Flagging accounts with no explanation and failing to reply to an appeal in a timely manner • page 2/2 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

Read my blog
Even if your son was banned innocently it's not a moral crime by Lichess

Transcript from you blog.
E) Why Lichess can’t give reasons and can’t discuss
There’s a good amount of dissatisfaction on that Lichess doesn’t disclose the reasons for their bans and their ways of gathering evidence. This is often labeled as immoral or even illegal. I don’t want to argue about the former, but I will definitely contradict the latter and explain why things are this way.

You don't want to talk about morals in your blog, but still claims it's not a moral crime in your post?

I agree with everything you wrote in your blog.
But when you now mentioned in this post, that it's "not a moral crime", I have to disagree.

To me, the violation of ToS sign is immoral.
(Lichess counterargument is perhaps that it is a necessary evil? And maybe they have a point, if there is evidence to support the helpfulness)

Great blog by the way. Insightful and well written.

I am sure you know as well as I do, that the red flag can be considered immoral. (depending on individuals own sense of morality)

Only criticism I have of your blog, is that you don't mention why Lichess has it!
Which for me is important.

My own speculation regarding Lichess motive:
It not to deliberately shaming people accusing of cheating, even though it unfortunately does that.
It's more likely ment as a type of detergent to all others.

But with this, I have a few issues.

My personal moral issues. (Feel free to ignore this argument)
Does it actually work? Are there any statistics and/or research to support this, as a prevention of cheating? (For example from other online game sites, not necessarily chess)
If there is no evidence of successful prevention, isn't the implementation of it, too potentially harmful for some individuals? (Those few wrongly flagged)

I have in the past searched on this issue, and not found any evidence to support the helpfulness of flagging users.
And until I see evidence, I will continue to question the morality of the "Violation of ToS flag"

Alternative options: instead of both flagging users and simultaneously not informing them of their ban, could they not just do one?
For example, wait a few days, before the flag is placed, thereby given them time to appeal.
Why both?

People who care about rating/winning enough to cheat, will find out very fast anyway, if they are flagged or not.
So does not informing them really prevent anything?
Does flagging them prevent anything?

If any information exists on this matter, kindly send me a link.

@Cedur216 said in #8: > Read my blog > Even if your son was banned innocently it's not a moral crime by Lichess Transcript from you blog. E) Why Lichess can’t give reasons and can’t discuss There’s a good amount of dissatisfaction on that Lichess doesn’t disclose the reasons for their bans and their ways of gathering evidence. This is often labeled as immoral or even illegal. I don’t want to argue about the former, but I will definitely contradict the latter and explain why things are this way. You don't want to talk about morals in your blog, but still claims it's not a moral crime in your post? I agree with everything you wrote in your blog. But when you now mentioned in this post, that it's "not a moral crime", I have to disagree. To me, the violation of ToS sign is immoral. (Lichess counterargument is perhaps that it is a necessary evil? And maybe they have a point, if there is evidence to support the helpfulness) Great blog by the way. Insightful and well written. I am sure you know as well as I do, that the red flag can be considered immoral. (depending on individuals own sense of morality) Only criticism I have of your blog, is that you don't mention why Lichess has it! Which for me is important. My own speculation regarding Lichess motive: It not to deliberately shaming people accusing of cheating, even though it unfortunately does that. It's more likely ment as a type of detergent to all others. But with this, I have a few issues. 1. My personal moral issues. (Feel free to ignore this argument) 2. Does it actually work? Are there any statistics and/or research to support this, as a prevention of cheating? (For example from other online game sites, not necessarily chess) 3. If there is no evidence of successful prevention, isn't the implementation of it, too potentially harmful for some individuals? (Those few wrongly flagged) I have in the past searched on this issue, and not found any evidence to support the helpfulness of flagging users. And until I see evidence, I will continue to question the morality of the "Violation of ToS flag" Alternative options: instead of both flagging users and simultaneously not informing them of their ban, could they not just do one? For example, wait a few days, before the flag is placed, thereby given them time to appeal. Why both? People who care about rating/winning enough to cheat, will find out very fast anyway, if they are flagged or not. So does not informing them really prevent anything? Does flagging them prevent anything? If any information exists on this matter, kindly send me a link.

CM DERG_CHESS

#12

@Arkaswan_Saha said in #6:

It happened 3 years ago
Then it would be: I was able to get it back after 6 months(unless cam is an actual word i didn't know bout...)

@Arkaswan_Saha said in #6: > It happened 3 years ago Then it would be: I was able to get it back after 6 months(unless cam is an actual word i didn't know bout...)

Cedur216

edited

#13

@NaturalBornTraveller you got two things confused. I wrote I don't want to argue if it's immoral that Lichess doesn't give reasons for bans. (intransparency) I mean, I could state that's not immoral either, but I didn't want to bother with that and just explain why Lichess and other sites must be intransparent.

ITT I was referring that it's not immoral when Lichess wrongfully bans someone, because it's an error, not deliberate arbitrariness.

Honestly I have never ever considered the question why public marks exist. Guess you or whoever needs to ask the mods for some kind of statement. But the marks obviously exist on chesscom too (how is it on chess24? Do they just delete accounts? I mean, Lichess could straight close cheaters too, but that would create way more confusion and would make the appeal process a lot more complicated. And I'm glad that there's some kind of discovery that a ban was for cheating and not for any other reason)

Also apparently the shadowban effect is still good enough despite easily figuring what's wrong with your account. Because:
-> there are still lots of players actively playing in the flagged pool
-> many who complain what's wrong with their account just think and act like it's a bug (kinda ridiculous)

@NaturalBornTraveller you got two things confused. I wrote I don't want to argue if it's immoral that *Lichess doesn't give reasons for bans.* (intransparency) I mean, I could state that's not immoral either, but I didn't want to bother with that and just explain why Lichess and other sites must be intransparent. ITT I was referring that *it's not immoral when Lichess wrongfully bans someone*, because it's an error, not deliberate arbitrariness. Honestly I have never ever considered the question why public marks exist. Guess you or whoever needs to ask the mods for some kind of statement. But the marks obviously exist on chesscom too (how is it on chess24? Do they just delete accounts? I mean, Lichess could straight close cheaters too, but that would create way more confusion and would make the appeal process a lot more complicated. And I'm glad that there's some kind of discovery that a ban was for cheating and not for any other reason) Also apparently the shadowban effect is still good enough despite easily figuring what's wrong with your account. Because: -> there are still lots of players actively playing in the flagged pool -> many who complain what's wrong with their account just think and act like it's a bug (kinda ridiculous)

A Lichess Moderatoredited

#14

Just for the sake of transparency the account in question received an appeal response 33 hours ago, about 6 hours after this post was made, and in accordance with our 48-72 hrs response prediction time.
And no, this complaint didn't speed up the process nor cut the queue as that wouldn't be fair to people who have appealed before them.

Just for the sake of transparency the account in question received an appeal response 33 hours ago, about 6 hours after this post was made, and in accordance with our 48-72 hrs response prediction time. And no, this complaint didn't speed up the process nor cut the queue as that wouldn't be fair to people who have appealed before them.