Can't create game with specific side any more

@mandariinikyy said in #332:

When the arguments stop, the personal insults start.

Sadly, this is true. The players that have been abusing others for year are now finally put to a stop. Of course, they need to lash out at someone. I'm glad all abusive they have left is just calling names, and no longer forcing others to play under these unfair conditions.

Go Lichess!

@teddyd said in #324:

Then either the people who play both sides would have to be matched only with people who also want to play both sides.
I really don't understand the argument. Why is someone an “abuser” who has pre-selected their color?

Because they force others to participate in playing them at unfair settings. The fair player can not choose to only play other fair players, so they become the victim of abusive use of other players.

And why should it be unfair to play 25 times against one person and never get white, when I have decided exactly that beforehand, namely that I don't care about the color! Nobody is forcing me, it's my decision. If my decision is “both”, then I can't care! And if I don't care, I'll just choose the color.

Nobody is forcing you, but the other player is being forced. Nobody would have to force me to play with an extra queen every game. It would be my choice! Nobody would ever have to force me. However, my opponent would not be aware of this setting beforehand, and would have to deal with this every time he plays me.

The only thing Lichess did is say "If you want more than normal advantageous settings for yourself, you need your opponent to agree to it, we won't force it on them anymore". That's a great thing, as it makes the platform fair for everyone

I really can't get my head around it...

@goldenCrab said in #327:

It is not very clever to ban black players, here are not a lot of them.

They are not banning people for picking a color. They are banning players for aborting games excessively.

reminds me of crimes you can only commit if you are an illegal foreigner. Working without working permit, for instance.

So now that they took away the option to play white as an exclusively white playing player, they will ban this player if he aborts games when he gets served black in casual games.
What a "crime"! I mean, bedecentforAchange is talking of abuse and forcing people (yet, the change actually forces people to abandon games if they cannot play black) - good they can not imprision you for life, but just ban you permanently from lichess.

@BeDecentForAChange said in #341:

They are not banning people for picking a color. They are banning players for aborting games excessively.

My thought was more complicated, I am sorry, that you did not understand, but your answer does not fit.

@goldenCrab said in #343:

My thought was more complicated, I am sorry, that you did not understand, but your answer does not fit.

No, you said it's unwise to ban black player. They're not doing that at all, so you were just wrong

@Munich said in #342:

reminds me of crimes you can only commit if you are an illegal foreigner. Working without working permit, for instance.

So now that they took away the option to play white as an exclusively white playing player, they will ban this player if he aborts games when he gets served black in casual games.
What a "crime"! I mean, bedecentforAchange is talking of abuse and forcing people (yet, the change actually forces people to abandon games if they cannot play black) - good they can not imprision you for life, but just ban you permanently from lichess.

Wrong, they can play with black they just want to force others to do so. Nobody on this site is unable to move the black pieces.
Nobody is forced to abort of course :).

@BeDecentForAChange said in #344:

No, you said it's unwise to ban black player. They're not doing that at all, so you were just wrong
No, you are wrong, because you might be a person, who can not feel or understand other peoples sarcasm. (my reason: sadness).

@goldenCrab said in #346:

No, you are wrong, because you might be a person, who can not feel or understand other peoples sarcasm. (my reason: sadness).

Sure I can, just correcting your wrong statement. I wasn't wrong, I just corrected you again

@BeDecentForAChange said in #309:

I think someone else came up with a pretty good argument on that: If the absue of choosing color causes some type of unfairness or other types of issues, keeping the option in casual games would persist these problems. From a fair-play perspective you could say that, even if someone only plays casual, they should still be given the same level-playingfield as the rated players: with even distribution of black and white games against all opponents.

How could keeping the color option in casual games make those problems persist? So you are telling me, that the auto-color selection in rated games is determined by the total amount of games (rated+unrated) played with white/black? If yes, why do you not address this issue and instead you remove the option entirely? I really can't think of any other problem that playing with white/black can cause in casual games .

''From a fair play perspective yada yada'' yea, this argument doesnt hold any water in regards to casual games. I've played a lot of casual games, in most of them, I choose a random color and I never run into any issues. And on top of that, casual games are meant to not be serious or to be used for practicing certain openings.
''But hey, you can still invite people and play with whatever color you want!1!1!''. How couldnt we have thought of that, challenging random people, seems perfectly reasonable.