You don't want this issue, just play rated. I have no idea why people would prefer to play exclusively unrated games anyways. I only play unrated if I want to play dubious openings or test new stuff.
@dnowmects said in #2:
> If people don't want to play someone much stronger than them, they can jump over to Rated and play even matches.
@TeamGunsBR #11
>You don't want this issue, just play rated.
This kind of logic, explicitly stated in #2 and #11 and implied in most other responses IS TRASH LOGIC. You shouldn't have to limit your options because of someone else's bad behavior. Let's say you wanted to go to the beach with your kids but there were some rowdy punks drinking and being loud hanging out there. How would you feel if someone told you "Well if you don't want to deal with those kind of people just don't go to the beach. You could go to a park instead." Hmm, how would you feel about that?
> If people don't want to play someone much stronger than them, they can jump over to Rated and play even matches.
@TeamGunsBR #11
>You don't want this issue, just play rated.
This kind of logic, explicitly stated in #2 and #11 and implied in most other responses IS TRASH LOGIC. You shouldn't have to limit your options because of someone else's bad behavior. Let's say you wanted to go to the beach with your kids but there were some rowdy punks drinking and being loud hanging out there. How would you feel if someone told you "Well if you don't want to deal with those kind of people just don't go to the beach. You could go to a park instead." Hmm, how would you feel about that?
What is "smurfing" ???
smurfing is used in gaming as a term when you artificially achieve a low rating and abuse it to win against weak players.
@Buttercup22
Your logic is flawed/wrong
Some people don't want to play rated games ever for some reason, that's up to their discretion. Therefore your opponent may have a better level than what is shown in lichess. That will not appear in ratings, but that is not against the rules and is not poor behaviour, because lichess actually has a tool to prevent that: playing rated games.
If you want to play casual games, that's your choice, but expect ratings to not mean anything. That's a fair expectation, those are the rules, take it or leave it.
A better analogy to this situation would be something like:
- You have two beaches you can go with your kids: one with security protocols that prevent all/most punks, the other one in which there is no security and no anti-punk rules
- To go to the secure beach, you must provide a proof (your rating), that you aren't a punk.
- You refuse to do that and go to the unsecured beach
- You complain there are punks in the unsecured beach
You don't want this problem, just don't play casual games, it's that easy. I played 7 828 rated games (out of 7 955 total games). I've never got myself into a situation in which smurfs were an issue...
Your logic is flawed/wrong
Some people don't want to play rated games ever for some reason, that's up to their discretion. Therefore your opponent may have a better level than what is shown in lichess. That will not appear in ratings, but that is not against the rules and is not poor behaviour, because lichess actually has a tool to prevent that: playing rated games.
If you want to play casual games, that's your choice, but expect ratings to not mean anything. That's a fair expectation, those are the rules, take it or leave it.
A better analogy to this situation would be something like:
- You have two beaches you can go with your kids: one with security protocols that prevent all/most punks, the other one in which there is no security and no anti-punk rules
- To go to the secure beach, you must provide a proof (your rating), that you aren't a punk.
- You refuse to do that and go to the unsecured beach
- You complain there are punks in the unsecured beach
You don't want this problem, just don't play casual games, it's that easy. I played 7 828 rated games (out of 7 955 total games). I've never got myself into a situation in which smurfs were an issue...
This is not an artificially lowered rating, it's simply a provisional one. There is an obvious difference between throwing rated games on purpose and just not playing them at all. Nobody is forcing you to maintain an active rating on a chess website, you can play casual with a question mark your whole life. Conversely, it's your free choice to play casual against players with provisional rating, so they are not abusing you in any way.
Sometimes when I'm drunk and I need an ego boost, I start a burner account on the other site and see how far I can climb in an hour.
There are lots of smurfs in rated, too. Instead of seeking a game with different time for the two players, they play a regular time control, but only use 30 seconds or a minute even if the time control is 5 4.
