Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

2 weeks of E-board caused my 10-year account banned

I have to split my answer because it starts to become massive.

@Toadofsky said in #89:

Really what have I to do, that I haven't done, to be constructive?
Since I thought to have had a civilised discussion explaining clearly and politely my opinion (in a forum section dedicated to opinions or feedback about how Lichens works).

Here are your inflammatory replies to various Lichess staff:

Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact.
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=2#11

Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future)
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=2#16

You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying).
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=3#24

What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control.
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=3#29

and other comments:

No doubt Lichess is a victim here, as I said if everything is as described I think that both of them (OP and Lichess) have ground to sue the board producer.
That said I am still on my position, I find this ban pointless.
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=4#39

It's very doable, I do it for you as example...
Done, effort = 0
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=4#40

Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply.
I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me..

Your really saying that a message that start with "No doubt Lichess is a victim here" is inflammatory?
I hope you are joking.

I have to split my answer because it starts to become massive. @Toadofsky said in #89: > > Really what have I to do, that I haven't done, to be constructive? > > Since I thought to have had a civilised discussion explaining clearly and politely my opinion (in a forum section dedicated to opinions or feedback about how Lichens works). > > Here are your inflammatory replies to various Lichess staff: > > Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact. > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=2#11 > > > Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future) > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=2#16 > > > You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying). > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=3#24 > > > What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control. > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=3#29 > > and other comments: > > > No doubt Lichess is a victim here, as I said if everything is as described I think that both of them (OP and Lichess) have ground to sue the board producer. > > That said I am still on my position, I find this ban pointless. > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=4#39 > > > It's very doable, I do it for you as example... > > Done, effort = 0 > https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/2-weeks-of-e-board-caused-my-10-year-account-banned?page=4#40 > Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply. I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me.. Your really saying that a message that start with "No doubt Lichess is a victim here" is inflammatory? I hope you are joking.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything.
Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them.
So the choice is between trusting producers or change device.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

For example, when buying a cell phone some people choose GrapheneOS so they can control every aspect of the phone

Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS.
Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so).
So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess).
End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market.
For that reason I think ToS should help.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

Of course you have an opinion "is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying" and "for a technical aspect on which have no control" among many other opinions. Your proposed solutions have consequences, as I repeatedly explain and you repeatedly ignore.

@Ender88 said in #87:

I think that not explaining clearly which are at least few ways to interact safely with the platform is therefore an issue, because an user may claim ignorance about the tools he use to interact with the platform.

I agree, and yet an advertisement/endorsement/promotion of specific browsers would not guarantee safe interaction with the platform; and as I just asked in my last post, whose responsibility would it be to guarantee such a list is kept up to date and relevant for all platforms (hardware and OS), regions (countries with different laws), etc. when browsers or devices have vulnerabilities? Lichess isn't a regulatory agency like the EU is.

So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess?
Obviously there's always exceptions that will be covered by Lichess exclusion of liability in ToS but there should be also ways to interact with the platform that Lichess considering safe.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

@Ender88 said in #87:

PS about being constructive.
I repeat, I am expressing my belief on a topic I acknowledge not being an expert (law).
Since I believe you also aren't a lawyer or at least not a lawyer in France, I listen to your opinion too but take it as that.
So don't be offended if I haven't changed my mind up to now.

You are asking many questions and offering many opinions which would require careful study of international law, US law, EU laws, European laws, Chinese law, Russian law, etc. to be able to adequately answer; then retreating to a position of "I am not a lawyer". Consumers purchasing (or stealing) software and/or hardware is regulated differently by different laws in different jurisdictions, as is the concept of suing sellers/manufacturers for fraud (or similar depending upon jurisdiction). In my opinion Lichess is a charity that does not engage in advertising, promotion, regulation, etc. related to commerce (of browsers, of computers, of operating systems, of software, etc.).

In my opinion there is an intense cognitive dissonance in agreeing that law is complicated, while continuing to ask about or discuss matters which have profound legal consequences and expecting some other kind of result.

