Can't create game with specific side any more

There is nothing racist in what I said. I made it clear I search for the right expression:

@Munich said in #471:

It feels like racism to talk of such players as "abusers" and "unfair players" etc.
Is there an expression if you opress and demonize a minority such as white-only-players?

But his initial comment was a bit off, quoting me and writing "lol":

@BeDecentForAChange said in #474:

lol

@Munich said in #509:

There is nothing racist in what I said. I made it clear I search for the right expression:

No, you belittled racism by comparing this futile forum thread to it, trying to score some easy points. What you said was not racist, neither was what I said transphobic.

But his initial comment was a bit off, quoting me and writing "lol":

Yes, I was making fun of the ridiculousness of your comparison

hm, I thought about it, and apologize if I could not make myself better understood, and I reformulate:

It feels like minority demonization to label such players as "abusers" and "unfair players." Is there a term for when a minority, such as those who prefer playing as white, is oppressed and demonized?

Then again, if there isnt, then I'd keep saying it is "minority demonization". Or maybe "stigmatization of a minority". Unless you agree with beDecentForAChange and define it as "anti-semitic", "transphobic" and "racist-thing".
At the same time he seems to enjoy cheering to take the option away from players, who are used to play with white or black only.

@Munich said in #511:

hm, I thought about it, and apologize if I could not make myself better understood, and I reformulate:

It feels like minority demonization to label such players as "abusers" and "unfair players." Is there a term for when a minority, such as those who prefer playing as white, is oppressed and demonized?

Then again, if there isnt, then I'd keep saying it is "minority demonization". Or maybe "stigmatization of a minority". Unless you agree with beDecentForAChange and define it as "anti-semitic", "transphobic" and "racist-thing".

nono, I did not define it like that. I made fun of your calling it racist.

At the same time he seems to enjoy cheering to take the option away from players, who are used to play with white or black only.

Wrong! The option is not taken away from users. The option to force it on other players is just taken away. You can still invite people to do so of their own free will!

@Munich said in #511:

It feels like minority demonization to label such players as "abusers" and "unfair players." Is there a term for when a minority, such as those who prefer playing as white, is oppressed and demonized?

Yes. And the minority that uses Stockfish during their games are stigmatised and demonised as "cheaters". People who lose on purpose are oppressed with the word "sandbagger", and the hate crime against people that have other people inflate their rating, is having them called "boosters".

It's a crime against humanity really

@BeDecentForAChange said in #473:

Everybody I play here is a random person to me. And yes, I've invited people here and played them.

Inviting randos shouldn't be the norm for practicing in a given color

It was a well thought out commit designed to improve the fairness on this site. Objectively, it has been the best thing the site has done so far to ensure everybody is treated fairly.

Chess com has found a way to make it fair without removing that feature, so lichess is lacking.

You don't have to. But calling people lazy for not making something happen in their free time, not getting paid, that you personally want and you could do yourself is in fact lazy.

The devs aren't lazy, the change is lazy. There is a difference. Sure, dont call it lazy, call it sloppy, botched

Sure it does. Using a chess engine in casual games is just as unfair as it is in rated games. Just because you're not playing a rated game doesn't mean you should forced to play the color that your opponent sets for you.

You can actually choose who you play against when searching for a casual game in the lobby. And if the argument is ''but the mobile version doesn't have the lobby'', well then the issue is with the mobile app, not with the color option. Every sane lichess user uses the browser version on android/ios, not the app on the app store. There, I solved the ''unfairness''.

@BeDecentForAChange you can not have an open challenge, and you know very well, that you need to catch people while they seek a game themselves. Then you send them an invitation, but often enough then they already started a game.
It takes very long to get a game like that, as in buzy times you have only a few seconds to catch a user to invite him BEFORE he already started a game.

I would not compare players-who-prefer-white with cheaters, sandbaggers, boosters.
The advantage of having white is a one-off-effect, and will gain on average maybe 22.5 rating points. (3% advantage over black).
Keep in mind you talk about honest good people who prefer to play with one colour only. My 83 year old mum is just and example, there are certainly quite a few players like her, not neccessarily her gender or age. Hobby amateur players, not really club players, who enjoy a decent game for a change. Or maybe children who have just picked up chess and learned their first white opening (Italien or Ruy Lopey, I guess) like all of us at the beginning. And then you come along and call them unfair, and abusers.

@NotTakenUsername said in #515:

Inviting randos shouldn't be the norm for practicing in a given color

Forcing your preferred color on random isn't either

Chess com has found a way to make it fair without removing that feature, so lichess is lacking.

Having the feature doesn't mean it's fair. Also chess.com has a few million extra in budget even if it was.

The devs aren't lazy, the change is lazy. There is a difference. Sure, dont call it lazy, call it sloppy, botched

Or it was deliberate, embracing the philosophy of Thibault to cut out the problem.

You can actually choose who you play against when searching for a casual game in the lobby. And if the argument is ''but the mobile version doesn't have the lobby'', well then the issue is with the mobile app, not with the color option.

No, if you start a game with random colours, you were still matched against people who pick a colour. Your solution sounds like you should only use the lobby for picking games, and not for matching games.

Every sane lichess user uses the browser version on android/ios, not the app on the app store. There, I solved the ''unfairness''.

Not according to the download stats, the app is used a lot as it has much better UI than the mobile site.

@Munich said in #516:

@BeDecentForAChange you can not have an open challenge, and you know very well, that you need to catch people while they seek a game themselves. Then you send them an invitation, but often enough then they already started a game.
It takes very long to get a game like that, as in buzy times you have only a few seconds to catch a user to invite him BEFORE he already started a game.

There is a discord server with 3k people online, or you could follow/befriend people to invite. The options are countless.

like others said before me: lichess could adjust the code a little bit. The change as it is now is a big let down.