<Comment deleted by user>
@WendyRhoades said in #50:
> A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
>
> As somebody who's been moderating for ages, including two "default" subreddits on Reddit with over 50 million combined users, I have some opinions on moderation and what it could mean for Lichess.
>
> After a while, everything can start to seem like spam. Adding new moderators becomes a trust issue. Older moderators get tired. Volunteerism is tricky. I'd encourage people to be patient, but I've seen some weird stuff on here that defies explanation. That said, moderators are going to get worn down by all the cheaters, the liars, spammers, trolls, "faux-polite" rule-breakers, etc. It doesn't help that internet communities are incredibly abusive toward moderators. (Just look at how argumentative some people are when a moderator simply tries to clarify things in this thread. It's shocking.)
>
> I can see things from both sides. The moderator team here appears to be quite ossified. This usually happens when the "older" mods start doing less work, and the newer moderators aren't empowered to make their own decisions, but instead are advised to look at prior moderator actions, and model their actions over those. This is well and good, to a point. With a community the size of Lichess, it's amazing they don't seem to be trying to recruit better moderators.
>
> ...and this is just speculation, but when a moderation team stops looking to recruit and expand, it's usually because the group has become insular, the people at the top aren't around to approve new moderators, or the system for adding moderators hasn't scaled properly with the size of the community. Either way, it's bad news.
>
> Moderators who do put in the work are quickly overloaded, and moderators who are slacking take a step back. It becomes a vicious cycle.
>
> Any moderator who unbans someone only to tell them "deleting your account for free" is, objectively, an awful moderator with horrible self control, and that should've never happened. That all said, it's a free site, and the moderators are volunteering their time, so you get what you get. I think it could be improved if they were willing to recruit enough moderators with experience in social situations and dealing with trolls AND legitimate users.
>
> The moderators just seem overwhelmed and they aren't recruiting from a pool of talented and experienced moderators, which makes replacing anybody difficult. They need to expand the pool from which they recruit a great deal, and be vigilant in adding new moderators when others go idle.
>
> There's probably also the issue of "legacy moderators", moderators who often don't do much, but hold back progress, write snarky replies, and are generally opposed to the addition of any moderator who might displace them in any way, shape, or form.
>
> I've been moderating for way, way too long. I could be wrong about all of this stuff, but this is what it's like with extra-large communities. It's always been this way, at least for me. I don't think there's much that can be done by the community, it's entirely up to the moderation team.
>
> We use loads of automation over on Reddit, it's the only way we could even come close to handling the load. But it does create an awful lot of actions that aren't reviewed... unless someone complains. That's likely where the problem lies. When people appeal, they're generating work for the moderators, who could be having a bad day, and then do something truly awful like tell someone that "deleting your account is free".
>
> Who knows if that's what they actually said, but it sounds like something a mod would say when they're popping off after a bad day. Telling a banned user off is pretty common, but I've found that not replying at all is a far better solution in 90% of all cases, if all you're going to do is insult someone or tell them off. Just zip it. Let them simmer.
>
> Also, stop insisting that only the founder of the website can make an authoritative statement when you finally get a moderator to chime in with one. Moderators speak on behalf of the team. That's how it works. If you're not willing to accept an answer from anyone but the founder, then write the guy a snail mail.
>
> That's my 2 centipawns, at least. I could be wrong.
I'm not a moderator, but reading #13 and your statement, it doesn't make sense to me why flagrant rule-breakers should expect their account to be unbanned. As for what responses they get during the appeals process, I assume whatever answers were provided were relevant to what questions are asked; it's possible to have an account which is banned from rated play, and it's also possible to delete such an account (but not to delete the game history).
I've occasionally heard that players like to attempt to bypass the appeal queue by ping every moderator one by one for assistance. It wouldn't surprise me if there were many other forms of trolling (e.g. "it was my brother who cheated on my account" etc.) so I've heard that everything should be picked from a queue, where moderators can skip appeals they don't feel comfortable handling, etc.; a moderator having a bad day doesn't need to work that day. Again, I don't know the details of any particular case, but if a player is being uncooperative there's no reason for moderators to create extra work for themselves trying to be polite with someone who doesn't give a shit about the rules.
As for whether the rules in question make sense, I leave that to the moderators, at least until I do something terribly stupid and end up getting myself banned I needn't overly concern myself with where lines are drawn (on a first offense, second offense, 20th offense, etc.) as long as I have some idea what the rules are.
> A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
>
> As somebody who's been moderating for ages, including two "default" subreddits on Reddit with over 50 million combined users, I have some opinions on moderation and what it could mean for Lichess.