I think that a plumber could express opinion about quantum physics, even if a extremely complex topic and even if the plumber could grasp only a tiny fraction of the topics.
So because as I understand are we both "plumbers" in the sense that I am not a lawyer but neither are you, if in you opinion I have any cognitive dissonance issues, you should not be far from my position, since you argued with me about that topic (law) up to now.
Or are you a legal expert and I didn't know?

Funny how accusing interlocutor to have "cognitive dissonance" issue (while behaving the same way) is not inflammatory nor trolling in your view, given you think so about far more calm opinion I have expressed.

@Toadofsky said in #84: > When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything. Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them. So the choice is between trusting producers or change device. @Toadofsky said in #84: >For example, when buying a cell phone some people choose GrapheneOS so they can control every aspect of the phone Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS. Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so). So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess). End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market. For that reason I think ToS should help. @Toadofsky said in #84: > Of course you have an opinion "is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying" and "for a technical aspect on which have no control" among many other opinions. Your proposed solutions have consequences, as I repeatedly explain and you repeatedly ignore. > > @Ender88 said in #87: > > I think that not explaining clearly which are at least few ways to interact safely with the platform is therefore an issue, because an user may claim ignorance about the tools he use to interact with the platform. > > I agree, and yet an advertisement/endorsement/promotion of specific browsers would not guarantee safe interaction with the platform; and as I just asked in my last post, whose responsibility would it be to guarantee such a list is kept up to date and relevant for all platforms (hardware and OS), regions (countries with different laws), etc. when browsers or devices have vulnerabilities? Lichess isn't a regulatory agency like the EU is. > So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess? Obviously there's always exceptions that will be covered by Lichess exclusion of liability in ToS but there should be also ways to interact with the platform that Lichess considering safe. @Toadofsky said in #84: > @Ender88 said in #87: > > PS about being constructive. > > I repeat, I am expressing my belief on a topic I acknowledge not being an expert (law). > > Since I believe you also aren't a lawyer or at least not a lawyer in France, I listen to your opinion too but take it as that. > > So don't be offended if I haven't changed my mind up to now. > > You are asking many questions and offering many opinions which would require careful study of international law, US law, EU laws, European laws, Chinese law, Russian law, etc. to be able to adequately answer; then retreating to a position of "I am not a lawyer". Consumers purchasing (or stealing) software and/or hardware is regulated differently by different laws in different jurisdictions, as is the concept of suing sellers/manufacturers for fraud (or similar depending upon jurisdiction). In my opinion Lichess is a charity that does not engage in advertising, promotion, regulation, etc. related to commerce (of browsers, of computers, of operating systems, of software, etc.). > > In my opinion there is an intense cognitive dissonance in agreeing that law is complicated, while continuing to ask about or discuss matters which have profound legal consequences and expecting some other kind of result. I think that a plumber could express opinion about quantum physics, even if a extremely complex topic and even if the plumber could grasp only a tiny fraction of the topics. So because as I understand are we both "plumbers" in the sense that I am not a lawyer but neither are you, if in you opinion I have any cognitive dissonance issues, you should not be far from my position, since you argued with me about that topic (law) up to now. Or are you a legal expert and I didn't know? Funny how accusing interlocutor to have "cognitive dissonance" issue (while behaving the same way) is not inflammatory nor trolling in your view, given you think so about far more calm opinion I have expressed.

@DickieSteele said in #90:

probably need also to clarify that user should use browser and app directly in his own device, with no automation in between.

That's one of a long list of possibilities that would need covering. That one possibility itself is incomplete. A chessnut Evo is the user's own device just like a Macbook is, so "own device" would need clearly defining. "Should", "directly", "automation" and "in between" are also unclear, especially for a TOS. Your allow list guaranteeing 100% compliance with a few browsers and an app would become long and confusing and, no matter how long it gets, it'd need a disclaimer saying it doesn't 100% guarantee anything.

I assume you mean well, but you still don't seem to realise that adding such an 'allow list' of third party services to a TOS document would increase (not decrease) the amount of technical language needed in the TOS document or documents it references. I enjoy discussing these things and I think I can bring good insight, but I seem to have failed to explain this in a way that's simple enough for you to grasp and, for that, I apologise.

