Can we stop the threatening messages?

I am sure more mathematically inclined folk here can suggest a formula that would define the probability of each level of bad behavior for a player based on past data.

if only lichess could train an LLM on our behavior (sarcasm)

@RwSF75 said:

First of all, you will not get banned from the platform. You get a "temporary playing restriction", the same thing you get if you abort too many games. You simply can't play for a few minutes to "cool off".
https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/f4ba2594c8dc1ac0974c4f179335a4cc6b4b4f9d/modules/playban/src/main/PlaybanFeedback.scala#L8-L20
You can technically be banned, but the requirements are extremely hard to meet and you would've gotten a lot warnings already.

And second of all, the reason you got that warning was because the system checks how long it took you to make the last move before you flagged.
It took you 59 seconds, the limit for a blitz game is 30 seconds, thus you got the message.
https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/f4ba2594c8dc1ac0974c4f179335a4cc6b4b4f9d/modules/playban/src/main/PlaybanApi.scala#L76-L78
Note that this only applies in two cases: if you don't move until you flag (sitting), or, as in your case, your last move if then you flag (sitMoving). It does not apply to any other move in the game.
For example, if you had simply made a random move (and then flag) instead of letting your time run out directly after the long thought move, your last move would be below the 30s threshold (because you had 7 seconds left) and you wouldn't have gotten a message.

I just posted above that I got warned yesterday when I had 7 seconds left in a 5+3 game where I just couldn't find a move. I find that quite annoying and a bit insulting. Referring to your answer above, should this really be happening? Cheers!

@erugoeller2 said:

I just posted above that I got warned yesterday when I had 7 seconds left in a 5+3 game where I just couldn't find a move. I find that quite annoying and a bit insulting. Referring to your answer above, should this really be happening? Cheers!

I'm not sure what you mean by "should this really be happening" but if you mean "did the current system work as intended" then yes, it did.
Assuming you are talking about this game: lichess .org/Vn2zdp95 (not linked to avoid the massive board in the forum post)
The limit for 5+3 is 42 seconds
You spent 45.5 seconds to play 30...f5
Then you immediately flagged without making another move after your "long-thinking" move.

@RwSF75 said:

@erugoeller2 said:

I just posted above that I got warned yesterday when I had 7 seconds left in a 5+3 game where I just couldn't find a move. I find that quite annoying and a bit insulting. Referring to your answer above, should this really be happening? Cheers!

I'm not sure what you mean by "should this really be happening" but if you mean "did the current system work as intended" then yes, it did.
Assuming you are talking about this game: lichess .org/Vn2zdp95 (not linked to avoid the massive board in the forum post)
The limit for 5+3 is 42 seconds
You spent 45.5 seconds to play 30...f5
Then you immediately flagged without making another move after your "long-thinking" move.

Thanks for your clarification, appreciate it. However, in that case I find the parameters too narrowly set. Being a beginner 1 minute thinking isn't because being tilted and trying to be mean to the opponent, it's just because I'm not very good at chess. I believe "Ragesitting" is when you on purpose abandon a game without giving up just to mess with the opponent, like stop playing after blundering a piece on move 4 (which opponents have done to me several times). Anyway, being a polite and well-meaning 62 year old beginner I find the warning system and language unnecessarily harsh and discouraging, like I'm being reprimanded for not being better.

@RwSF75 said:

Why did I bother linking the source code if you are just going to ignore it and say "I'm pretty sure"...

Sorry, I didn't see your post. So it looks like it is based on the time control and only checks the last and second to last move, like you said.

@ronin3b said:

It happened many times in a row to my games in the past. Not recently, but still.

Maybe the algorithm was more aggressive then (see commits e7cc6e2 and 776c108 made in 2021 for example), but like I said, I've never had it happen to me many times in a row. I don't think I've ever had it happen even twice in a row.

I don't like your accusatory, ad-personam tone, by the way.

Sorry if you interpreted it like that, because that wasn't my intention. I was simply stating my viewpoint that it extremely rarely happens to me, and was asking if it happens frequently to you (which it sounds like it did), or if you are guessing that it might happen frequently to other people.

If you are going to have that tone, I'd recommend you check your sources first, as also Rw pointed out, as it seems the one "just guessing" is you.

You're right, I should've checked. I was just too lazy to look it up myself, and I missed @RwSF75's post.

Anyway, I still stand by not having the "unreasonable time" in the message itself, since it would allow malicious users to more easily cheat the system (by waiting just under the unreasonable time). Of course it is easy to calculate yourself, but most people aren't going to do that.

@TotalNoob69 said:

Honestly, I think stuff like that should be calculated as a probability. I am sure more mathematically inclined folk here can suggest a formula that would define the probability of each level of bad behavior for a player based on past data. Instead of lazily presenting the message to people when playing - and also confusingly to their opponent, in the chat - they could get a notification letting them know their scores have reaches a threshold that demands attention.

After all, we are not trying to single out people who dared do the deed and burn them at the stake, we are trying to improve the whole Lichess community as a system. That requires probabilistic math to solve, determining the main contributors to bad sentiment and fixing each of them in the order of their negative impact.

I really don't see an issue here, as others have commented. AFAIK lichess won't have access to the position analysis to know whether or not you had a valid reason to take your time and in this case the time taken in that move deviates significantly from the time used for the moves throughout the game. So it's just a false positive and as long as it doesn't become a pattern in the user's games it won't be an issue.

Clear case of "working as intended" and the message just lets you know some kind of flagging happened which, regardless of whether or not you were time-wasting here, could stop you from actually time-wasting out of rage in the near-future.

Don't take it so personally. It's just an automated message.