@Denisator said in #59:
> If lichess is going to allow eboards
This is the essence of the problem ...
Lichess (as a server) is not aware of e-boards
There is a human interface (the web app and the mobile app) and a public API (for third party applications)
So, when an e-board app is using the public API, Lichess knows it's dealing with a software client and apply rules dedicated to software clients
But when, with whatever trick, an e-board app is using the human interface, it's opening a whole can of worms.
1/ The current topic ... some anti cheating rules meant for human users may be triggered and you may be banned ...
2/ A whole community starts thinking that it's normal to use the human interface as a service for their software because the public API is too limited ...
3/ Next thing is to hide the online platform ... you don't really need to see it anymore, right ?
I don't want to quote chatgpt here, but if you ask the following, it sums up the situation perfectly:
how would answer to a software company who design a human user interface in order to use your own human user interface as a service (to bypass software APIs)
@Denisator said in #59:
> I meant manufacturers' disclaimers when shopping for boards, not lichess.
>
> This may be all true; manufacturers are unreliable. How to handle it?
>
> If lichess is going to allow eboards, it becomes their problem to solve too because this could keep happening and it sucks for them too. I'm sure nuking accounts of non-cheaters isn't pleasant for lichess, even if it's a small number of users. That's not the point of their fair-play policy, so there's a problem to solve, in my opinion.
This is why (in my opinion, not in Lichess' opinion) Lichess has been very careful in every communication about its board API to explain what it is and what it isn't. Lichess offers a board API. Lichess doesn't "allow eboards" since online chess cheating has been a phenomenon almost as old as the internet itself.
In my opinion, similar to Rensch's opinion, someday an attitude of simply assuming good will rather than trying to regulate online chess cheating might be the pragmatic thing to do. But this is not that day.
@Ender88 said in #40:
> It's very doable, I do it for you as example:
> "- compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Latest version only.
Indeed, nobody will make a program which impersonates these browsers.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
@Toadofsky said in #62:
> rather than trying to regulate online chess cheating
I don't know exactly what Lichess' concerns are, but I'd guess this isn't just about cheating. I doubt they even suspected this user had tried to cheat when they banned him.
The risks caused by bots deceptively interacting with webpages can be wide ranging, not even limited to just security and technical issues. Eg:- if a website owner isn't making adequate effort to stop bots skipping or clicking "OK" on disclaimers and TOS and privacy policies, users could argue that they haven't agreed to them or been made aware of them. That might sound far fetched but any risk is a risk regardless of whether any real damage is ever actually caused.
People using these types of software absolutely cannot be tolerated by certain organisations. A user not knowing what their third party software was doing could make them more culpable instead of innocent. Bots like chessnut's are designed to avoid detection (they don't even send an Evil-Bit!) so zero-tolerance policy when they are detected makes sense, and zero tolerance = account closure, unfortunately.
I didn't know the Evil bit started as an Aprils fools joke. I'm lolling at that now, much gratitutude
@Toadofsky said in #63:
> > It's very doable, I do it for you as example:
> > "- compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Latest version only.
>
> Indeed, nobody will make a program which impersonates these browsers.
>
> See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
I understand your joke but hope you also grasp the concept of what I said.
I simply said that the effort of making an allow list (in ToS) wouldn't be too much if such list is minimal.
At least regular users will understand more clearly that he's approaching gray areas and his behaviour may be sanctioned if didn't use those browser and app; and that any API integration is at risk the moment there is a bug or an abusive behaviour.
@Ender88 said in #65:
> I understand your joke but hope you also grasp the concept of what I said.
> I simply said that the effort of making an allow list (in ToS) wouldn't be too much if such list is minimal.
>
> At least regular users will understand more clearly that he's approaching gray areas and his behaviour may be sanctioned if didn't use those browser and app; and that any API integration is at risk the moment there is a bug or an abusive behaviour.
While Lichess supports popular browsers, it doesn't endorse or advertise them. When Lichess v2 deployed, we did our best to support Windows XP users using Pale Moon. I use Vivaldi as a Chrome alternative. It's not in ToS, but there is a supported browser list: https://github.com/lichess-org/lila?tab=readme-ov-file#supported-browsers
If you read https://lichess.org/terms-of-service , it already mentions what you are talking about:
> Using our website
>
> We invite anyone to access our website, although it is solely at our discretion which parts of the website - if any - are accessible to you. From time to time, all users may be affected by any maintenance we may need to carry out, or rarely, technological disruption. We are not liable for any losses or harm to you, real or otherwise, for the website being unavailable at any time. We are also not responsible if some parts or all of the website does not work with your hardware or software...
>
> You must not misuse the site by introducing harmful materials, programmes, or code designed to negatively affect the operation of any computer software or hardware.
@Toadofsky said in #66:
> > I understand your joke but hope you also grasp the concept of what I said.
> > I simply said that the effort of making an allow list (in ToS) wouldn't be too much if such list is minimal.
> >
> > At least regular users will understand more clearly that he's approaching gray areas and his behaviour may be sanctioned if didn't use those browser and app; and that any API integration is at risk the moment there is a bug or an abusive behaviour.
>
> While Lichess supports popular browsers, it doesn't endorse or advertise them. When Lichess v2 deployed, we did our best to support Windows XP users using Pale Moon. I use Vivaldi as a Chrome alternative. It's not in ToS, but there is a supported browser list: https://github.com/lichess-org/lila?tab=readme-ov-file#supported-browsers
>
> If you read https://lichess.org/terms-of-service , it already mentions what you are talking about:
>
> > Using our website
> >
> > We invite anyone to access our website, although it is solely at our discretion which parts of the website - if any - are accessible to you. From time to time, all users may be affected by any maintenance we may need to carry out, or rarely, technological disruption. We are not liable for any losses or harm to you, real or otherwise, for the website being unavailable at any time. We are also not responsible if some parts or all of the website does not work with your hardware or software...
