I think you and I agree with each other here, except for
@Ender88 said in #39:
> AFAIK all you said already happened in the appeal process.
Do you really think that Denisator did all that, that he has been "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" in his appeal? Really? I guess only Denisator and the Lichess appeal staff know for sure, but we can have a good guess based on what Denisator has said here.
I want Denisator to have his account back. I don't know if Lichess would even consider any appeal at this stage but, if there's any hope for that, it could be hampered by anyone encouraging him to continue acting as if Lichess are at fault for appropriately proportional sanctions for deliberate abuse of their online systems.
@DickieSteele said in #41:
> I think you and I agree with each other here, except for
I don't think we agree on the "deliberate" part either.
And for the appeal process, you I right I don't know, simply what read so fare give me such impression.
OP is the only one who can confirm or deny his version, right @Denisator ?
@Ender88 said in #42:
> I don't think we agree on the "deliberate" part either
I meant Chessnut (not Denisator) deliberately violated. I should have been clearer on that yes, given the sensitivity of the issue.
I think it's probably clear to everyone that Denisator did NOT do it deliberately, especially as he did it with his own 10 year old account. The facts of this issue don't seem to be under any dispute. He just needs to stick up for himself and tell Lichess he accepts that what Chessnut got him to do is wrong and that Lichess should ban any account that abuses their online systems, unless and until the owner of the account explains that a malicious entity tricked him into doing it and acknowledges both those points. If he won't do all that, then obviously the ban will remain.
I've had a look at @Denisator account and it doesn't appear to be banned or restricted. Has he got his account back now? I hope so!
@DickieSteele said in #44:
> I've had a look at @Denisator account and it doesn't appear to be banned or restricted. Has he got his account back now? I hope so!
Wow glad to hear that, really happy for him didn't expect that ^^
Based on the feedback from the community, as well as a fair play review of the account, we have removed the ban on the account. However, it is important to note that further use of eBoards bypassing the official board API will result in bans in the future that may not be overturned - as it is still a violation of our terms of service. eBoards on Lichess must use the official Board API (described here: https://lichess.org/page/eboards).
I'm grateful, thanks.
@somethingpretentious said in #46:
> Based on the feedback from the community, as well as a fair play review of the account, we have removed the ban on the account. However, it is important to note that further use of eBoards bypassing the official board API will result in bans in the future that may not be overturned - as it is still a violation of our terms of service. eBoards on Lichess must use the official Board API (described here: https://lichess.org/page/eboards).
This makes me happy. Good job Lichess!
@Denisator said in #47:
> I'm grateful, thanks.
I'm glad the mods found a solution ... welcome back
Hopefully, your story is going to bring awareness to chessnut's shady stance that you should have been aware: https://www.chessnutech.com/pages/app-privacy
Look carefully at the disclaimer item 3
A bit far from their ads and their payment page if you ask me
@fredo599 said in #49:
> Hopefully, your story is going to bring awareness to chessnut's shady stance that you should have been aware: https://www.chessnutech.com/pages/app-privacy
>
> Look carefully at the disclaimer item 3
Wow, this paragraph is crazy! The TLDR is like "We mess up, we know it, be prepared to get flagged on online platforms, and it is your fault."
I find this really a moral bankruptcy for the vendor. Really disgusting.
As a developer, I have worked with the official lichess board API in the past and found it to be both stable, predictable, and well documented. It is very clear what you can do, and what you should not.
That being said, I think removing the restrictions seems a reasonable thing to do. And I think the users of that board are tricked into this situation - nobody reads the fine print, or would expect this.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.