The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #220:

Since when is pointing out that a word can have multiple definitions considered an excuse? When you solve a math problem, are you not solving it but merely making excuses?
I presented one of the definitions that refuted your claim. That doesn’t mean it was the only argument I could have used.

You yourself accused me of supposedly speaking for everyone without conducting any surveys. So have you now conducted a survey and can speak for all players about which exact definition of 'hourly' they apply in context? Or do you have evidence that you possess telepathic abilities and can declare what others are thinking?
Not to mention, even if many people believe that the brain works at only 10 percent, that doesn’t make it true — and pointing out otherwise is not manipulation.

Clarifying that a word can take multiple meanings is not twisting facts; it’s simply describing how language works. That’s called logic, not manipulation.

It seems you’ve run out of arguments on the actual substance of the discussion, so you’ve resorted to demagoguery. By now you should have realized that such rhetorical tricks won’t work on me.

If this is the end of constructive arguments, I suggest we end the discussion.

The essence of manipulation and misleading lies precisely in the fact that a person perceives information as it is provided.
If yearly, then once a year, if hourly, then once an hour.

In addition, you did not think about the fact that in translation into French, German, etc. these words may not have other meanings, unlike English, and this must be taken into account.
Accordingly, it was meant precisely once an hour and once a year. Or it was necessary to use other, more universal formulations.

@Italiya said in #221:

The essence of manipulation and misleading lies precisely in the fact that a person perceives information as it is provided.
If yearly, then once a year, if hourly, then once an hour.

In addition, you did not think about the fact that in translation into French, German, etc. these words may not have other meanings, unlike English, and this must be taken into account.
Accordingly, it was meant precisely once an hour and once a year. Or it was necessary to use other, more universal formulations.
You chose to communicate in English, so we are analyzing English terminology, not German or Chinese, since English is the primary language here.

1. Provide evidence (a survey, research, or a certificate of telepathic abilities) that all English speakers on Lichess interpret 'hourly' in only one particular sense.
2. Clarifying that a word can take multiple meanings is not twisting facts; it’s simply describing how language works. That’s called logic, not manipulation.
3. A subjective misinterpretation does not prove the presence of an inductive fallacy — just as in mathematics, the responsibility for a wrong solution lies with the solver, not the one who posed the problem.
4. None of this proves that the naming was chosen with the intention to mislead, which refutes your original claim. At most, you can argue for an inductive mistake — which I never denied. And if you continue to claim that translation issues in other languages amount to deception, then you would have to conclude that Lichess deliberately wanted to deceive, say, the Chinese but not the English or the Germans — which is absurd.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #222:

You chose to communicate in English, so we are analyzing English terminology, not German or Chinese, since English is the primary language here.

1. Provide evidence (a survey, research, or a certificate of telepathic abilities) that all English speakers on Lichess interpret 'hourly' in only one particular sense.
2. Clarifying that a word can take multiple meanings is not twisting facts; it’s simply describing how language works. That’s called logic, not manipulation.
3. A subjective misinterpretation does not prove the presence of an inductive fallacy — just as in mathematics, the responsibility for a wrong solution lies with the solver, not the one who posed the problem.
4. None of this proves that the naming was chosen with the intention to mislead, which refutes your original claim. At most, you can argue for an inductive mistake — which I never denied. And if you continue to claim that translation issues in other languages amount to deception, then you would have to conclude that Lichess deliberately wanted to deceive, say, the Chinese but not the English or the Germans — which is absurd.

Using other languages only confirms what is meant. Try translating Mercedes, Nike or the same lichess into other languages, maybe you will understand what is meant.

@Italiya said in #223 :

Using other languages only confirms what is meant. Try translating Mercedes, Nike or the same lichess into other languages, maybe you will understand what is meant.

