Can't create game with specific side any more

@BeDecentForAChange said in #719:

So you mean that created games have to be accepted in order to be started, in stead of being matched. Do you have any idea what a lobby like that would look like when 50k players are online?

It is to quickly match players that are in scope to be matched together. Not being actively paired, but having to wait for someone to choose you in a lobby of, then thousands of challenges.... not a great plan

Those are very good arguments sir, articulate and precise.
Remove them at once, they have no place here

@Munich said in #720:

hm, if the number of entries would become to many in the lobby (would that be the case? Are standard time controls a huge majority of all seeks?) - the there could be a diagram, with y-axis being the rating, anc s-axis being the time in minutes, and if you hover over a dot with the mouse you could then see if it is 10min + 0sec minutes or in fact 0 min +15sec (both equate to 600 seconds).

Yes but you see where this is going right? Now we're making a whole new UI for the lobby altogether. Have you thought about the implications of this or how you would solve such a UI trigger-sensitive task on mobile applications?

The other solution is to not automatch colour seekers with quickpairers (unless in the settings there is a toggle button where the user can consent to accept colour seeking matches, too).

This would be to treat them as an entirely different class of matches. Has implications on ratings, settings, pairing stats, and again: This means the lobby UI is going to clutter with these people.

And another solution would be to limit the amount of white seekers by queueing them, indicating the position in the queue.

More UI work, since as top of them now being excluded in matchmaking, or the lobby story, you now need a page to display their que, or work it into the the waiting screen. This would mean they can only be matched against others within their same time settings and rating, meaning long queues.

No matter what solution there is: it would increase the lines of code.

Correct

This is offset by the cost of patrons leaving lichess and go elsewhere.

Lichess prides itself on not being beholden to shareholders. This should equally reflect not being beholden by people withdrawing support in order to get their way. New Patron will come along

The feature to be able to play black/white in either rated or casual games is an important one to many players, and reason enough for quite a few to go to a different chess site that offers this option.
The length of this thread (even when subtacting your share of postings) clearly shows that the removal of this feature is really missed.

Don't forget to include yourself in that count, you've had your share of posts here too.

Nobody has said the feature isn't missed by the way, I think everyone can agree on that

I have more games played than messages.
With you it is the other way round.
And I have not posted as many messages as you did, not even close to your number: 241 messages, of which 239 are in this thread.
Number of games you have ever played here is: 114 so far.

Your account was spawed a few weeks ago. But reading your messages indicate you know lichess for quite some years, so where is your other lichess acount. was it banned? We dont know, unless you tell us.

@Munich said in #723:

I have more games played than messages.

This is correct, for a change

With you it is the other way round.

This too, is correct

And I have not posted as many messages as you did, not even close to your number: 241 messages, of which 239 are in this thread.

You're on a roll

Number of games you have ever played here is: 114 so far.

This is unbelievable, true again

Your account was spawed a few weeks ago.

I don't know what to say, this is unique

But reading your messages indicate you know lichess for quite some years.

Or I bothered to read 2 rules and 30 files of code.

so where is your other lichess acount. was it banned? We dont know, unless you tell us.

You are the one with this new, unfounded, theory. Not too long back, you publicly stated I was posting off two other accounts (one of which was actually argueing against me, the other one disagreed with half of what I say). Now your new nonsense, again unfounded, is that I no longer have another active account here, but it was deleted. You found out that this is the case, but you can't tell me the name?

Keep your fairytale nonsense unless you have an actual bit of proof to back it up.

I could also start rubbish like that:

I have noticed your bullet rating is almost 600 ELO lower than your classical rating. Please tell us who you are sharing your account with.
Also, you're just upset that I beat you

@Munich said in #723:

And I have not posted as many messages as you did, not even close to your number: 241 messages, of which 239 are in this thread.

You understand that you are, once again, arguing against yourself right?

If you make the point that the thread's length is important, and then make the point that it's mostly him arguing, the length of the thread is as not important....

@Jseijp said in #725:

You understand that you are, once again, arguing against yourself right?

If you make the point that the thread's length is important, and then make the point that it's mostly him arguing, the length of the thread is as not important....

That's not how this works.

He has single-post arguments. If you show him he's wrong, he ignores it and bring it up a few days later in the exact same wording.

If you ask him to back it up, he ignores it again and writes a long and unsubstantiated piece of content that is impressively wrong.

Also, he then probably bring is up again later on. No actual understanding needed if you say "okay but we should make a new lobby also and remove matchmaking and also do this in two lines of code", and "yes well you have many accounts and they are all banned but I don't know which ones but am sure because I know without knowing".

The thread is long enough without BeDecent, but fact is, that he contributes around 1/3 of all posts here, and his account is freshly spawned with just 114 games, but 239 messages in this thread. you tell me what you think about this? The user who keeps telling us what abuse is and what fair play is.

@Munich said in #727:

The thread is long enough without BeDecent, but fact is, that he contributes around 1/3 of all posts here, and his account is freshly spawned with just 114 games, but 239 messages in this thread. you tell me what you think about this? The user who keeps telling us what abuse is and what fair play is.

I am just wondering what your point with all this is. Is it that a fresh account should not know the rules? If someone is against cheating, are they wrong if they have a new account?

Have you also posted the account creation, games, and posts of other people on this thread, or are his stats of some special importance to you?

I am wondering about the reason behind you bringing this up like it means something, maybe I missed something

@Jseijp said in #728:

I am just wondering what your point with all this is. Is it that a fresh account should not know the rules? If someone is against cheating, are they wrong if they have a new account?

Have you also posted the account creation, games, and posts of other people on this thread, or are his stats of some special importance to you?

I am wondering about the reason behind you bringing this up like it means something, maybe I missed something

Careful, you are about to be my second account. Don't feel special though, there have been a few others before you

@BeDecentForAChange said in #618:

Yes, I could be shocked too

Sure, I'll give you the numbers this weekend

The numbers about the "abusing" white players did not reach me.
Whats about it? Why didnt you send?