> >
> > You must not misuse the site by introducing harmful materials, programmes, or code designed to negatively affect the operation of any computer software or hardware.
Not that really matter, but what you point out it's another thing I think.
Disclaimer for liability in ToS you mention, doesn't explain to the user what is the browser allow list in GitHub.
I think would be more clear to have such browser list also in ToS (maybe telling also that extensions and plugin may abuse the platform).
And obviously telling that official apps are fine too.
At least this was anyone can clearly know how to follow the rules, and when they risk to enter a dangerous water.
Otherwise end user have to be tech savvy in first place and do a sort of detective like job to put all the pieces altogether and start questioning what seemingly good board's producers does.
IMHO that's not what a contract terms should be (it's should be clear and straightforward).
@Ender88 said in #67:
> At least this was anyone can clearly know how to follow the rules, and when they risk to enter a dangerous water.
> Otherwise end user have to be tech savvy in first place and do a sort of detective like job to put all the pieces altogether and start questioning what seemingly good board's producers does.
> IMHO that's not what a contract terms should be (it's should be clear and straightforward).
IMO among the Lichess team, none have argued as much in favor of "rules need to be simple and make sense" than I have. As a chess expert not particularly sympathetic to moderators' hard work, I've been quite the PITA...
You are asking for things which are fundamentally at odds with each other:
1. Clear, straightforward ToS (what Lichess has, in my opinion)
2. Guidelines for how to purchase or obtain hardware/software which doesn't secretly break ToS
About this "detective" nonsense... here's what Lichess previously shared. IMO any manufacturer/developer with a brain understands the Lichess ToS or at least the API, and as a charity we're not in the business of policing scammers (who at great difficulty circumvent Lichess APIs to obtain an unfair advantage while also cheating consumers with whatever flowery language makes their scam sound innocent or blames the consumer):
https://lichess.org/api#tag/Bot
https://lichess.org/api#tag/board
https://lichess.org/@/lichess/blog/welcome-lichess-boards/XlRW5REA#faq
@Toadofsky said in #68:
> 1. Clear, straightforward ToS (what Lichess has, in my opinion)
> 2. Guidelines for how to purchase or obtain hardware/software which doesn't secretly break ToS
Wait what I lost you.
I simply said that ToS doesn't provide the list in GitHub you showed about browsers, that's make difficult to understand what are ways to interact with the platform that are 100% fine.
Specifying platform that are 100% fine will also clearly imply that any other platforms not mentioned may be not fine (so the user will know that it's an "use at your own risk").
Any ToS that requires the end user (maybe not a tech savvy one) to find a related GitHub project and read a project documentation file here it's not straightforward IMHO..
@Toadofsky said in #68:
> About this "detective" nonsense... here's what Lichess previously shared. IMO any manufacturer/developer with a brain understands the Lichess ToS or at least the API, and as a charity we're not in the business of policing scammers (who at great difficulty circumvent Lichess APIs to obtain an unfair advantage while also cheating consumers with whatever flowery language makes their scam sound innocent or blames the consumer):
> https://lichess.org/api#tag/Bot
> https://lichess.org/api#tag/board
> https://lichess.org/@/lichess/blog/welcome-lichess-boards/XlRW5REA#faq
Sorry again I don't understand anything of this rant.
My argument is short, clear and simple.
Consider putting the browser list (you provide from GitHub) in ToS (maybe explaining that browser's extensions also are at risk, while official app are fine too).
Regular user will not read ToS and GitHub documentation file to try understand that (aka making detective job).
That said happy Christmas and as for everyone celebrating drink responsibly.
@Ender88 said in #69:
> Wait what I lost you.
> I simply said that ToS doesn't provide the list in GitHub you showed about browsers, that's make difficult to understand what are ways to interact with the platform that are 100% fine.
> Specifying platform that are 100% fine will also clearly imply that any other platforms not mentioned may be not fine (so the user will know that it's an "use at your own risk").
>
> Any ToS that requires the end user (maybe not a tech savvy one) to find a related GitHub project and read a project documentation file here it's not straightforward IMHO..
>
> Sorry again I don't understand anything of this rant.
> My argument is short, clear and simple.
> Consider putting the browser list (you provide from GitHub) in ToS (maybe explaining that extension also are at risk, while official app are fine too).
> Regular user will not read ToS and GitHub documentation file to try understand that (aka making detective job).
>
> That said happy Christmas and as for everyone celebrating drink responsibly.
I assume there are legal risks in Lichess pigeonholing itself by requiring specific browsers to be used, but not enforcing that requirement. Also, users on legacy operating systems using unsupported browsers (because there is no other option) would be considered cheaters. Further, privacy-minded users using Waterfox or Icefox or Vivaldi or similar (or playing on a mobile device which doesn't have a supported browser installed) would be violating ToS.
Finally, if as you suggest regular users aren't reading the ToS, scammers will take advantage of them regardless of what it says. Lichess has been clear in all of its communications, and scammers have been unclear, telling customers whatever they want to hear.
In various jurisdictions, governments and/or consumer advocates already do "detective" work, for example:
https://vimeo.com/1075446654 Vi Hart - How much is "about 2" really?
Lichess is a charity, not a government.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.