Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Information about the player's country

@OctoPinky said in #9:

These two are difficult to mix:
+++
The seeming contradiction between these two principles can be resolved by understanding that they are based on different premises and objectives. The first principle expresses a general attitude of openness and acceptance of diversity, a principle that supports inclusivity and respect for all people, regardless of their origin. This principle should be foundational in any community as it promotes mutual respect and understanding among its members.

The second principle, where the author states not playing with players from a certain country out of a "higher moral principle," is not incompatible with the first, if this stance is based on specific experiences or principles that are not predicated on prejudice, but on specific actions or policies of that country. This position could be a way to express disapproval of certain policies or actions perceived as unjust or harmful. It's important for such a stance to be carefully considered and based on informed and critical evaluation, not on generalization or stereotype.

In this context, both principles can be seen as part of a broader discourse on how communities should deal with diversity and how individuals should manage their interactions with others based on their values and experiences. It's crucial to acknowledge that individuals may have varied reasons for their decisions, which they believe are consistent with their values, and that these reasons are not necessarily in conflict with the more general principles of openness and inclusivity.

@OctoPinky said in #9: > These two are difficult to mix: +++ The seeming contradiction between these two principles can be resolved by understanding that they are based on different premises and objectives. The first principle expresses a general attitude of openness and acceptance of diversity, a principle that supports inclusivity and respect for all people, regardless of their origin. This principle should be foundational in any community as it promotes mutual respect and understanding among its members. The second principle, where the author states not playing with players from a certain country out of a "higher moral principle," is not incompatible with the first, if this stance is based on specific experiences or principles that are not predicated on prejudice, but on specific actions or policies of that country. This position could be a way to express disapproval of certain policies or actions perceived as unjust or harmful. It's important for such a stance to be carefully considered and based on informed and critical evaluation, not on generalization or stereotype. In this context, both principles can be seen as part of a broader discourse on how communities should deal with diversity and how individuals should manage their interactions with others based on their values and experiences. It's crucial to acknowledge that individuals may have varied reasons for their decisions, which they believe are consistent with their values, and that these reasons are not necessarily in conflict with the more general principles of openness and inclusivity.

@Saarinen_junior said in #11:

The seeming contradiction between these two principles can be resolved by understanding that they are based on different premises and objectives

Thanks for your detailed reply. I still disagree on the basis of conflating a country and its government actions (so we would be ashaming a whole country, indeed), but I get your point.

@Saarinen_junior said in #11: > The seeming contradiction between these two principles can be resolved by understanding that they are based on different premises and objectives Thanks for your detailed reply. I still disagree on the basis of conflating a country and its government actions (so we would be ashaming a whole country, indeed), but I get your point.

interesting, but as mentioned earlier, I agree with those who said that it was disrespectful of people's privacy, in the sense of using their geolocation data.

and what about people who move from one country to another?

if a Swedish player goes to India, he will be forced to connect to an Indian wifi, so his geolocation will be Indian even though he has no link with this country other than his geographical location as part of a trip.

or people eligible for several national federations at the same time?

or racist people who will voluntarily select people from certain countries and discriminate against others...

interesting, but as mentioned earlier, I agree with those who said that it was disrespectful of people's privacy, in the sense of using their geolocation data. and what about people who move from one country to another? if a Swedish player goes to India, he will be forced to connect to an Indian wifi, so his geolocation will be Indian even though he has no link with this country other than his geographical location as part of a trip. or people eligible for several national federations at the same time? or racist people who will voluntarily select people from certain countries and discriminate against others...

@Brian-E said in #6:

Migration is the new normal.

No, its not....

@Brian-E said in #6: > Migration is the new normal. No, its not....

@Saarinen_junior said in #7:

He's the only Finn to win a Grand Prix title.

Also, I genuinelly thought Mika Kallio also won a title, quite surprised that it’s not the case.

@Saarinen_junior said in #7: > He's the only Finn to win a Grand Prix title. Also, I genuinelly thought Mika Kallio also won a title, quite surprised that it’s not the case.

We're all born on the same piece of land called Earth & if you prefer to play politics, leave Chess out of it.

We're all born on the same piece of land called Earth & if you prefer to play politics, leave Chess out of it.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.