It's always sad to lose users that can't behave.
I agree with TS in that the cure is worse than the disease.
That wrongful warnings (when lichess warns my opponent, not me!) bother even me. See lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/incorrect-warning-losing-games-on-purpose-will-result-in-a-ban; but this is just small head of iceberg.
And at the same time, the right warning does not prevent some of my opponents to leave the game instead of resign.
There is *obvious* right way to cure. But, it seems to me, that lichess founder(s) consider themselves to be infinitely smart. So I will not say.
That wrongful warnings (when lichess warns my opponent, not me!) bother even me. See lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/incorrect-warning-losing-games-on-purpose-will-result-in-a-ban; but this is just small head of iceberg.
And at the same time, the right warning does not prevent some of my opponents to leave the game instead of resign.
There is *obvious* right way to cure. But, it seems to me, that lichess founder(s) consider themselves to be infinitely smart. So I will not say.
#12
> That wrongful warnings (when lichess warns my opponent, not me!) bother even me.
A false warning can happen, but we do our best to minimize those. And if it still happens occasionally, one false warning will not lead to a temporary ban.
> And at the same time, the right warning does not prevent some of my opponents to leave the game instead of resign.
Even if the warnings don't prevent people to stall, they have another benefit: they inform the opponent of the staller/leaver that we *do* take action against it. The temporary bans have always existed but many people were unaware of their existence and would sometimes ask in the forums or reports if anything could be done against stallers/leavers. Showing the warnings to both players in the game makes it clear that we do.
> There is *obvious* right way to cure.
Please do share. We can always consider/discuss it within the team.
> That wrongful warnings (when lichess warns my opponent, not me!) bother even me.
A false warning can happen, but we do our best to minimize those. And if it still happens occasionally, one false warning will not lead to a temporary ban.
> And at the same time, the right warning does not prevent some of my opponents to leave the game instead of resign.
Even if the warnings don't prevent people to stall, they have another benefit: they inform the opponent of the staller/leaver that we *do* take action against it. The temporary bans have always existed but many people were unaware of their existence and would sometimes ask in the forums or reports if anything could be done against stallers/leavers. Showing the warnings to both players in the game makes it clear that we do.
> There is *obvious* right way to cure.
Please do share. We can always consider/discuss it within the team.
Lichess is great, ofcourse they(lichess admins) can mistakes, after all they are humans. Just let them know what went wrong with some evidence. I am sure they are willing to rectify their mistakes. Thanks @arex @lovlas @ProgramFOX @thibault for creating such a wonderful platform. I have one request though, many people are suggesting it as well, "the multiple premove system". Plz do consider.
@ProgramFOX
> Please do share. We can always consider/discuss it within the team.
It is *very* obvious and I wonder why you did not notice it by themselves, after reading all this "wrong warning" jazz. But I do you the chance (to notice by themselves) and shall be silent for some time.
> Please do share. We can always consider/discuss it within the team.
It is *very* obvious and I wonder why you did not notice it by themselves, after reading all this "wrong warning" jazz. But I do you the chance (to notice by themselves) and shall be silent for some time.
Well, I don't know. And if you really want to help us, you could as well just tell us, instead of playing little guessing games like that. I have other things to spend my time on.
@ProgramFOX
The sentence "But, it seems to me, that lichess founder(s) consider themselves to be infinitely smart." may not be clear. I mean the following:
Smart person SHOULD discuss such a big, potentially bothering change to lichess interface BEFORE real change, not after. And discuss VERY broadly. That is, discuss in such a way, that even me (being non-social) notice this discussion.
The sentence "But, it seems to me, that lichess founder(s) consider themselves to be infinitely smart." may not be clear. I mean the following:
Smart person SHOULD discuss such a big, potentially bothering change to lichess interface BEFORE real change, not after. And discuss VERY broadly. That is, discuss in such a way, that even me (being non-social) notice this discussion.
@ProgramFOX
> And if you really want to help us, you could as well just tell us, instead of playing little guessing games like that. I have other things to spend my time on.
Are you already guessing the right answer (i.e. what to do for the *best*, not *my* answer!) to stall games for the last month? Or even for the last 2 months?
If not, i.e. if you are thinking "what we done is good!!!111111111" then my words will be useless.
P.S. Unusually good mate (Légal Mate) in captcha lichess.org/tQfLsfdY
> And if you really want to help us, you could as well just tell us, instead of playing little guessing games like that. I have other things to spend my time on.
Are you already guessing the right answer (i.e. what to do for the *best*, not *my* answer!) to stall games for the last month? Or even for the last 2 months?
If not, i.e. if you are thinking "what we done is good!!!111111111" then my words will be useless.
P.S. Unusually good mate (Légal Mate) in captcha lichess.org/tQfLsfdY
It is true that we did not discuss this feature in the forums before its implementation (I don't think we usually do that anyway), but it was clear that it was needed: there were plenty of forum posts and moderator reports about people stalling on time or leaving the game. In the background, we would automatically temporarily ban repeat offenders. But many people were not aware of this. By having the warnings, we saved a lot of time in answering these forum posts and reports.
Besides, if we were to ask this in the forum, we would reach the benefiting group much less. Many could feel "whatever, I know it already", making it an inaccurate representation because nobody in our benefit group (i.e. the people unaware of the ban system) would still be unaware after reading our forum post.
Besides, if we were to ask this in the forum, we would reach the benefiting group much less. Many could feel "whatever, I know it already", making it an inaccurate representation because nobody in our benefit group (i.e. the people unaware of the ban system) would still be unaware after reading our forum post.
@game_spectator
I don't agree that putting warnings in a game chat is a change that should be broadly discussed with many members. It does not change any functionality whatsoever; it just notifies the users of something that was already happening. If many members appear to dislike this, such a change can always be easily revoked, even though I really don't know why this would be the case.
As for your solution, the way you're talking suggests to me that you really don't have a suggestion at all about how to handle the case. You're complaining about lichess not implementing something and then you don't say what it is. That's not just completely useless, it's annoying as well.
I don't agree that putting warnings in a game chat is a change that should be broadly discussed with many members. It does not change any functionality whatsoever; it just notifies the users of something that was already happening. If many members appear to dislike this, such a change can always be easily revoked, even though I really don't know why this would be the case.
As for your solution, the way you're talking suggests to me that you really don't have a suggestion at all about how to handle the case. You're complaining about lichess not implementing something and then you don't say what it is. That's not just completely useless, it's annoying as well.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.