Unfair behavior

#30 Being uncertain is fine; just realize that these many paragraphs attempt to justify a 1-digit change (changing a number from 80 to 60... Lichess settled on 65). Either it works (once deployed) or it doesn't, and what better way to become certain than to test it?
github.com/ornicar/lila/pull/5708/files#diff-aae5f8d000cc2f02aef24d270cccdb13R67

(To be clear, testing it requires playing rated games, which shouldn't be a problem. Nothing about how ratings or RDs, etc. are computed has changed; the only thing which changes is what I've been suggesting all along, that players attempting to game the leaderboard will have to become much more active to decrease their RDs.
Again, I'm not an advocate of rating-based leaderboards, but as long as we have them we might as well try to make them work.)

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

@Toadofsky thanks a lot for this great change! Looking forward to deploying it.

Personally, I think that 60 (even 55 for most variants) would be better in terms of featuring active players. And not only for variants but also for regular chess, except for Classical and Rapid. But in any case, 65 is much better than 80!