Is it better to over report or don't report enough?

It is all a facade. They have low level bots testing us. Then they have 900 bots but they play like 1500s. I see this pattern too many times.

1. I make a new account.
2. I am white, not black.
3. Usually, I get an easy win.
4. I get another win with ease, but a tad harder.
5. I get a third win, the player lasted 15-20 moves before faultering.
6. I have a 4th game, and in this one it is 50/50.
7. If I win, then I lose the 5th game.
8. Losing precipitates. I lose, lose, lose, lose.
9. These chess sites market it as "tilting" and recommend you pay them for chessable courses to "untilt".
10. Other things happen (I won't list them here), then I give up.
11. I wake up the next day, and beat a 900 blindfolded.
12. I beat a 1200 blindfolded.
13. I beat a 1000 half-blindfolded while squinting.
14. I draw or lose.
15. I lose.
16. I lose.
17. I lose.
18. I lose.
19. I lose.
20. I lose.
21. I must be "tilting". Chess sites must want more money.

There are no bots on Lichess except for those clearly tagged as BOT. For moderation purposes we also have a few accounts controlled by admins that run anti-cheat algorithms but they don't play games.

You can report as much as you want, it's free. The only thing is that if you end up reporting everyone you lose to, maybe even without analyzing the game, you may end up at the bottom of the queue, just because your "reputation" is not that good.

Your report will eventually be reviewed but it will likely take more time.

I prefer the ICC's 'C' tag of shame. I guess it is tough to enforce for a free site with folks just opening a new account with no financial cost.

A Lichess Moderator said in #4:
<snip>

You can report as much as you want, it's free. The only thing is that if you end up reporting everyone you lose to, maybe even without analyzing the game, you may end up at the bottom of the queue, just because your "reputation" is not that good.

Your report will eventually be reviewed but it will likely take more time.

Really? How counter-intuitive. I was under the impression that the loudest complainants got the most attention. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" and all that.

@verylate said in #7:

Really? How counter-intuitive. I was under the impression that the loudest complainants got the most attention. "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" and all that.

Well work that way when you are at the counter and yell and everyone feels uncomfortable with the situation. In digital world I presume you can automate these thing quite well. You cannot really shout over the Internet.

@petri999 said in #8:
<snip> In digital world I presume you can automate these thing quite well. You cannot really shout over the Internet.

Have a brief gander at some of the threads that only seem to provoke pointless arguments and tell me that again. People (not just here) certainly seem to think so.
In any case, it's nice to hear from a mod that reason sometimes prevails.

@verylate said in #9:

Have a brief gander at some of the threads that only seem to provoke pointless arguments and tell me [that you cannot really shout over the internet] again. People (not just here) certainly seem to think so.
In any case, it's nice to hear from a mod that reason sometimes prevails.

(1) There's obviously quite a difference between the free-for-all forums which are only lightly moderated here, and the automated system of reporting which will be handled with a queueing system by people who are essentially at work and performing a function.

(2) On the forums, too, people who post the most are not necessarily the ones who get the most attention. We all develop a feel, after a time, for whose reactions are worth reading. That's ugly discrimination, but we all have to do it because we have limited time and can't read everything.