I suppose it doesn't make you hypocrites, with the, "Lichess maintains the right to change these definitions as they see fit[...]" clause. However, stating that getting advice from another player is cheating, then openly allowing a player to cheat in this manner does.
EatingYourPrawns 23 minutes ago #27
@lovlas
"It definitely was in the ToS at the time. A thread was started that pointed out the hypocrisy, quoting that same part of the ToS. Thibault even publicly endorsed this cheating, saying it was "educational".
That it is Endorsed.... is complete BS.
As lovlas stated, policies are a learning experience. Making improvements is a process.
Your comments Prawns, can only be interpreted as an attempt to incite, to create discourse and are completely irrelevant.
Go back to where you came from, make your feeble attempts for attention at your home site, with all your accounts.
Yet another 2Q1C account here. Be alert Staff of this abuser.
@lovlas
"It definitely was in the ToS at the time. A thread was started that pointed out the hypocrisy, quoting that same part of the ToS. Thibault even publicly endorsed this cheating, saying it was "educational".
That it is Endorsed.... is complete BS.
As lovlas stated, policies are a learning experience. Making improvements is a process.
Your comments Prawns, can only be interpreted as an attempt to incite, to create discourse and are completely irrelevant.
Go back to where you came from, make your feeble attempts for attention at your home site, with all your accounts.
Yet another 2Q1C account here. Be alert Staff of this abuser.
You do realize that every website in the world that needs to have a ToS has that clause? Otherwise it would be impossible to change the ruleset. And you need to change the rules to keep up with the outside world.
That is your interpretation of the ruleset. But it isn't that simple. There is nothing indicating that the stronger player that was playing had any benefit of listening to his friends trash talk. The streamers had no bad intentions and meant for it to be an educational, fun and friendly stream. But for some reason some people got up in arms about it and made a big deal out of something small.
All that is at stake is fictional internet rating points that does not matter at all.
People need to calm down and take joy in what actually matters. Lichess strives to give everyone the best online chess experience possible, entirely for free and without ads. This is what is important. We don't need silly drama or conspiracy theories.
That is your interpretation of the ruleset. But it isn't that simple. There is nothing indicating that the stronger player that was playing had any benefit of listening to his friends trash talk. The streamers had no bad intentions and meant for it to be an educational, fun and friendly stream. But for some reason some people got up in arms about it and made a big deal out of something small.
All that is at stake is fictional internet rating points that does not matter at all.
People need to calm down and take joy in what actually matters. Lichess strives to give everyone the best online chess experience possible, entirely for free and without ads. This is what is important. We don't need silly drama or conspiracy theories.
Bravo !
Attention seekers and their conspiracy theories.
Dust in the wind.
Attention seekers and their conspiracy theories.
Dust in the wind.
@mdinnerspace I can understand your love for lichess. But let the mods do their jobs.They are doing good job BTW. You don't have to attack/insult critics. Without critics there would be less improvement.
If someone sit 8H front a PC to win a tournament and he loses because of cheaters is indeed unfair. But nothing can be done. Cheaters are a big problem. Shame on them. Mods caught them. That is enough. This time it was Farmville. Next time it could be penguin.
If someone sit 8H front a PC to win a tournament and he loses because of cheaters is indeed unfair. But nothing can be done. Cheaters are a big problem. Shame on them. Mods caught them. That is enough. This time it was Farmville. Next time it could be penguin.
JEEZ ! Jimmie Cricket
@five times
You really need to get your facts in line before making such comments.
Farmville was not accused of cheating nor was there any punitive action taken, at least none that is observed or reported. There was a sandbagger in the tournament. His games were removed. A point won by Farmville and penguim was deducted. The OP had all the facts incorrect. A mod informed us of the course of events.
@five times
You really need to get your facts in line before making such comments.
Farmville was not accused of cheating nor was there any punitive action taken, at least none that is observed or reported. There was a sandbagger in the tournament. His games were removed. A point won by Farmville and penguim was deducted. The OP had all the facts incorrect. A mod informed us of the course of events.
After reviewing the twitch recording from penguin, I still have a bad feeling about this all.
But first let me emphasize that this is no personal attack vs penguin or anyone else and that
I fully agree with lovlas that we should enjoy the chess - but that does not mean we can look
at the rules and the implementation of them and discuss whether it need some changing or not.
Following the timeline of the tournament, here is what happened according to me as a viewer:
(min:sec of tournament time remaining)
Overall you can see a lot of trolling in the twitch chat, nothing can be done about that, but
it confirms my reasoning that with a lot of followers, the unknown cheater of the OPPONENT
will be reported with a much higher chance than the unknown cheater in the games of the guy they follow.
