I have played over 2500 games, and I may have accidentally abandoned maybe 5-7 games.

But OP has a point. The site ought to qualify and quantify automatic mathematical assumptions before issuing bans. There is a major difference between abandoning 11/100 games and 50/ 10,000. Clearly the former is much worse behaviour then the later. Human beings are not perfect automatic machines they do have emotions.

@Firegoat7 said in #11:

But OP has a point. The site ought to qualify and quantify automatic mathematical assumptions before issuing bans. There is a major difference between abandoning 11/100 games and 50/ 10,000. Clearly the former is much worse behaviour then the later. Human beings are not perfect automatic machines they do have emotions.

This is exactly my point!

But they don’t want to address it. It’s fine.

This week you showed a pattern of stalling or abandonment, instead of looking at my full existence as a member....

You think I would waste my time arguing this?

I play about 20 games a day ....and all of my games are played fairly. And all of my games are played by phone, because I play from work a lot, and sometimes I work from home.

And getting accused for stalling for 70 seconds in a blitz game where my opponent has 49 seconds left is ridiculous. I’m not sure if I fell asleep or what happened...but the time is so short that it shouldn’t have been an issue.

No one is in denial. There assessment is just incorrect .

@Cypherish said in #8:

70 seconds? How do you know that’s not from someone putting the phone down , or going to look at something . That was from a blitz game. That occurred at 8:47pm. No telling what happened at that time.

It's entirely irrelevant what happened at the time. What you are doing outside of the game is not your opponent's problem, it's yours.

@Firegoat7 said in #11:

But OP has a point. The site ought to qualify and quantify automatic mathematical assumptions before issuing bans. There is a major difference between abandoning 11/100 games and 50/ 10,000. Clearly the former is much worse behaviour then the later. Human beings are not perfect automatic machines they do have emotions.

No offense, but you are talking from a suspended account. Are you really in a position to tell anyone what is bad behaviour?

@Cypherish said in #12:

And getting accused for stalling for 70 seconds in a blitz game where my opponent has 49 seconds left is ridiculous. I’m not sure if I fell asleep or what happened...but the time is so short that it shouldn’t have been an issue.

You are letting your clock run for over 20% of your total time in a dead lost position. Yeah, that's an issue. And it definitely should be an issue.

It really doesn't matter if you fell asleep or if the pope called you. You're not allowed to do this. You seem to be thinking that you could, potentially, have a good reason for it. No, you couldn't.

And this is just one example, your game history is full of games like this one. I even saw one game where you let your clock run for 14 minutes in a 15 minute game.

@Molurus said in #14:

No offense, but you are talking from a suspended account. Are you really in a position to tell anyone what is bad behaviour?

This is an example of not letting the argument speak for itself. It is also an example of moral absolutism that does more damage then the behaviour it seeks to reform. You will notice my argument did not attack any poster. Clearly, if the site allows "banned" posters to speak on a public forum then it is their policy. Attacking the person, instead of the argument, for speaking is simply bullying. And it doesn't matter how polite you are in the process.

@Firegoat7 said in #16:

This is an example of not letting the argument speak for itself. It is also an example of moral absolutism that does more damage then the behaviour it seeks to reform. You will notice my argument did not attack any poster. Clearly, if the site allows "banned" posters to speak on a public forum then it is their policy. Attacking the person, instead of the argument, for speaking is simply bullying. And it doesn't matter how polite you are in the process.

I'm just saying that this is a lot like a convicted murderer participating in a conversation about moral values. You're allowed to do it, but it's just very strange. OP at least is at the stage where he is getting warnings and is contemplating what he did wrong. You are way beyond warnings.

@Molurus said in #15:

You are letting your clock run for over 20% of your total time in a dead lost position. Yeah, that's an issue. And it definitely should be an issue.

Again, it would depend on qualifying and quantifying the mathematics. The argument is not a moral absolute.
For example,

Lets say a player lets their clock run out 14 minutes in one 15 minute game. If that person suddenly had a fire in their house or a relative visited them after a few years of being absent it would be completely understandable and not even morally wrong to abandon a game.

The context is more important then the absolute. Placing Lichess above real life in regards to morality is poor public policy. It is social media, not anti-social media. A persons life is more important then Lichess TOS, so put the sites moral enforcement in its proper context.

@Molurus said in #17:

I'm just saying that this is a lot like a convicted murderer participating in a conversation about moral values. You're allowed to do it, but it's just very strange.

That is a very poor analogy. The crime needs to be placed and judged in the context of the social experience. To suggest that only some voices can speak about "crime" when they have permission (in this case from Lichess) is basically undemocratic and against free speech. It has nothing to do with what is said in the context of a discussion.

It needs to be understood that Lichess TOS should be situated within reality, not some absolute idealism that places it morally above the human condition. It is clear that there are some issues on this site with automatic banning and the appeal process.

Is the system accumulating the abandoned ones in the long run, or only caring for the events in succession and resets every once in a while upon not exceeding a limit?

The latter would justify the warrant as it won't matter whether you have played a million games with a clean record -- if you suddenly begin to stall/leave for a certain amount of games in a short period of time, the behavior shouldn't go undetected.

Feels like that's what's happening here