Another big problem with your proposed list that you seem to not grasp is that it'd be useless here, but you continue to argue for it. It'd do nothing to help users determine which eboards can be used without violating TOS. It'd do the opposite, confusing and distracting from what the user needs to know, or even outright misinforming. The solution I offered doesn't even come close to providing an 'allow list' but would (I think) solve the whole issue and do so without any long explanations and without expecting any user to understand APIs. I don't understand what you think your approach would solve.

Well I am also puzzled, and don't know how to make things simpler for you.
AFAIK it's a rule of thumb for a platform, to tell the user a clear concise, maybe not complete examples on how to use such platforms safely AKA platform requirements and compatibility.
Could be in ToS or linked i a soecific Page.

Microsoft do that for Outlook that way:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/supported-browsers-for-outlook-on-the-web-and-outlook-com-ca350265-6284-4682-9abd-85fc2bd37934

Chess dot com does it for tournament with Proctor, as was explained here before.

Google also seems to do so for his products.

IMHO, as not an expert, if you don't give a clear way to the user to follow rules in ToS, then ToS is voidable and for that reason almost anyone provide such examples.

I am quite confident to have grasp your opinion and open to change mine.
But because none of us (I think) are a legal expert I wouldn't change my mind without any "proofs".
I mean is there some lawyers who recommend to avoid such list?

From a brief search I found this page who explains how to write a ToS (I am not sure if they are a good source).
https://usercentrics.com/guides/terms-of-service/

In chapter 'Description of services' they mentioned 'technical requirements and compatibility'.

Here there's a practical example
https://usercentrics.com/guides/terms-of-service/terms-of-service-template/

@usercentrics

Technical Requirements: To use our Service, you need:
[List any specific device requirements]

So I am not a lawyer, but seems to me that this company (seems reputable) that handle such legal topics recommended exactly what I also think is a good idea, a list of device/device requirements.
Even if probably as you noted can't be exhaustive nor perfect.

@DickieSteele said in #90: > > probably need also to clarify that user should use browser and app directly in his own device, with no automation in between. > > That's one of a long list of possibilities that would need covering. That one possibility itself is incomplete. A chessnut Evo is the user's own device just like a Macbook is, so "own device" would need clearly defining. "Should", "directly", "automation" and "in between" are also unclear, especially for a TOS. Your allow list guaranteeing 100% compliance with a few browsers and an app would become long and confusing and, no matter how long it gets, it'd need a disclaimer saying it doesn't 100% guarantee anything. > > I assume you mean well, but you still don't seem to realise that adding such an 'allow list' of third party services to a TOS document would increase (not decrease) the amount of technical language needed in the TOS document or documents it references. I enjoy discussing these things and I think I can bring good insight, but I seem to have failed to explain this in a way that's simple enough for you to grasp and, for that, I apologise. > > Another big problem with your proposed list that you seem to not grasp is that it'd be useless here, but you continue to argue for it. It'd do nothing to help users determine which eboards can be used without violating TOS. It'd do the opposite, confusing and distracting from what the user needs to know, or even outright misinforming. The solution I offered doesn't even come close to providing an 'allow list' but would (I think) solve the whole issue and do so without any long explanations and without expecting any user to understand APIs. I don't understand what you think your approach would solve. Well I am also puzzled, and don't know how to make things simpler for you. AFAIK it's a rule of thumb for a platform, to tell the user a clear concise, maybe not complete examples on how to use such platforms safely AKA platform requirements and compatibility. Could be in ToS or linked i a soecific Page. Microsoft do that for Outlook that way: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/supported-browsers-for-outlook-on-the-web-and-outlook-com-ca350265-6284-4682-9abd-85fc2bd37934 Chess dot com does it for tournament with Proctor, as was explained here before. Google also seems to do so for his products. IMHO, as not an expert, if you don't give a clear way to the user to follow rules in ToS, then ToS is voidable and for that reason almost anyone provide such examples. I am quite confident to have grasp your opinion and open to change mine. But because none of us (I think) are a legal expert I wouldn't change my mind without any "proofs". I mean is there some lawyers who recommend to avoid such list? From a brief search I found this page who explains how to write a ToS (I am not sure if they are a good source). https://usercentrics.com/guides/terms-of-service/ In chapter 'Description of services' they mentioned 'technical requirements and compatibility'. Here there's a practical example https://usercentrics.com/guides/terms-of-service/terms-of-service-template/ @usercentrics >Technical Requirements: To use our Service, you need: [List any specific device requirements] So I am not a lawyer, but seems to me that this company (seems reputable) that handle such legal topics recommended exactly what I also think is a good idea, a list of device/device requirements. Even if probably as you noted can't be exhaustive nor perfect.