>
> After a while, everything can start to seem like spam. Adding new moderators becomes a trust issue. Older moderators get tired. Volunteerism is tricky. I'd encourage people to be patient, but I've seen some weird stuff on here that defies explanation. That said, moderators are going to get worn down by all the cheaters, the liars, spammers, trolls, "faux-polite" rule-breakers, etc. It doesn't help that internet communities are incredibly abusive toward moderators. (Just look at how argumentative some people are when a moderator simply tries to clarify things in this thread. It's shocking.)
>
> I can see things from both sides. The moderator team here appears to be quite ossified. This usually happens when the "older" mods start doing less work, and the newer moderators aren't empowered to make their own decisions, but instead are advised to look at prior moderator actions, and model their actions over those. This is well and good, to a point. With a community the size of Lichess, it's amazing they don't seem to be trying to recruit better moderators.
>
> ...and this is just speculation, but when a moderation team stops looking to recruit and expand, it's usually because the group has become insular, the people at the top aren't around to approve new moderators, or the system for adding moderators hasn't scaled properly with the size of the community. Either way, it's bad news.
>
> Moderators who do put in the work are quickly overloaded, and moderators who are slacking take a step back. It becomes a vicious cycle.
>
> Any moderator who unbans someone only to tell them "deleting your account for free" is, objectively, an awful moderator with horrible self control, and that should've never happened. That all said, it's a free site, and the moderators are volunteering their time, so you get what you get. I think it could be improved if they were willing to recruit enough moderators with experience in social situations and dealing with trolls AND legitimate users.
>
> The moderators just seem overwhelmed and they aren't recruiting from a pool of talented and experienced moderators, which makes replacing anybody difficult. They need to expand the pool from which they recruit a great deal, and be vigilant in adding new moderators when others go idle.
>
> There's probably also the issue of "legacy moderators", moderators who often don't do much, but hold back progress, write snarky replies, and are generally opposed to the addition of any moderator who might displace them in any way, shape, or form.
>
> I've been moderating for way, way too long. I could be wrong about all of this stuff, but this is what it's like with extra-large communities. It's always been this way, at least for me. I don't think there's much that can be done by the community, it's entirely up to the moderation team.
>
> We use loads of automation over on Reddit, it's the only way we could even come close to handling the load. But it does create an awful lot of actions that aren't reviewed... unless someone complains. That's likely where the problem lies. When people appeal, they're generating work for the moderators, who could be having a bad day, and then do something truly awful like tell someone that "deleting your account is free".
>
> Who knows if that's what they actually said, but it sounds like something a mod would say when they're popping off after a bad day. Telling a banned user off is pretty common, but I've found that not replying at all is a far better solution in 90% of all cases, if all you're going to do is insult someone or tell them off. Just zip it. Let them simmer.
>
> Also, stop insisting that only the founder of the website can make an authoritative statement when you finally get a moderator to chime in with one. Moderators speak on behalf of the team. That's how it works. If you're not willing to accept an answer from anyone but the founder, then write the guy a snail mail.
>
> That's my 2 centipawns, at least. I could be wrong.
I'm not a moderator, but reading #13 and your statement, it doesn't make sense to me why flagrant rule-breakers should expect their account to be unbanned. As for what responses they get during the appeals process, I assume whatever answers were provided were relevant to what questions are asked; it's possible to have an account which is banned from rated play, and it's also possible to delete such an account (but not to delete the game history).
I've occasionally heard that players like to attempt to bypass the appeal queue by ping every moderator one by one for assistance. It wouldn't surprise me if there were many other forms of trolling (e.g. "it was my brother who cheated on my account" etc.) so I've heard that everything should be picked from a queue, where moderators can skip appeals they don't feel comfortable handling, etc.; a moderator having a bad day doesn't need to work that day. Again, I don't know the details of any particular case, but if a player is being uncooperative there's no reason for moderators to create extra work for themselves trying to be polite with someone who doesn't give a shit about the rules.
As for whether the rules in question make sense, I leave that to the moderators, at least until I do something terribly stupid and end up getting myself banned I needn't overly concern myself with where lines are drawn (on a first offense, second offense, 20th offense, etc.) as long as I have some idea what the rules are.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #49:
> A Lichess Moderator said in #48:
>
> You had said in #18:
>
> That mods have no powers over playbans. It means mods have powers over every other thing other than playban.
> It's implied even though you didn't actually say so.
By playbans, they meant the instance when you get timed out for aborting too many games or not resigning.
> A Lichess Moderator said in #48:
>
> You had said in #18:
>
> That mods have no powers over playbans. It means mods have powers over every other thing other than playban.
> It's implied even though you didn't actually say so.
By playbans, they meant the instance when you get timed out for aborting too many games or not resigning.
As a mod you sometimes feel like Don Quichote.
There is hardly an alternative way to handle an huge anonymous community. So it’s more or less managed properly here (as far I can see). Probably rather under-moderated.
