Can't create game with specific side any more

I did not say the first sentence, he is quoting me wrong. I told him already previously. This sentence is his message, not mine!
@Jseijp said:

I don't know it this message was for me, but I still don't see the relevance.

I replied with a rethoric question if he was bedecent. That is a question related to him not sure if he was meant, that was not an accusation.
My question is intentionally misinterpreted here, I explained it already. And he keeps quoting me as if I had said the first sentence, but it is his sentence, not mine!

@Cedur216 : @Jseijp is closed now, too.

By the way, here I get 2 thumbs down, jseijp (closed account) and Cedur216 (not closed):
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/no-white-games-JMc9?page=5#44

Cedur216 wrote an interesting blog article, I quote him:

Let me start by saying that if you know you’re guilty, then the only reasonable thing for you to do is admit and apologize. Do not expect to trick the mods when they already caught you.

...

Forced account closure: This is Lichess‘ preferred action for excessive sportsmanship violators, ban-evaders, excessive multi-accounters or any even more outrageous wrongdoings

and this one is very interesting:

ToS (terms of service) marks are not issued for multiaccounting,

The last point I quoted raises the question: does that mean mulitaccounts do not receive a red label, but simply get closed immediatly?
Thus, no appeal can be done? A cheater could still appeal if he is innocent, and he can still play unrated games. But a closed account cannot appeal, right? And Mods need to be extra careful when closing an account with imediate effect, and do so if multiaccounting was detected, right?

I am just asking, I am not accusing anyone of multiaccounting. Cedur216, when you did a thumb down or up, all the others who did so with you, most of them have a closed accounts now. I know, it's not your fault, and I dont know what that could mean. I just found this correlation interesting.

Something unrelated, really I do not have anyone specific in mind:
There is this wit: "Show me your friends and I tell you who you are". What do you think of this wit, cedur216?

what is this about

@KenulL_76 said in #834:

what is this about

Exactly, this is what I'm wondering all the time, what's the point of so much neverending rambling. What damn mission is he on ... that's why I keep thumbing down, I don't even care that much if he's right in some regards. There are 80+ pages full of rampant and pointless fighting, even if it's not his exclusive fault, he at least significantly contributed to it.

There is no way to decide if all the other accounts are closed by Lichess or closed themselves, and for what reason. There is no constructive use in raising these accusations, they should be kept in reports. And if you say you didn't accuse, then you're like Kramnik who said "look, these guys are interesting" (i.e. I think they're cheating) but then was like "whoa, you say I accused them of cheating, no way, back down or lawsuit".

To address the above questions, yes, multiaccounts don't receive a red label, which makes "multiple accounts" a popular excuse by cheaters. But you can still appeal if your account is closed. I guess first visiting lichess.org/appeal and then logging in should do the job.

actually, the thread is about the downgrade of the white/black colour option. It is currently disabled (but you can still see it greyed out, so I expect an update, that enables this featur at some point again).

And it is about the "bug" that lichess collects a "colour debt". Some chess players need to work off their debt that they have accumulated over many years. For instance, if someone had 4900 more games with white than with black, he gets more than 20 times black in a row before getting one white, and then again 20 blacks or more in a row, until the "debt" is repayed.

Some say it is not a bug but this is intended "torture" of chess players, sort of retaliation measure.
Players, who innocently used the feature to play white are now "indebted", and they get so annoyed that they leave lichess or respawn with a different account, just to get at least 50/50 share of white games.

Many complaining threads have been closed and redirected to this thread. However, I and others were hardly able to discuss these points, as there were all the time messages accusing me I had accused users of multiaccounts or accusing me of trolling. Interestingly, these users have now closed accounts. If Lichess detects multiaccounts, they close such accounts with imediate effect. It is a common misconception that they receive a "red lable". They dont. Instead they get close with immediate effect and (that is my most recent question to cedur216 who wrote a lichess blog about this) do not have a chance to even appeal.

I do hope though that we are back to discussion the badly missed white/black option. I also do not like to refer players who used that option in the past as "abusers" or "unfair players", something that was repetedly said (though mostly by users who have now closed accounts).

@Cedur216 : who raised accusations, and where?

Cedur216 gave a thumbs down on this. @cedur216 - what you exactly disagree here with?

@openingsmatter621616 said in #702:

Ridiculous change, and even more Ridiculous that lichess hasnt even responded with anything more than the "abusers" excuse. First of all adressing the main points given by people ( person ) who want(s) to keep the change.

1. any fixed colour challenges were accepted only of your own free will, they were ( to my knowledge ) separate from lobby challenges.
2. if they weren't separate from lobby challenges, why not just separate them? Seems like a much simpler solution.
3. Anyone who says " just use bots/ sparring partners " has never played a bot or went through the pain of trying to schedule a game while having a busy schedule.
4. Even listening to the abusers excuse, there is absolutely no valid reason to remove it from casual games too.

Now main points to revert/modify the change

1. Openings are now impossible to train without a training partner. Even common Openings like Sicilian, kings pawn game, etc appear around in 1 in 3 games when you have the right colour so it was already difficult but doable, and now I would have to play double the games to get one game where I can train/test. Now imagine the pain when you want to train against the scandi or something.

2. There are a quadrillion different better ways to deal with abuse. Removing colour picking is like removing rating to deal with sandbaggers.

3. No one asked for this change? Before this I have not seen a single post that complained about abusers.

4. The "abusers" did nothing wrong. No one was forced to play, it wasnt an unfair advantage. ( No, white does not have an advantage below like 2300 FIDE, and if you are 2300 FIDE and like this change, then maybe I will hop on my flying pig to have a word with you. )

White wins over half the time at the 1800 level. I believe that's the level at which White scores a full point most often.

@Munich said in #838:

Cedur216 gave a thumbs down on this. @cedur216 - what you exactly disagree here with?
please do not ping me here. I have expressed my views already.
also stop trolling. this thread has gone wildly off topic, mostly because of your worthless conversation with ( both now closed ) @Jseijp and @BeDecentForAChange.
mods should close this forum as it is not being used to voice the concerns of the general community regarding the change in color picking anymore, rather just warzone of arguments on the alt accounts of bedecent and dislikes for some reason ( apparently people cant have their own opinion anymore. ) not related to the topic whatsoever. the last post related to the issue was multiple pages ago ( ignoring #836, which is simply trying to hide the fact the forum is not related to the original issue anymore. )