12:01 -> they see confirmation that Damso has been cheating, his status is both of a sandbagger
and a cheater.
They also try to blacklist other players in the chat, a game with Lance5500 and farmville was
also discussed when Lance5500 resigned with a 0.4 advantage - it's all good to me that they investigate
games, but they are not impartial and that is an important factor imo.
6:23 -> penguin win vs brough - before this game the correction for Damso has been reflected in penguin's score (*).
tournament standings:
1. farmville 212
2. penguingim1 210
5:31 -> penguin vs littleplotkin
The game starts and penguin is like ooooh (probably he wanted an easier pairing than littleplotkin),
5 moves into the game and littleplotkin resigns and penguin with a shameful laugh is saying:
"duuude, i feel bad about that..." (probably expressing that he does not want to win like this).
the game: lichess.org/co5HnVUd/black#10
tournament standings:
1. penguingim1 214
2. farmville 212
5:00 -> farmville wins his game vs Mistystar, checking the score, penguin noticed that there was another correction (**).
tournament standings:
1. penguingim1 214
2. farmville 207
CORRECTIONS:
penguingim1 (*):
- game 41 (win 5 points) - game time: ~ 3:15m
farmville (**):
- game 26 (win 5 points) - game time: ~6:12m
- game 48 (draw 1 point) - game time: ~6:51m
- game 60 (win 4 points) - game time: 0:00m
But first let me emphasize that this is no personal attack vs penguin or anyone else and that
I fully agree with lovlas that we should enjoy the chess - but that does not mean we can look
at the rules and the implementation of them and discuss whether it need some changing or not.
Following the timeline of the tournament, here is what happened according to me as a viewer:
(min:sec of tournament time remaining)
Overall you can see a lot of trolling in the twitch chat, nothing can be done about that, but
it confirms my reasoning that with a lot of followers, the unknown cheater of the OPPONENT
will be reported with a much higher chance than the unknown cheater in the games of the guy they follow.
12:01 -> they see confirmation that Damso has been cheating, his status is both of a sandbagger
and a cheater.
They also try to blacklist other players in the chat, a game with Lance5500 and farmville was
also discussed when Lance5500 resigned with a 0.4 advantage - it's all good to me that they investigate
games, but they are not impartial and that is an important factor imo.
6:23 -> penguin win vs brough - before this game the correction for Damso has been reflected in penguin's score (*).
tournament standings:
1. farmville 212
2. penguingim1 210
5:31 -> penguin vs littleplotkin
The game starts and penguin is like ooooh (probably he wanted an easier pairing than littleplotkin),
5 moves into the game and littleplotkin resigns and penguin with a shameful laugh is saying:
"duuude, i feel bad about that..." (probably expressing that he does not want to win like this).
the game: lichess.org/co5HnVUd/black#10
tournament standings:
1. penguingim1 214
2. farmville 212
5:00 -> farmville wins his game vs Mistystar, checking the score, penguin noticed that there was another correction (**).
tournament standings:
1. penguingim1 214
2. farmville 207
CORRECTIONS:
penguingim1 (*):
- game 41 (win 5 points) - game time: ~ 3:15m
farmville (**):
- game 26 (win 5 points) - game time: ~6:12m
- game 48 (draw 1 point) - game time: ~6:51m
- game 60 (win 4 points) - game time: 0:00m
The 4 points I mentioned earlier are still not answered by moderator or in fact by anyone else, maybe someone can at least
share their thoughts on the matter? I will repeat them and also add some things related to the yearly classical:
1. what you do when it is only detected AFTER the tournament? do you change the results? and what about the tournaments before that?
2. if the sandbagger is detected because people reported him and a moderator analyzed this, then this is in fact a "random" victim, because the sandbagger in games with the unknown would have a much higher chance to be reported by fans of the opposition, no?
ADDED: this becomes even more clear when viewing the twitch recording where people trash talk about opponents of their favorite, it's logical, it happens in every sport - but a fair judgement and fair rules should prevent anyone
benefiting from this - of course Lichess is a free site and nothing compared to a professional organization, but still we should find the best balance I think.
3. if by chance you play the sandbagger 3 times in the tournament, but with 2 games he not give away the game so easy, what will you do with those games, what will you do with the time lost because the player just had bad luck that he was paired with this person 3 times?