It detracts from the experience, but luckily you can block as many people as you want. :)
It detracts from the experience, but luckily you can block as many people as you want. :)
@TeamGunsBR said in #15:
>Your logic is flawed/wrong
No, it's your logic that's "flawed/wrong" because you seem to be operating under the assumption that if something is technically allowed by the rules that means it's not bad behavior. I could give you a million examples to disprove this, and I'll pick an easy and vivid one for you. Is there any law against going around flipping people off? No there certainly isn't, and not only that but it's freedom of expression. Does that mean it's not bad behavior, certainly not! I hope you wouldn't say so.
People that do this have found a legal loophole to be griefers. A loophole that allows them to be paired against legitimate rated players that are much lower level then them. I can't see much other reason to do this. I know you said some people never want to play rated games, and actually I can totally understand that because there are many times I don't want to play rated games either. BUT "lichess actually has a tool for that" it's called playing anonymous games. Oh but I guess that wouldn't work for these people because they might have to pick on someone their own size, or rating, and they might lose.
>"If you want to play casual games, that's your choice, but expect ratings to not mean anything. That's a fair expectation"
No it isn't. People want a chance to play casual games that are fun. Fun means having a chance not being stomped on some anti social person with ego problems that likes to pick on lower rated.
>"those are the rules, take it or leave it"
No, we don't have to take it or leave it. We can complain. That is our right. It doesn't mean that lichess will fix this problem but we still have the right to complain.
Your analogy is not better, and actually it is not valid at all. That's because you fail to make any qualitative distinction between the beaches. Playing casual games is a different experience to playing rated games. So to make your analogy fit you'd have to also have some difference between the beaches like for example one has surfing opportunities and the other doesn't or one has a lifeguard on duty and the other doesn't. And only the unsecured beaches with rowdy drinking punks have the surfing or the lifeguard. If you did that then your analogy would be valid, but then you'd also easily see why it is so clearly wrong.
>"You don't want this problem, just don't play casual games,"
Oh the wonderful logical fallacy of proof by assertion. Just repeat your point over enough times and it somehow will magically become right, NOT. It's still just as wrong as the first time you said it.
>Your logic is flawed/wrong
No, it's your logic that's "flawed/wrong" because you seem to be operating under the assumption that if something is technically allowed by the rules that means it's not bad behavior. I could give you a million examples to disprove this, and I'll pick an easy and vivid one for you. Is there any law against going around flipping people off? No there certainly isn't, and not only that but it's freedom of expression. Does that mean it's not bad behavior, certainly not! I hope you wouldn't say so.
People that do this have found a legal loophole to be griefers. A loophole that allows them to be paired against legitimate rated players that are much lower level then them. I can't see much other reason to do this. I know you said some people never want to play rated games, and actually I can totally understand that because there are many times I don't want to play rated games either. BUT "lichess actually has a tool for that" it's called playing anonymous games. Oh but I guess that wouldn't work for these people because they might have to pick on someone their own size, or rating, and they might lose.
>"If you want to play casual games, that's your choice, but expect ratings to not mean anything. That's a fair expectation"
No it isn't. People want a chance to play casual games that are fun. Fun means having a chance not being stomped on some anti social person with ego problems that likes to pick on lower rated.
>"those are the rules, take it or leave it"
No, we don't have to take it or leave it. We can complain. That is our right. It doesn't mean that lichess will fix this problem but we still have the right to complain.
Your analogy is not better, and actually it is not valid at all. That's because you fail to make any qualitative distinction between the beaches. Playing casual games is a different experience to playing rated games. So to make your analogy fit you'd have to also have some difference between the beaches like for example one has surfing opportunities and the other doesn't or one has a lifeguard on duty and the other doesn't. And only the unsecured beaches with rowdy drinking punks have the surfing or the lifeguard. If you did that then your analogy would be valid, but then you'd also easily see why it is so clearly wrong.
>"You don't want this problem, just don't play casual games,"
Oh the wonderful logical fallacy of proof by assertion. Just repeat your point over enough times and it somehow will magically become right, NOT. It's still just as wrong as the first time you said it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.