnected i win the game, so not a big deal).
Interesting how this "thread-topic" argument is the most constructive thing within this thread-topic.
I'm talking to him not to you. You have no need to come in between.
I wasn't talking to you, there was no need to answer.
You didn't made any reference to what OP said which clearly means you are talking to me.
No it doesn't. I was just making an observation. I've said enough on what the OP said already. And oh my, you're talking to little old me now? You think this thread is your private space? Fork off. Jerk.
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.
"Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Imagine a new player registering on chess.com from a country that has been blocked by 70% of the users. As a result of that, he will have to wait much longer to find a match and he will not be able to interact with the vast majority of people ONLY because he had the misfortune of being born in that specific country.
Your freedom has limits, you always have to think about the others, not just about a specific group of people disgregarding everyone else from the equation. And that's exactly why this filter won't be created, not because is difficult to make ( I hate to break it to you, there are no technical difficulties about that ), but because the idea behind is simply absurd.
Your freedom has limits, you always have to think about the others, not just about a specific group of people disgregarding everyone else from the equation. And that's exactly why this filter won't be created, not because is difficult to make ( I hate to break it to you, there are no technical difficulties about that ), but because the idea behind is simply absurd.
Pretty sure the main reason why this filter won't be implemented is the effect on the rating system. People get penalized for aborting games because mass aborting ruins the ratings if allowed to run rampant. Blocking a whole countryful of players (tens, maybe hunderds of thousands of potential opponents at once) ruins it even faster. That's the main issue from the site's point of view. The ethical impications are just a delicious cherry on top.
This is a dumb idea. It is racist. If this is added I will quit using chess.com and move to another country
Your freedom has limits, you always have to think about the others, not just about a specific group of people disgregarding everyone else from the equation. And that's exactly why this filter won't be created, not because is difficult to make ( I hate to break it to you, there are no technical difficulties about that ), but because the idea behind is simply absurd.
Pretty sure the main reason why this filter won't be implemented is the effect on the rating system. People get penalized for aborting games because mass aborting ruins the ratings if allowed to run rampant. Blocking a whole countryful of players (tens, maybe hunderds of thousands of potential opponents at once) ruins it even faster. That's the main issue from the site's point of view. The ethical impications are just a delicious cherry on top.
Of course the marketing implications are part of the equation, chess.com is a business after all. However that doens't make it less unethical. This "feature" wouldn't be implemented regardless.
The difference between a forum and a thread A forum is equivalent to a folder which contains a collection of one or more discussion topics. You post to discussion topics and each post within the topic is called a thread.
Sooo...RJC was correct...