ADDED: this is actually a fact with the yearly classical, farmville has the bad luck he was paired 3 times, ok, he won the last game in less than a second, but the other 2 games he spent over 13 minutes - what you do with the time lost?
what you do when a streak is broken because of the cheater, it is not that obvious that removing the games is the most fair solution.
4. the same with the cheater, like lovlas says, it is possible he not always use the engine, or in difficult situations only - you win the game vs the cheater, yet the game will be removed, again the same issues, the time spent, the chance you play him etc.
I guess I am crazy spending all this time on the subject, but maybe the irritations by the comments of mdinnerspace drove me to do this :)
I just think the discussion about the rules is always a good thing.
I might come up with an even more concrete example and compare doing nothing vs the current rules and maybe some solution in the middle (@mdinnerspace: doing nothing is not sticking your head in the sand, i mentioned this as an alternative to removing the user in tournaments)
share their thoughts on the matter? I will repeat them and also add some things related to the yearly classical:
1. what you do when it is only detected AFTER the tournament? do you change the results? and what about the tournaments before that?
2. if the sandbagger is detected because people reported him and a moderator analyzed this, then this is in fact a "random" victim, because the sandbagger in games with the unknown would have a much higher chance to be reported by fans of the opposition, no?
ADDED: this becomes even more clear when viewing the twitch recording where people trash talk about opponents of their favorite, it's logical, it happens in every sport - but a fair judgement and fair rules should prevent anyone
benefiting from this - of course Lichess is a free site and nothing compared to a professional organization, but still we should find the best balance I think.
3. if by chance you play the sandbagger 3 times in the tournament, but with 2 games he not give away the game so easy, what will you do with those games, what will you do with the time lost because the player just had bad luck that he was paired with this person 3 times?
ADDED: this is actually a fact with the yearly classical, farmville has the bad luck he was paired 3 times, ok, he won the last game in less than a second, but the other 2 games he spent over 13 minutes - what you do with the time lost?
what you do when a streak is broken because of the cheater, it is not that obvious that removing the games is the most fair solution.
4. the same with the cheater, like lovlas says, it is possible he not always use the engine, or in difficult situations only - you win the game vs the cheater, yet the game will be removed, again the same issues, the time spent, the chance you play him etc.
I guess I am crazy spending all this time on the subject, but maybe the irritations by the comments of mdinnerspace drove me to do this :)
I just think the discussion about the rules is always a good thing.
I might come up with an even more concrete example and compare doing nothing vs the current rules and maybe some solution in the middle (@mdinnerspace: doing nothing is not sticking your head in the sand, i mentioned this as an alternative to removing the user in tournaments)
@mdinnerspace I never said that Farmville was cheating. I wanted to say that this time it was Farmville who lost 1st spot, because of cheaters, next time it could be others. Anyways....
I think the problem is how lichess deals with the cheater/sandbagger in a tournament.
Once they tag them as cheater. Their tournament points get removed which makes confusion.
My suggestion would be to keep their points and make them the last person in the tournament. And disallow them to play rated game.
I think the problem is how lichess deals with the cheater/sandbagger in a tournament.
Once they tag them as cheater. Their tournament points get removed which makes confusion.
My suggestion would be to keep their points and make them the last person in the tournament. And disallow them to play rated game.
OP writes: "- of course Lichess is a free site and nothing compared to a professional organization, but still we should find the best balance I think"
Lichess is not professional?
You have dug a mighty deep hole there fella. You persist with this agenda of yours. Your points are full of "logical fallacies". Your interpretation of events was set straight by a couple of moderators. That "chat" or "popularity" has any bearing on decisions made is plain stupidity.
You do not play chess here. The attempts to incite are easily seen by everyone as simply a poor sport who would rather create an imaginary discourse than enjoy playing the game.
lichess.org/tournament/3kdc1aCN
Link to the tournament results.
Clearly penguin won by a large margin over Farmville. The sandbagger who's games were thrown out had no bearing on the result. penguin lost 1 game / Farmville 10 (played more games)
Lichess is not professional?
You have dug a mighty deep hole there fella. You persist with this agenda of yours. Your points are full of "logical fallacies". Your interpretation of events was set straight by a couple of moderators. That "chat" or "popularity" has any bearing on decisions made is plain stupidity.
You do not play chess here. The attempts to incite are easily seen by everyone as simply a poor sport who would rather create an imaginary discourse than enjoy playing the game.
lichess.org/tournament/3kdc1aCN
Link to the tournament results.
Clearly penguin won by a large margin over Farmville. The sandbagger who's games were thrown out had no bearing on the result. penguin lost 1 game / Farmville 10 (played more games)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.