The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #30:

It could be deception if Lichess didn't have possibility to check shedulle and there was ToS regulations about tournament names. While those conditions are not met I call it misleading.

Can the lack of clarification in the rules on this matter and an explanation in the tournament description be called deliberate misleading?

@Italiya said in #31:

Can the lack of clarification in the rules on this matter and an explanation in the tournament description be called deliberate misleading?
Only if you can prove that it was done deliberately to mislead players.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #32:

Only if you can prove that it was done deliberately to mislead players.

Well, if it is missing from the description, although it is known, then you can’t call it unintentional?

@Italiya said in #33:

Well, if it is missing from the description, although it is known, then you can’t call it unintentional?
It can be intentional choice of tournament name and tournament design, but this doesn't prove that it was done to mislead players, it could be done just to follow main style of naming and design of such type of tournaments.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #34:

It can be intentional choice of tournament name and tournament design, but this doesn't prove that it was done to mislead players, it could be done just to follow main style of naming and design of such type of tournaments.

I mean the description, where it is indicated how many games must be played to participate, etc.
There is also a detailed description, for example, on the rating calculation under the tournament.
It is not always possible to see two such tournaments in the schedule at the same time.
Thus, the only permanent way to find out about this is the tournament history.
The player must guess before this.
Although there is a main way - to indicate in the description

@Italiya said in #35:

I mean the description, where it is indicated how many games must be played to participate, etc.
There is also a detailed description, for example, on the rating calculation under the tournament.
It is not always possible to see two such tournaments in the schedule at the same time.
Thus, the only permanent way to find out about this is the tournament history.
The player must guess before this.
Although there is a main way - to indicate in the description
I agree that some indication in description could help. For example "1st Yearly tournament out of 2" but may be they think that design and similat style is more importand. Dunno.
You still can see history of tournament.
What you said still doesn't prove that Lichess did it deliberately to mislead players.

Anyway I mostly agree with you on this topic, I just don't see it in so serious light.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #36:

I agree that some indication in description could help. For example "1st Yearly tournament out of 2" but may be they think that design and similat style is more importand. Dunno.
You still can see history of tournament.
What you said still doesn't prove that Lichess did it deliberately to mislead players.

Anyway I mostly agree with you on this topic, I just don't see it in so serious light.

I don't understand how one line can affect the design?
Sounds unconvincing

@Italiya said in #37:

I don't understand how one line can affect the design?
Sounds unconvincing
When everything is designed in a single style such details can be seen as an excess.
Anyway I'm not against adding line into description. But to make any changes usually there need to be many people that was irritated by current situation, but because winnerd doesn't complain and most players are ok with current tournament name everything was leaved as it is.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #38:

When everything is designed in a single style such details can be seen as an excess.
Anyway I'm not against adding line into description. But to make any changes usually there need to be many people that was irritated by current situation, but because winnerd doesn't complain and most players are ok with current tournament name everything was leaved as it is.

The question is not about people's indignation, especially since you do not have the information to confirm this. Maybe there were many objections in personal appeals. The question is whether it was intentional or not. Do you yourself consider your argument about one line in the description valid? Is this a very difficult task from a programming point of view?

@Italiya said in #39:

The question is not about people's indignation, especially since you do not have the information to confirm this. Maybe there were many objections in personal appeals. The question is whether it was intentional or not. Do you yourself consider your argument about one line in the description valid? Is this a very difficult task from a programming point of view?
Доказывать должен утверждающий. Ты первым утверждал:
"I don't think that a person who expected to be on the honor board for a year will be happy that it will be cut in half."

Следовательно, и доказывать, что имело место возмущение или недовольство, должен ты, а не я доказывать, что его не было.

Нет, я не считаю, что добавить строчку было сложно. Но просто никому это не нужно.

И да, отсутствие данной строчки всё так же не доказывает намеренную попытку введения в заблуждения. Непродуманный дизайн или несоответствия индуктивной истинности не доказывают намеренность решений, приведших к данным недостаткам.

eng:
The one who asserts must prove. You were the first to assert:
"I don't think that a person who expected to be on the honor board for a year will be happy that it will be cut in half."

Therefore, you must prove that there was outrage or discontent, not me, who must prove that there was none.

No, I don't think it was hard to add the line. It's just that no one needs it.

And yes, the absence of this line still does not prove an intentional attempt to mislead. Poor design or inconsistencies in inductive truth do not prove the intentionality of the decisions that led to these shortcomings.