There is hardly an alternative way to handle an huge anonymous community. So it’s more or less managed properly here (as far I can see). Probably rather under-moderated.
You don't just get easily lifebanned for sandbagging a little bit like for two games. You get a warning in the first place if you're suspected of potential sandbagging. If it's done in an extreme way, you're banned on the spot, rightfully so. Lunatically fudging your rating and then trolling everyone is just as horrible as directly cheating.
Also while bans are permanent by concept, mods can agree to give you another chance after some minimum timeframe of a few months, depending on severity of offense and expression of regret.
Also while bans are permanent by concept, mods can agree to give you another chance after some minimum timeframe of a few months, depending on severity of offense and expression of regret.
@WendyRhoades said in #50:
> A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
Thank you. I tried to point out that it is socially irresponsible to recommend Lichess to other players if this is the standard approach.
> A lifetime ban for sandbagging is just horrible moderation. It sounds like they don't have any sort of system for temporarily banning or restricting accounts. When all you've got is a hammer...
Thank you. I tried to point out that it is socially irresponsible to recommend Lichess to other players if this is the standard approach.
@glbert said in #30:
> also, it is absolutely hilarious that you were warned twice, but still run around these forums complaining to everyone about how you were treated unfairly. did you not read the warnings? how many warnings did you expect? why on earth do you expect to be unbanned, when you are running around publicly claiming that basically you have done nothing wrong and would not change your behaviour? because for you sandbagging is part of your "self destructive tendencies" and "it is not a problem for [you] if [you are] given the kindness to make that space a positive action."
I don't know if you are a moderator. I don't find it funny being banned for life for "sandbagging" nor do I think it is fair to bully people who have attempted to explain their behaviour in good faith.
> also, it is absolutely hilarious that you were warned twice, but still run around these forums complaining to everyone about how you were treated unfairly. did you not read the warnings? how many warnings did you expect? why on earth do you expect to be unbanned, when you are running around publicly claiming that basically you have done nothing wrong and would not change your behaviour? because for you sandbagging is part of your "self destructive tendencies" and "it is not a problem for [you] if [you are] given the kindness to make that space a positive action."
I don't know if you are a moderator. I don't find it funny being banned for life for "sandbagging" nor do I think it is fair to bully people who have attempted to explain their behaviour in good faith.
@Cedur216 said in #55:
> You don't just get easily lifebanned for sandbagging a little bit like for two games. You get a warning in the first place if you're suspected of potential sandbagging. If it's done in an extreme way, you're banned on the spot, rightfully so. Lunatically fudging your rating and then trolling everyone is just as horrible as directly cheating.
A life ban on the spot. This is currently the policy that you endorse.
>
> Also while bans are permanent by concept, mods can agree to give you another chance after some minimum timeframe of a few months, depending on severity of offense and expression of regret.
It is a lifetime ban with the advice on appeal that it is free to delete your account. What do you expect people to do when they are given such advice?
> You don't just get easily lifebanned for sandbagging a little bit like for two games. You get a warning in the first place if you're suspected of potential sandbagging. If it's done in an extreme way, you're banned on the spot, rightfully so. Lunatically fudging your rating and then trolling everyone is just as horrible as directly cheating.
A life ban on the spot. This is currently the policy that you endorse.
>
> Also while bans are permanent by concept, mods can agree to give you another chance after some minimum timeframe of a few months, depending on severity of offense and expression of regret.
It is a lifetime ban with the advice on appeal that it is free to delete your account. What do you expect people to do when they are given such advice?
@AtomicChessSensei said in #53:
> By playbans, they meant the instance when you get timed out for aborting too many games or not resigning.
Ok but that is not main thing. See my previous post to know the issue.
> By playbans, they meant the instance when you get timed out for aborting too many games or not resigning.
Ok but that is not main thing. See my previous post to know the issue.
@Firegoat7 said in #57:
> people who have attempted to explain their behaviour in good faith.
you see, that is my problem with you. you think explaining your behaviour is enough, and then it should be allowed. even if everybody thinks your explanation was complete nonsense. and trust me, everyone does think it is complete nonsense.
@Firegoat7 said in #58:
> It is a lifetime ban with the advice on appeal that it is free to delete your account. What do you expect people to do when they are given such advice?
can you please just finally close your account? i am sure the mods can do it for you, if you're too busy trolling the forums.
> people who have attempted to explain their behaviour in good faith.
you see, that is my problem with you. you think explaining your behaviour is enough, and then it should be allowed. even if everybody thinks your explanation was complete nonsense. and trust me, everyone does think it is complete nonsense.
@Firegoat7 said in #58:
> It is a lifetime ban with the advice on appeal that it is free to delete your account. What do you expect people to do when they are given such advice?
can you please just finally close your account? i am sure the mods can do it for you, if you're too busy trolling the forums.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.