Doubling Down on Why Lichess Should Add a Report Denial Feature

@sheckley666 said in #29:

There is no effective communication possible between a specialist and a layman who is absolutely convinced to be correct.
How do you know that? Why are you assuming the majority of Lichess users cannot be logical and respectful?

Your suggestion would probably drive away all moderators within a few days.
Why?

@InkyDarkBird said in #32:

How do you know that? Why are you assuming the majority of Lichess users cannot be logical and respectful?

because of all the topics linked in #1
and pretty sure any mod would say the same
that everyone thinks x is a cheater and as i said before dam those who deny us

@for_cryingout_loud said in #33:

because of all the topics linked in #1
...were not respectful? Most of them followed the forum etiquette, so I do not see your point.

and pretty sure any mod would say the same
Feel free to call one over, then.

that everyone thinks x is a cheater and as i said before dam those who deny us
No proof to currently warrant such a claim.

@InkyDarkBird said in #32:

How do you know that? Why are you assuming the majority of Lichess users cannot be logical and respectful?

1st It's not about logical and respectful, but about specialist's knowledge. A math prof cannot have a constructive discussion with an elementary school student learning multiplication tables. The math prof will learn nothing regardless how respectful the student is.

2nd A small minority of people will not be respectful and argue ad nauseam or ad hominem.

Why?
Because they have a difficult specialist's work to do and would be forced to waste their time with pointless discussions with outsiders.

This thread has transpired rapidly. I wonder why it's still there.

As an arbiter I deal with real cheating in chess.
And even at FIDE level you will most likely not recive a result. Because most reports are neither upheld nor declined but inconclusive. So FIDE will keep the complaint and investigate further when new evidence appear.
Why should FIDE say that player XYZ didn't cheat if that is not clear? And how would FIDE appear if the player later ist found to bei cheating? Wouldn't that create more distrust?

I can understand, to some degree, the desire to have some feedback on cheat reports by users. On the other hand I also understand why Lichess (and all other chess servers I know) do not do this.

For one: this could, potentially, lead to very lengthy and really mostly pointless discussions between users and the Lichess cheat analysist about whether or not player X is a cheater, and why the user and/or Liches does or does not believe this.

Secondly: most chess servers, including Lichess, do not - ever - discuss methods of cheat detection and cheat analysis. This is for a good reason: it's not likely to improve trust in the cheat detection, and most of all it would very much help cheaters cheat.

Thirdly: I strongly believe that Lichess itself is FAR more capable of recognizing cheaters than any user is. They have the expertise, but they also have several tools to their availability that users simply don't. For instance, think about detecting window switching. It is nice that players can report their suspicions. But honestly... I very much believe that 9 out of 10 cheaters are banned without ever having been reported. Cheat reporting by users is far less useful than people think, and in at least 50% of cases they're wrong.

I understand that people very much want to have their debate about why they are convinced that one of their opponents cheated. But honestly... I think most people have a very strong tendency to overestimate their own ability to recognize cheaters. It's mostly a Dunning-Kruger effect again taking hold. That being the case... I'm sure the Lichess volunteers (!!!) have far more useful things to do than having a debate with people who really have no idea what they're talking about.

@fuxx_de said in #37:

As an arbiter I deal with real cheating in chess.
And even at FIDE level you will most likely not recive a result. Because most reports are neither upheld nor declined but inconclusive. So FIDE will keep the complaint and investigate further when new evidence appear.
That makes sense. In the first case, the report needs to well checked if it is clearly made.
Why should FIDE say that player XYZ didn't cheat if that is not clear? And how would FIDE appear if the player later ist found to bei cheating? Wouldn't that create more distrust?
I suppose there are lot of arbiter and experts at the event to check for cheating, that is, the checking if cheating was there or not (after report is correctly made) should be fast and not take lot of days that will make things unpleasant (due to early declaration by organisation).

If I may, i feel that @InkyDarkBird doesn't question at all the competence of the team dedicated to the cheat detection. There is absolutely no doubt that the mods are the specialists in that matter and that the userbase, for obvious reason, shouldn't have access to how the system works in detail. But please, also understand that there is fair & good will wanting to know more about the fate reserved to those reports. Cheating maybe over estimated, but the opacity around the cheat detection doesn't help people realizing that they are maybe not as good as they would like to be. Probably from his point of view (and also mine), we simply do not understant why providing a simple answer, positive or negative (for example "not enough arguments") to a cheating report filed by a simple user would help the cheaterbase...

@Akbar2thegreat said in #39:

That makes sense. In the first case, the report needs to well checked if it is clearly made.

I suppose there are lot of arbiter and experts at the event to check for cheating, that is, the checking if cheating was there or not (after report is correctly made) should be fast and not take lot of days that will make things unpleasant (due to early declaration by organisation).
it will take days and loads of evidence. In real world tournament with some players partially relaying their income on on prizes evidence must be there. if evidence is statistical it will take several tournaments.

Obviously if some one is found in possession of mobile phone or communications device that is easy and will resolved on instance. But complicated things take complicated measures