- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

If you were a LiChess Mod (who can alter LiChess Functions and options) what would you do?

#14

I'll sell it for $9.99 and buy a fresh 1.5L bo'oh'o'wa'er

I'll sell it for $9.99 and buy a fresh 1.5L bo'oh'o'wa'er
#16

Change this terrible feature, which is an unnecessary deviance from FIDE rules due to a dumb GitHub issue made by a random user :
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/incorrect-draw?page=1

BTW, read the whole thread before you reply.

Change this terrible feature, which is an unnecessary deviance from FIDE rules due to a dumb GitHub issue made by a random user : https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/incorrect-draw?page=1 BTW, read the whole thread before you reply.
#17

This is the github issue mentioned above : https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/7006

If I dev I would strongly urge other devs not to accept this weird, unfair issue. Like why??

Credit to @mcgoves on post 43 for finding it.

What on earth was lichess thinking when they accepted this Github issue?

This is the github issue mentioned above : https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/7006 If I dev I would strongly urge other devs not to accept this weird, unfair issue. Like why?? Credit to @mcgoves on post 43 for finding it. What on earth was lichess thinking when they accepted this Github issue?
#18

https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-rule-seems-very-unfair?page=2#14

Same issue, credit to @)chesslaos and @)dlbbld for helping provide evidence. I constantly bring up this issue because it must be fixed.

My issue has been brought up before by another user : https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/11006

Lichess should definitely accept this.

https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-rule-seems-very-unfair?page=2#14 Same issue, credit to @)chesslaos and @)dlbbld for helping provide evidence. I constantly bring up this issue because it must be fixed. My issue has been brought up before by another user : https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/11006 Lichess should definitely accept this.
#19

Declare myself Champion Honey Eater and Sock Specialist !

Declare myself Champion Honey Eater and Sock Specialist !
#20

@SD_2709 said in #18:

lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-rule-seems-very-unfair?page=2#14

Same issue, credit to @)chesslaos and @)dlbbld for helping provide evidence. I constantly bring up this issue because it must be fixed.

My issue has been brought up before by another user : github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/11006

Lichess should definitely accept this.

Fyi, if you check the pull request in github for the previous issue (7006) it appears that it can be fixed by undoing two lines of code (iirc). If you feel strongly enough about it, you could probably make your own pull request. I think as long as it passes the automated tests your PR should be accepted. From the looks of it they are swamped with issues so this might appear minor to them.

@SD_2709 said in #18: > lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/this-rule-seems-very-unfair?page=2#14 > > Same issue, credit to @)chesslaos and @)dlbbld for helping provide evidence. I constantly bring up this issue because it must be fixed. > > My issue has been brought up before by another user : github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/11006 > > Lichess should definitely accept this. Fyi, if you check the pull request in github for the previous issue (7006) it appears that it can be fixed by undoing two lines of code (iirc). If you feel strongly enough about it, you could probably make your own pull request. I think as long as it passes the automated tests your PR should be accepted. From the looks of it they are swamped with issues so this might appear minor to them.
#21

@kyanite111 said in #20:

Fyi, if you check the pull request in github for the previous issue (7006) it appears that it can be fixed by undoing two lines of code (iirc). If you feel strongly enough about it, you could probably make your own pull request. I think as long as it passes the automated tests your PR should be accepted. From the looks of it they are swamped with issues so this might appear minor to them.
I don't think they'll consider this a priority. It's not really that big of a deal as a feature, but what irks me so much is how could they accept such an issue which causes the system to behave so unfairly and honestly, it's basically favouring stallers indirectly. And in longer time controls, this could be a problem. I already wrote all of this in the thread i linked, and you can see all the arguments there, as well as other threads linked in that one. So i won't write a long list of arguments on this thread.

@kyanite111 said in #20: > Fyi, if you check the pull request in github for the previous issue (7006) it appears that it can be fixed by undoing two lines of code (iirc). If you feel strongly enough about it, you could probably make your own pull request. I think as long as it passes the automated tests your PR should be accepted. From the looks of it they are swamped with issues so this might appear minor to them. I don't think they'll consider this a priority. It's not really that big of a deal as a feature, but what irks me so much is how could they accept such an issue which causes the system to behave so unfairly and honestly, it's basically favouring stallers indirectly. And in longer time controls, this could be a problem. I already wrote all of this in the thread i linked, and you can see all the arguments there, as well as other threads linked in that one. So i won't write a long list of arguments on this thread.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.