Board Game Arena

MarkSteere wrote: ↑29 December 2025, 12:00 But in this case, it doesn't seem to be ACTIVE discrimination. If a player's country has been prohibited from joining a game, I'm assuming that a player from that country would never see the game, and would have no chance of being offended.

Don't be ridiculous. Discrimination is wrong whether or not the person being discriminated against is aware of it.

I’ve never heard of this distinction between active and passive discrimination, and in the way you’re describing it it doesn’t seem like a useful distinction to make.

Maybe you could convince Tof63 to add a feature to their extension that would hide the country of origin of other users. Then you wouldn’t know and wouldn’t have to see the flag (which I can easily understand would be extremely upsetting, even if you knew your opponent was completely against the war).

"Discrimination" shouldn't be a buzzword that automatically induces a virtue signaling panic attack. Of course the usual cases of discrimination are wrong, like racial discrimination against job applicants. But what if, for example, you're trying to hire a nanny for your young children and a man shows up for an interview, face covered with prison tattoos? You instantaneously decide that he wouldn't be a good fit, and you tell him that you'll "call him." Are you "discriminating?"

What if you're invited to a party in a part of town with a well documented high crime rate, and you make up an excuse why you can't go, out of fear for your safety? Are you "discriminating?"

BarnardsStar wrote: ↑30 December 2025, 02:18 Maybe you could convince Tof63 to add a feature to their extension that would hide the country of origin of other users. Then you wouldn’t know and wouldn’t have to see the flag (which I can easily understand would be extremely upsetting, even if you knew your opponent was completely against the war).

I am French and I disagree with half of what my government does. I think that we should not even be able to consult a user's country at all to avoid this kind of discrimination.

Yay, "Passive discrimination" just a fancy way of saying "You have the right of being racist as long as you are subtle about it and not get caught"
...
So, I'll pass.

I wonder why this post is still open. Moderation made it clear this won't be a thing. Why thee 'debate' is still going?

Ok, fine. Doesn't matter to me. There aren't any countries I want to block. If anyone wants to block my country, Mongolia, have at it. I couldn't care less

Just from an academic debate standpoint, I don't see the harm in privately and discreetly blocking countries, but if people are getting triggered over it, don't provide that option.

MarkSteere wrote: ↑30 December 2025, 12:05 Just from an academic debate standpoint, I don't see the harm in privately and discreetly blocking countries, but if people are getting triggered over it, don't provide that option.

It's no different from giving a private red thumb for whatever reason you fancy. But if BGA would provide a "block by country" feature, it would be encouraging discrimination, and that would be going beyond "private", in my opinion.

MarkSteere wrote: ↑30 December 2025, 05:17 But what if, for example, you're trying to hire a nanny for your young children and a man shows up for an interview, face covered with prison tattoos? You instantaneously decide that he wouldn't be a good fit, and you tell him that you'll "call him." Are you "discriminating?"

That'd be a clear case of discrimination, just a more socially acceptable one.