@Ender88 said in #91:

Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply.
I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me..

Previously:

Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact.

Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future)

You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying).

What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control.

There are many ways a person can control what they purchase, or what they use. You don't know how a computer works, but you plug it in the wall and pay for electricity and internet; you don't know how a cell phone works, but you purchase a device with an embedded SIM card and push digits and someone is speaking on the other side. Nobody has control over "technical aspects" and a less than complete explanation of technical aspects buried in an already long ToS would be far less effective than having the scammer put a large note on the board explaining the scam.

@Ender88 said in #92:

When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything.
Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them.
So the choice is between trusting producers or change device.

Consumers can even assemble phones from parts, or negotiate with sellers. Sure, almost all softwares and hardwares are opaque and abide by laws in their various jurisdictions. Consumers rely on laws and consumer advocates to protect them from scams.

@Ender88 said in #92:

Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS.
Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so).
So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess).
End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market.
For that reason I think ToS should help.

A person purchasing a car from a licensed dealer knows in what jurisdiction the dealership is licensed, and can ask questions before, during, and after the purchase. Governments decide upon regulations such as how much pollution the car is allowed to emit, and whether the air bags need to work; regulations are rarely written in terms of "these models are allowed and those models are not" but are instead specified by experts who have carefully studied accidents etc.

@Ender88 said in #92:

So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess?

Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet.

@Ender88 said in #92:

I think that a plumber could express opinion about quantum physics, even if a extremely complex topic and even if the plumber could grasp only a tiny fraction of the topics.
So because as I understand are we both "plumbers" in the sense that I am not a lawyer but neither are you, if in you opinion I have any cognitive dissonance issues, you should not be far from my position, since you argued with me about that topic (law) up to now.
Or are you a legal expert and I didn't know?

Funny how accusing interlocutor to have "cognitive dissonance" issue (while behaving the same way) is not inflammatory nor trolling in your view, given you think so about far more calm opinion I have expressed.

Plumbers are allowed to have opinions about physics without a physics degree, and they are allowed to ask questions. But I don't think I've seen a plumber ask whether pipes also need to handle deionized water.

Changing ToS is something of profound legal consequence, at least for an international online service. Most companies are not operating online and/or internationally, and have greater resources than Lichess while being in a less exposed position. This topic is a technical issue which I am not aware of any government trying to regulate, even considering https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues for examples of governments regulating internet use. A single misstep in changing ToS could be fatal for Lichess.