1. How exactly does the presence of inductive errors in translations into other languages (the existence of which you haven’t even proven) demonstrate an intention to mislead?
2. How does the existence of untranslatable brands negate the existence of translatable ones?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #224:

@Italiya said in #223 :

1. How exactly does the presence of inductive errors in translations into other languages (the existence of which you haven’t even proven) demonstrate an intention to mislead?
2. How does the existence of untranslatable brands negate the existence of translatable ones?

Lichess is a brand.
It's weird to consider the name of the arenas a brand.

Okay then.
Give me an example of an existing brand that not only is translated, but could also be misleading.

@Italiya said in #225:

It's weird to consider the name of the arenas a brand.
'It's weird' is a value judgment, not an argument. I’m not interested in continuing a discussion in the realm of “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” That has nothing to do with formal truth.
A brand ≠ always a unique word like Mercedes; sometimes a brand relies on ordinary words.

@Italiya said in #225:

Give me an example of an existing brand that not only is translated, but could also be misleading.
Apple, Orange, Dove
Arsenal, Real Madrid, New England Patriots, Los Angeles Lakers
World Series, World Cup of Clubs, World Champions, World Club Challenge, World Grand Prix

By the way, even if no such brands could be found, that would not prove that such brands cannot be used, since there are no prohibitions against it.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #226:

'It's weird' is a value judgment, not an argument. I’m not interested in continuing a discussion in the realm of “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” That has nothing to do with formal truth.
A brand ≠ always a unique word like Mercedes; sometimes a brand relies on ordinary words.

Apple, Orange, Dove
Arsenal, Real Madrid, New England Patriots, Los Angeles Lakers
World Series, World Cup of Clubs, World Champions, World Club Challenge, World Grand Prix

By the way, even if no such brands could be found, that would not prove that such brands cannot be used, since there are no prohibitions against it.

You cited registered trademarks as an example, Lichess never indicated that the names of arena system tournaments are brands. Where did you get that from?

@Italiya said in #227:

You cited registered trademarks as an example, Lichess never indicated that the names of arena system tournaments are brands. Where did you get that from?
You are making the logical mistake of conflating a “registered trademark” with a “brand.”
A registered trademark provides legal protection. A brand does not necessarily have to be registered—it is formed through perception and practical use. In other words, a symbol or a name can be both a brand and a registered trademark at the same time. Without registration, legal protection of the brand in case another platform copies it may be more difficult (though not impossible, as there are legal precedents dealing with such cases).

Simply put, for something to be a brand, it is not necessary that it be explicitly declared as such.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #228:

You are making the logical mistake of conflating a “registered trademark” with a “brand.”
A registered trademark provides legal protection. A brand does not necessarily have to be registered—it is formed through perception and practical use. In other words, a symbol or a name can be both a brand and a registered trademark at the same time. Without registration, legal protection of the brand in case another platform copies it may be more difficult (though not impossible, as there are legal precedents dealing with such cases).

Simply put, for something to be a brand, it is not necessary that it be explicitly declared as such.

But if it is not registered as a brand and is not mentioned anywhere on Lichess, then it is just the name of the arenas. If you want to call something a brand, it does not mean that it is one even for the creators themselves. In fact, these are just definitions of the arena format.

@Italiya said in #229:

But if it is not registered as a brand and is not mentioned anywhere on Lichess, then it is just the name of the arenas.

1. Why do you assume that for a symbol or name to be a brand it must be registered as a trademark or explicitly labeled as such? I’ve already explained that this is not required. By your logic, if something isn’t registered or formally announced, it cannot be a brand. That stance conflicts with standard usage in branding and, in some jurisdictions, with trademark practice. It also ignores the concept of an “unregistered trademark,” which does exist and is recognized in legal practice (details vary by jurisdiction).

2. Whether the Lichess creators themselves publicly call these tournament names “brands” is not decisive here, because the names meet the criteria of brands.

Whether Lichess would choose to enforce these names legally is a separate question and not determinative of whether the names are brands. Even if Lichess explicitly stated that it does not consider the tournament names to be brands, they would still be brands by definition. Such a statement would mainly affect legal strategy and could complicate enforcement, but it would not change the fact that the names are brands.