lichess has no functional reporting and banning system

Suppose you are rated 2500. You lost to someone unfairly and dropped to 2400. Now instead of playing 2500 opponents you are playing 2400 opponents. Because you are still a 2500 player, just for the time being rated 2400 you have an easier opponent and win the game. Now you are again 2500, but you are complaining about the lost 100 points and demand them back. This would make you rated 2600. But you are a 2500 player. My question is, why should you now all of the sudden be rated 2600? Had you not lost those 100 points unfairly, you wouldn't be playing 2400 opponents, you would be playing 2500 opponents and it would be far less probable that you would win.

So as I already mentioned, you are refunded points under these conditions: lichess.org/faq#rating-refund
If it past this time, you are likely already back at your supposed level. Basically, you already got the points back.

@bufferunderrun said in #51:
> My question is, why should you now all of the sudden be rated 2600?

They won't be for very long. This is where other people and bots shouldn't be the ones deciding what your elo is or isn't. Because let's say you refund it and they are now 2600. Well that's gonna drop real fast isn't it? Because then they will continue to lose until they are again at whatever their strength is. This is where their merit will come in. As I mentioned several times earlier.

We also know that most cheater aren't in that rating range. The elo lost is generally a very small amount and not actually 100 points or even close to it.

Just as you being paid $1,000, does not mean you should not have $1,100 because ya got robbed. Oh that's enough money now because it'd put you in a different tax bracket or something.

This logic is absurd and I have a very hard time taking it seriously. It sounds an awful lot like it's an excuse because of rampant cheaters. So if you actually did start just refunding the direct elo lost the sheer volume of cheats would blow the rating up all over the place and cause issues. You even had to pick a wild and unreasonable scenario close to that to even try arguing it. It says a lot really. Some guy that's already 2500 might be 2600 for a day before his rating drops back down from being beat. Or he would continue to improve and this arbitrary "you had enough" elo is just excuse making because I guess you think if you dropped me at a GM elo level I'd just be a grandmaster now unfairly because I lost a bajillion elo to one cheater. This is nonsense on face value alone. If we assume normal games and these claims of rampant cheaters really is fake. If there are rampant cheats it makes sense because ya can't be refunding dudes 10 points a pop for 100 games because it'd mess up the system. But apparently that isn't the case, right? So we should be looking at fairly small exchanges or trivial ones.

Or someone just has to admit the system is broken and so they need this busted, absurd system in place to make sure elos stay consistent and that a 1000 rated player doesn't shoot off into grandmaster territory from a refund. But that would mean admitting to the rampant cheating problem. If there isn't one then what I said is completely reasonable and works great. Know how I know? Everyone else does it that way and it works just fine. Works great. Seems awfully convenient that only the site with massive complaints about cheaters has to use logic this absurd for a simple concept: give back what was taken illegitimately/unfairly.

I'm done.
Your feedback has been noted.

@Erisian said in #52:
> bots shouldn't be the ones deciding what your elo is or isn't.

Glicko is used here, not Dr. Elo's method ...

@boilingFrog said in #54:
>
I'm aware. I still call it elo. The point remains the same either way. Once you are out of the provisional rating (which you need to be to get a refund and apply in this context) you don't get triple digit rating. Most of the time it's not even in the double digits. So let's be real.

Either the system is absurd or it needs to be this way due to the rampant cheating. And given how people that don't report don't get anything, the slow acting on it, only counting X last few games, etc., it's looking an awful lot like it's just easier to brush it under the rug and hope anyone that asks these questions doesn't really think too hard about it and thinks the average person is gonna gain triple digit rating back routinely or be thrusted into an unfair rating bracket and remain there. All the way around it makes no sense. And it's smelling a lot like cope to avoid admitting "man we got a real cheating problem here". Because then this system makes a lot of sense. Ya need arbiters to decide what's enough elo, ignore non-report losers to a cheater, etc. But you can't have it both ways. Oh there's no cheaters AND we need to use this absolutely ridiculous system too just to make sure we don't have people rocketing way beyond their range. That or we should believe giving people back a single or double digit elo rating back is putting people way beyond their range. No matter how you slice it it makes no sense.

That's probably why nobody else does it this way.

Massive confirmation bias in some people. That is, you see what you want to see :)

@bufferunderrun said in #49:
> Beating other people isn't a "refund". But getting easier opponents as a result of losing points unfairly is and consequently beating them, because you are better and they are weaker, is. Had you not lost those points, you wouldn't have played those people. What you are asking here is double-refund and this wouldn't be fair.
You don't get easier opponents, you adjust the sliding bar and decide against whom to play.

@username2 said in #42:
> @Artem-Kozirev
> 1) Algorithms are not myth. Their names are irwin and kaladin. They don't need any expert, because they can detect cheating in far more detail than any human.
> 2) Number of cheaters smart enough to avoid detection is not in percentages, more like in per millions. If several are so smart let them be, they won't achieve anything by beating Carlsen here online.

Now you are contradictory your credibility is now at stake.

@bufferunderrun said in #51:
> Suppose you are rated 2500. You lost to someone unfairly and dropped to 2400. Now instead of playing 2500 opponents you are playing 2400 opponents. Because you are still a 2500 player, just for the time being rated 2400 you have an easier opponent and win the game. Now you are again 2500, but you are complaining about the lost 100 points and demand them back. This would make you rated 2600. But you are a 2500 player. My question is, why should you now all of the sudden be rated 2600? Had you not lost those 100 points unfairly, you wouldn't be playing 2400 opponents, you would be playing 2500 opponents and it would be far less probable that you would win.
>
> So as I already mentioned, you are refunded points under these conditions: lichess.org/faq#rating-refund
> If it past this time, you are likely already back at your supposed level. Basically, you already got the points back.

You adjust the bar and play against whoever not necessariy against a specific rated player like you say, your example is useless, you fail to see that, in fact you suggest shadowbanning is going on in the pairing system, if that was the case that is inmoral, unethical and unfair to say thee least.

@Artem-Kozirev said in #37:
> Lichess not only is unable to stop it but sadly puts the efforts in covering the mouth of any honest user stating the facts and demanding transparency.

As to now, 194 forum posts of you are freely readable to anyone in the world with internet. All of them appear to have the same topic "cheating" and lichess' lack of fighting against it. So your mouth has not been covered.

I suggest to 3d party audit your claims before making them.