@Ender88 said in #91: > Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply. > I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me.. Previously: > Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact. > > Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future) > > You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying). > > What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control. There are many ways a person can control what they purchase, or what they use. You don't know how a computer works, but you plug it in the wall and pay for electricity and internet; you don't know how a cell phone works, but you purchase a device with an embedded SIM card and push digits and someone is speaking on the other side. Nobody has control over "technical aspects" and a less than complete explanation of technical aspects buried in an already long ToS would be far less effective than having the scammer put a large note on the board explaining the scam. @Ender88 said in #92: > > When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything. > Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them. > So the choice is between trusting producers or change device. Consumers can even assemble phones from parts, or negotiate with sellers. Sure, almost all softwares and hardwares are opaque and abide by laws in their various jurisdictions. Consumers rely on laws and consumer advocates to protect them from scams. @Ender88 said in #92: > Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS. > Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so). > So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess). > End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market. > For that reason I think ToS should help. A person purchasing a car from a licensed dealer knows in what jurisdiction the dealership is licensed, and can ask questions before, during, and after the purchase. Governments decide upon regulations such as how much pollution the car is allowed to emit, and whether the air bags need to work; regulations are rarely written in terms of "these models are allowed and those models are not" but are instead specified by experts who have carefully studied accidents etc. @Ender88 said in #92: > So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess? Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet. @Ender88 said in #92: > I think that a plumber could express opinion about quantum physics, even if a extremely complex topic and even if the plumber could grasp only a tiny fraction of the topics. > So because as I understand are we both "plumbers" in the sense that I am not a lawyer but neither are you, if in you opinion I have any cognitive dissonance issues, you should not be far from my position, since you argued with me about that topic (law) up to now. > Or are you a legal expert and I didn't know? > > Funny how accusing interlocutor to have "cognitive dissonance" issue (while behaving the same way) is not inflammatory nor trolling in your view, given you think so about far more calm opinion I have expressed. Plumbers are allowed to have opinions about physics without a physics degree, and they are allowed to ask questions. But I don't think I've seen a plumber ask whether pipes also need to handle deionized water. Changing ToS is something of profound legal consequence, at least for an international online service. Most companies are not operating online and/or internationally, and have greater resources than Lichess while being in a less exposed position. This topic is a technical issue which I am not aware of any government trying to regulate, even considering https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues for examples of governments regulating internet use. A single misstep in changing ToS could be fatal for Lichess.

@Ender88 said in #93:

Microsoft do that for Outlook that way:

That's a support page, not a TOS. It gives examples of browsers that are able to load Outlook pages, and doesn't give any guarantee that TOS won't be violated while using those browsers. Chessnut products are able to play Lichess games and correctly load Lichess pages in browsers supported by Lichess, while violating Lichess' TOS.

From a brief search I found this page who explains how to write a ToS
...
Technical Requirements: To use our Service, you need:
[List any specific device requirements]

"device requirements" in that quote means what's required from a device, not which device is required. The device requirements are the the ability to use the Lichess website, app, or API, subject to all the rest of the TOS, eg: no automated moves on the website/app. A list of compliant third party devices wouldn't constitute device requirements.

I'm more interested in what you think your proposed list would do to help solve the issue of what information should be given to users to help them determine which eboards (or any third party software/hardware) violate TOS.

@Ender88 said in #93: > Microsoft do that for Outlook that way: That's a support page, not a TOS. It gives examples of browsers that are able to load Outlook pages, and doesn't give any guarantee that TOS won't be violated while using those browsers. Chessnut products are able to play Lichess games and correctly load Lichess pages in browsers supported by Lichess, while violating Lichess' TOS. > From a brief search I found this page who explains how to write a ToS > ... > Technical Requirements: To use our Service, you need: > [List any specific device requirements] "device requirements" in that quote means what's required from a device, not which device is required. The device requirements are the the ability to use the Lichess website, app, or API, subject to all the rest of the TOS, eg: no automated moves on the website/app. A list of compliant third party devices wouldn't constitute device requirements. I'm more interested in what you think your proposed list would do to help solve the issue of what information should be given to users to help them determine which eboards (or any third party software/hardware) violate TOS.

@DickieSteele said in #95:

I'm more interested in what you think your proposed list would do to help solve the issue of what information should be given to users to help them determine which eboards (or any third party software/hardware) violate TOS.

They mentioned that they'd prefer Lichess maintain a list of compliant software and hardware, at Lichess' expense and Lichess' risk/responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information. They keep mentioning that either putting a list in the ToS or linking to it from ToS will help protect users from scams, because in theory users could look at ads/endorsements on Lichess and see if a particular manufacturer is on the list or not.

@DickieSteele said in #95: > I'm more interested in what you think your proposed list would do to help solve the issue of what information should be given to users to help them determine which eboards (or any third party software/hardware) violate TOS. They mentioned that they'd prefer Lichess maintain a list of compliant software and hardware, at Lichess' expense and Lichess' risk/responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information. They keep mentioning that either putting a list in the ToS or linking to it from ToS will help protect users from scams, because in theory users could look at ads/endorsements on Lichess and see if a particular manufacturer is on the list or not.

