"Letting time run out instead of resigning will result in a temporary ban."

I received a warning, although I had only 9 seconds running out on the clock (there was no increment). That was uncalled for.
Sure, on the previous move I thought for almost a minute, wanting to be sure not to blunder and make a quick finish (evaluation +12.3) but I blundered.
Rectify your system. I blundered, I lost, ok, I don't need warnings and other abuse. Especially when playing a casual game with a player with uncertain rating.

You act like some person chose you randomly out of everyone because they were in a bad mood.

It's a factual statement of how the LiChess computer program works.

@StingerPuzzles said in #2:

You act like some person chose you randomly out of everyone because they were in a bad mood.
The fact that I am not the only one to receive such treatment without additional checks is was the only motivation to post this suggestion.
It's [...] how the LiChess computer program works.
That is exactly why I said "Rectify your system." If you put in a few IF's to limit abuse, but they provoke grief, maybe the said computer program would benefit from even a tiny improvement.

I bet these few IF's had to call an evaluation of the position, which would make them very expensive.
Also, you can appeal unfair warnings:
https://lichess.org/appeal#help-root

Appealing warnings like this is completely useless and only creates unnecessary mod work so please don't do that.

Automated systems like this will never be perfect if they actually want to catch bad behavior. It's just a warning in the chat. Just ignore it.

I absolutely do not recommend appealing such warnings.
@sheckley666 said in #4:

I bet these few IF's had to call an evaluation of the position, which would make them very expensive.
Then how about using less IF's and only checking the duration of the last move (the one on which time has run out)? Because that's the only "method" somebody would use as motivated by spite or frustration -- things linked to the game he was playing. Any other "time-abuse" is beyond the scope of automated warnings as that kind of behavior would go straight against ANY standards of game-play (for example taking 1 minute to move for every move in a 10 minute game); if that happens, it will either be reported by more than one player or repeatedly show up on the "daily outliers" statistic the admins/developers get.

Anyway, as long as somebody responsible has noted that I have a point, there is no reason to debate this anymore. It just stuck me as an oversight in implementation that can easily be remediated in many ways (less IF's or more IF's).

@glory88 said in #6:

I absolutely do not recommend appealing such warnings.

Then how about using less IF's and only checking the duration of the last move (the one on which time has run out)? Because that's the only "method" somebody would use as motivated by spite or frustration -- things linked to the game he was playing.

These things were not invented on a purely theoretical base, but are the reaction to actual user behaviour. There are players who stall until close to the end and then make one more move hoping their opponent has left in the meantime.

@sheckley666 said in #7:

These things were not invented on a purely theoretical base, but are the reaction to actual user behaviour. There are players who stall until close to the end and then make one more move hoping their opponent has left in the meantime.
Quantifying hope on a theoretical basis or an empirical basis is beyond the scope of computer programming. Or at least I hope so.

I know how you feel. I get slightly annoyed when I type something in ALL CAPS and then lichess autocorrects it to lowercase. But I don't take it personally. I just assume that there are a lot of RUDE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET WHO RUIN IT FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO SIMPLY ENJOY TALKING IN ALL CAPS.

CHEERS AND HAVE A GREAT DAY!

I've seen several complaints in the forums that seem valid to me if the numbers given are correct. the warnings are overly aggressive. The excuse "it can't be perfect" shouldn't be a cop out to improve it if there is an adjustment that could be made that would clearly be an improvement.

If the speed limit is 50 and your camera is is consistently ticketing people who were only driving 45 you don't say well we can't make it perfect and do nothing. That would be stupid. If there's a clear improvement then do that clear improvement. And that seems to be the case here.