@Denisator said in #30:
> Maybe it's a practical issue that they don't have time to waste on users because they have too many.
100% that's my reading of it too. It sickens me - quantity over quality.
Even the Lichess person who intervened in this thread does not seem to grasp the emotional weight of losing a 10 year account.
I hope Thibault will weigh in here. Or allow an exception for this case, and revert the ban.
@ronin3b said in #20:
> What is the purpose of holding this hard line?
@Ender88 said in #21:
> will the end user considered responsible
No one has disputed that the deliberate abuse of Lichess' online systems (which isn't just a minor violation) repeatedly occured via Denisator's login. What are Lichess supposed to do?!
The facts are:- Chessnut describe their software as a tool to circumvent the APIs of chess websites. Chessnut is the perpetrator. Lichess is Chessnut's victim. Chessnut involved Denisator. Denisator didn't know at the time. Denisator has since been informed of those facts.
If a family member maliciously took control of Denisator's car and then crashed it, Denisator would have to choose between (option 1) telling the police what the family member did, or (option 2) not telling the police about that which would mean Denisator chooses to take the full punishment to protect their family member. Denisator could also choose to act as if the person who was crashed into is somehow at fault for wanting to do something appropriately proportional about being the victim of the crash.
But Chessnut is not Denisator's family member, it's a company that Denisator should have no loyalty to. Unless Lichess allows other people to appeal on Denisator's behalf, it's up to Denisator to choose between option 1 and option 2 above. I want their account restored but Denisator doesn't seem to be helping themself, and other people appear to be encouraging Denisator to stick with option 2.
FREE DENISATOR!
@fredo599 said in #9:
> 2/ A lot of negative opinions can be expressed against lichess (based on a wrong understanding of the situation)
I think that's the biggest downside of all this. @Denisator isn't just harming himself with the victim blaming.
@bufferunderrun said in #22:
> How would you know if something is good or something is bad?
In this case, Chessnut are honest in their ads about the fact that their software is intentionally designed to circumvent APIs of chess websites. They describe it like it's a desirable feature.
That means for any chance of successful appeal Denisator needs to be open and honest with Lichess to clear his name, which means acknowledging that Lichess is a victim of unacceptable abuse and explaining that he didn't know Chessnut had involved him in the deliberate violation. But he's doing the opposite by claiming that Lichess are at fault. The self sabotage is tragic.
@DickieSteele said in #34:
> In this case, Chessnut are honest in their ads about the fact that their software is intentionally designed to circumvent APIs of chess websites. They describe it like it's a desirable feature.
Can you point me to an example? Up until now, I've successfully avoided all Chessnut ads.
@Denisator said in #27:
> But as others pointed out, if for whatever reason this is still a violation, or rules change, or API change or whatever, you will lose your account with no possible appeal, if I understand what happened correctly. I don't see how the end user can vet an app.
How could Lichess vet the app? Lichess only employees (or just one) and everything else run on volunteers. Lichess does not know - other than by pure chance - if someone is making product for using lichess. Even if knows has no means of testing it. No device no resources so not doable. Maintaining list qualified devices is just not doable.
@mcgoves said in #35:
Can you point me to an example? Up until now, I've successfully avoided all Chessnut ads.
I've managed to find Google results like the screenshot below, but the offending text ("to break API limitations of all platforms" in this example) is missing when I click through to see the ads as they currently are, so perhaps Chessnut has edited those parts out of their ads. I think that such editing must have been done very very recently for Google to still show the pre-last-edit text, but I'm not sure how fast Google crawls.
I remember their software's circumvention of official/enforced APIs was heavily advertised by Chessnut and highlighted by reviewers a few years ago, with some people realising what that meant but the loudest people being like Nah sHuT uP CheSsnUt kNoWs bEsT.
@mcgoves said in #35:
> Can you point me to an example? Up until now, I've successfully avoided all Chessnut ads.
I've managed to find Google results like the screenshot below, but the offending text ("to break API limitations of all platforms" in this example) is missing when I click through to see the ads as they currently are, so perhaps Chessnut has edited those parts out of their ads. I think that such editing must have been done very very recently for Google to still show the pre-last-edit text, but I'm not sure how fast Google crawls.
I remember their software's circumvention of official/enforced APIs was heavily advertised by Chessnut and highlighted by reviewers a few years ago, with some people realising what that meant but the loudest people being like Nah sHuT uP CheSsnUt kNoWs bEsT.
@petri999 said in #36:
> Maintaining list qualified devices is just not doable.
...and even if they did that, how could Lichess trust companies like Chessnut to not add the abuse back into their software after vetting. I fail to see what actions (that are possible outside of a fantasy magic realm) people expect from Lichess on this issue, regardless of Lichess' size or employee count. People give manufacturers operating in the electronic chessboard industry a very low bar for what should be considered good levels of trustworthiness.
@DickieSteele said in #34:
> > How would you know if something is good or something is bad?
>
> In this case, Chessnut are honest in their ads about the fact that their software is intentionally designed to circumvent APIs of chess websites. They describe it like it's a desirable feature.
>
> That means for any chance of successful appeal Denisator needs to be open and honest with Lichess to clear his name, which means acknowledging that Lichess is a victim of unacceptable abuse and explaining that he didn't know Chessnut had involved him in the deliberate violation. But he's doing the opposite by claiming that Lichess are at fault. The self sabotage is tragic.
AFAIK all you said already happened in the appeal process.
AFAIK the appeal was rejected anyway even if IMHO is not clear, form their website, that the board producer circumvent API (maybe send me the link in PM that I am curious to see how they present such "feature").
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.
@petri999 said in #36:
> > But as others pointed out, if for whatever reason this is still a violation, or rules change, or API change or whatever, you will lose your account with no possible appeal, if I understand what happened correctly. I don't see how the end user can vet an app.
>
> How could Lichess vet the app? Lichess only employees (or just one) and everything else run on volunteers. Lichess does not know - other than by pure chance - if someone is making product for using lichess. Even if knows has no means of testing it. No device no resources so not doable. Maintaining list qualified devices is just not doable.
It's very doable, I do it for you as example:
"- compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Latest version only.
- official app (not legacy)
- official API directly integrated in your application
Use third party tool and extensions at your own risk..etc."
Done, effort = 0
It's an over simplification I know, but few line like that one prevents further misunderstanding and further unknowingly users (with no malice) result being possibly banned.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.