I still have to split answer for clarity

@Toadofsky said in #94:

Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply.
I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me..

Previously:

Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact.

Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future)

You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying).

What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control.

There are many ways a person can control what they purchase, or what they use. You don't know how a computer works, but you plug it in the wall and pay for electricity and internet; you don't know how a cell phone works, but you purchase a device with an embedded SIM card and push digits and someone is speaking on the other side. Nobody has control over "technical aspects" and a less than complete explanation of technical aspects buried in an already long ToS would be far less effective than having the scammer put a large note on the board explaining the scam.

@Ender88 said in #92:

When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything.
Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them.
So the choice is between trusting producers or change device.

Consumers can even assemble phones from parts, or negotiate with sellers. Sure, almost all softwares and hardwares are opaque and abide by laws in their various jurisdictions. Consumers rely on laws and consumer advocates to protect them from scams.

@Ender88 said in #92:

Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS.
Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so).
So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess).
End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market.
For that reason I think ToS should help.

A person purchasing a car from a licensed dealer knows in what jurisdiction the dealership is licensed, and can ask questions before, during, and after the purchase. Governments decide upon regulations such as how much pollution the car is allowed to emit, and whether the air bags need to work; regulations are rarely written in terms of "these models are allowed and those models are not" but are instead specified by experts who have carefully studied accidents etc.

So we agreed here.
End user in a regulated market is not responsible for a legally sold product that is discovered after that doesn't abide to regulations due to producer overlooked them.

I still have to split answer for clarity @Toadofsky said in #94: > > Since when disagreeing respectfully and explaining the why of my point of view is an inflammatory reply. > > I mean here is the place for the critics, correct or wrong any of my criticism have explained why of them..so I really don't understand what you expect from me.. > > Previously: > > Unless obviously you provide a list of certified/supported interfaces to the platform (and this tool is not listed here). Unless you provide such list the OP can't possibly know to be in breach of your contact. > > > > Great question, but really how could I answer or just trust the answer I may receive from a producer? (for any possible producers today or in a near future) > > > > You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying). > > > > What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control. > > There are many ways a person can control what they purchase, or what they use. You don't know how a computer works, but you plug it in the wall and pay for electricity and internet; you don't know how a cell phone works, but you purchase a device with an embedded SIM card and push digits and someone is speaking on the other side. Nobody has control over "technical aspects" and a less than complete explanation of technical aspects buried in an already long ToS would be far less effective than having the scammer put a large note on the board explaining the scam. > > @Ender88 said in #92: > > > When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything. > > Absolutely not true, lot of closed source devices are opaque and have ToS that forbid reverse engineering them. > > So the choice is between trusting producers or change device. > > Consumers can even assemble phones from parts, or negotiate with sellers. Sure, almost all softwares and hardwares are opaque and abide by laws in their various jurisdictions. Consumers rely on laws and consumer advocates to protect them from scams. > > @Ender88 said in #92: > > Good luck controlling driver, firmware and how hardware works.. even with GrapheneOS. > > Don't forget that when you buy a car (a diesel one for example) you can't control every aspect of combustion engines, simply because it's out your field of expertise (at least I think so). > > So as some producers was caught red-handed cheating with exhaustion limits of such engines and was considered responsible for that also IMHO the same reasoning may apply here with Lichess's clients (I am referring to clients producers not Lichess). > > End user can't know what's the inner workings of everything he legally purchase using legally providers in a regulated and legal market. > > For that reason I think ToS should help. > > A person purchasing a car from a licensed dealer knows in what jurisdiction the dealership is licensed, and can ask questions before, during, and after the purchase. Governments decide upon regulations such as how much pollution the car is allowed to emit, and whether the air bags need to work; regulations are rarely written in terms of "these models are allowed and those models are not" but are instead specified by experts who have carefully studied accidents etc. > So we agreed here. End user in a regulated market is not responsible for a legally sold product that is discovered after that doesn't abide to regulations due to producer overlooked them.

@Toadofsky said in #94:

@Ender88 said in #92:

So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess?

Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet.

Sorry explain it in simple terms.
What have I to do to play chess on Lichess without breaching the ToS?
IMHO this question have an answer, put such answers in ToS would be great

@Toadofsky said in #94: > @Ender88 said in #92: > > So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess? > > Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet. Sorry explain it in simple terms. What have I to do to play chess on Lichess without breaching the ToS? IMHO this question have an answer, put such answers in ToS would be great

@Toadofsky

Yeah he seems to have no concept of risk. I'm not sure he understands what a TOS is and what it's needed for.

It's the pointlessness of his list that has me curious though. His ideal list seemingly wouldn't include any eboards. The example lists he's given are just like "compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Use third party tool and extensions at your own risk." I'd like to know what thought process could lead a person to think that would do something to help negate the issue that was being discussed.

I think Lichess' board API is exemplary, especially when compared to another platform's equivalent API. I was looking into it a couple of years ago when I was considering developing an eboard after being dismayed by the then-current crop of them. I decided against it after realising it'd mean having my company working on a passion project for me, and I could just wait until I can buy something decent when the companies already doing it start making better products. I still find them all appalling so now I'm reconsidering, which is probably why I'm spending my Xmas days trying to understand the perspectives of people like Ender LOL.

I think I must just accept that he can't give any rationale for his expectations. I hope his expectations aren't common amongst electronic chessboard fans, which is a demographic that contains a lot of people who dont know much about relevant technical aspects of online stuff and shouldn't be distracted by some things that Ender mentions.

@Toadofsky Yeah he seems to have no concept of risk. I'm not sure he understands what a TOS is and what it's needed for. It's the pointlessness of his list that has me curious though. His ideal list seemingly wouldn't include any eboards. The example lists he's given are just like "compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Use third party tool and extensions at your own risk." I'd like to know what thought process could lead a person to think that would do something to help negate the issue that was being discussed. I think Lichess' board API is exemplary, especially when compared to another platform's equivalent API. I was looking into it a couple of years ago when I was considering developing an eboard after being dismayed by the then-current crop of them. I decided against it after realising it'd mean having my company working on a passion project for me, and I could just wait until I can buy something decent when the companies already doing it start making better products. I still find them all appalling so now I'm reconsidering, which is probably why I'm spending my Xmas days trying to understand the perspectives of people like Ender LOL. I think I must just accept that he can't give any rationale for his expectations. I hope his expectations aren't common amongst electronic chessboard fans, which is a demographic that contains a lot of people who dont know much about relevant technical aspects of online stuff and shouldn't be distracted by some things that Ender mentions.

@Ender88 said in #97:

So we agreed here.
End user in a regulated market is not responsible for a legally sold product that is discovered after that doesn't abide to regulations due to producer overlooked them.

There are other legally sold products, like cars or guns. But in the case of computers and chess, where is the government entity to enforce anticheat regulations?

@Ender88 said in #98:

@Ender88 said in #92:

So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess?

Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet.

Sorry explain it in simple terms.
What have I to do to play chess on Lichess without breaching the ToS?
IMHO this question have an answer, put such answers in ToS would be great

Abide by https://lichess.org/terms-of-service -- but there is always risk when dealing with the internet and online services.

@Ender88 said in #97: > So we agreed here. > End user in a regulated market is not responsible for a legally sold product that is discovered after that doesn't abide to regulations due to producer overlooked them. There are other legally sold products, like cars or guns. But in the case of computers and chess, where is the government entity to enforce anticheat regulations? @Ender88 said in #98: > > @Ender88 said in #92: > > > So are you telling me there is no safe way to use Lichess? > > > > Obviously, if you read it that's what it says. Lichess is an online service on the internet. > > Sorry explain it in simple terms. > What have I to do to play chess on Lichess without breaching the ToS? > IMHO this question have an answer, put such answers in ToS would be great Abide by https://lichess.org/terms-of-service -- but there is always risk when dealing with the internet and online services.

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