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

@Toadofsky said in #79:

There are no 100% safe to use browsers, because users and/or viruses can hack users' browsers. For example https://github.com/jameslinimk/chess-com-cheater

I explicitly mentioned browser with no extension nor plugin involved in games (#67).

@Toadofsky said in #79:

Obviously fault lies with the manufacturer/seller if a user purchases a computer or a board which is designed to break the site's terms of service.

Obviously I never thought otherwise, I just said that IMHO a list in ToS will better help users to understand risks.
Better than talking about API, that is an exotic topic for an user.

@Toadofsky said in #79:

I already quoted Lichess ToS explaining the situation, and I explained that Lichess is a charity, not a regulatory government agency selling equipment or engaged in commerce. Lichess ToS further explain:

Absolutely understandable, why you believe I am asking something too complex or expensive to achieve?
I just told that in my opinion, that I keep unchanged, few more line with a list of standard way of playing will help users (the table I mentioned).

@Toadofsky said in #79:

Cheating - We prohibit the use of any external assistance used whilst a game you are involved in is ongoing... [using] certain software or extensions at our discretion.

That sounds to me as a block list, when ToS cite some infringing examples.
In my opinion an allow list is better (as I suggested) because in the block list no eBoard is mentioned and there always be an exception you didn't considered.
Allow list otherwise may not mention some legitimate way of planning, but what it's inside is 100% fine.

@Ender88 said in #80:

The 'allow list' you've given doesn't do anything to accurately inform users about which eboards, apps, and browser extensions can/can't be used without violating TOS.

Not true, if in ToS you find "it's ok to use products A and B, use everything else at you own risks" that very clearly inform you that any products not in the list (A and B in the example) can cause you issue.
So because in my list there wasn't any eBoard user will be very clearly informed about risks associated with those tools

Your list does nothing to address the issue:- what users should be told to help them determine whether or not they can use their eboard without violating TOS.

It's worse than pointless. It's harmful. Chessnut Evo instructs the user to start a game in Firefox (without any plugins/extensions) or in the official Lichess app, then it plays the game in violation of TOS. Users think that's OK because they're using the official app/website, despite Chessnut themselves being honest about what is/isn't compliant.

@DickieSteele said in #82:

The 'allow list' you've given doesn't do anything to accurately inform users about which eboards, apps, and browser extensions can/can't be used without violating TOS.

Not true, if in ToS you find "it's ok to use products A and B, use everything else at you own risks" that very clearly inform you that any products not in the list (A and B in the example) can cause you issue.
So because in my list there wasn't any eBoard user will be very clearly informed about risks associated with those tools

Your list does nothing to address the issue:- what users should be told to help them determine whether or not they can use their eboard without violating TOS.

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

@Ender88 said in #75:

Ps: about the link you provide https://lichess.org/page/eboards
That's actually a very informative link, I wonder why is not in ToS.

In-between discussing your and others' trolling, we do discuss such ideas... but we keep getting distracted by the trolling.

@Ender88 said in #81:

I explicitly mentioned browser with no extension nor plugin involved in games (#67).

I explicitly mentioned that browser extensions aren't the only thing which make a browser unsafe to use, but also viruses can infect the computer, network, and/or browser.

@Ender88 said in #81:

Obviously I never thought otherwise, I just said that IMHO a list in ToS will better help users to understand risks.
Better than talking about API, that is an exotic topic for an user.

https://lichess.org/terms-of-service clearly identifies risks. Adding more text would distract users from seeing the risks:

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.

@Ender88 said in #81:

Absolutely understandable, why you believe I am asking something too complex or expensive to achieve?

I've been in constant argument with Lichess about ToS being confusing and/or complex. In particular, we've debated ad nauseum the Fair Play Violations section. Rather than having simple, easy to moderate rules, this section has exploded in size and covers made-up things like "ragesitting". Any attempt by me to revise this section further will result in further disaster; but also, I fully disagree with your position for reasons I keep repeatedly mentioning:

• Lichess isn't a government agency regulating which software/hardware meets certain standards; it is a charity
• Having rules about required browsers but then failing to fully enforce the rules may have legal consequences
• The page you linked to notes another potential problem: just because we note which software/hardware we think follow the rules doesn't mean that we are correct; nor does it mean that the software/hardware will continue following the rules. There have already been cases where we helped sellers use our APIs, only for them to stab us in the back (in my opinion) by at great expense finding ways to circumvent the APIs. As a charity, economies of scale are not in our favor

@Ender88 said in #81:

That sounds to me as a block list, when ToS cite some infringing examples.
In my opinion an allow list is better (as I suggested) because in the block list no eBoard is mentioned and there always be an exception you didn't considered.
Allow list otherwise may not mention some legitimate way of planning, but what it's inside is 100% fine.

For goodness' sake, if you have such strong opinions, please run your own website and show us a better way to do things.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

Ps: about the link you provide https://lichess.org/page/eboards
That's actually a very informative link, I wonder why is not in ToS.

In-between discussing your and others' trolling, we do discuss such ideas... but we keep getting distracted by the trolling.

A bit insulting saying I am trolling only because I expressing my opinionand disagreeing with you, isn't it?
Also I was acknowledging the information you provided was useful..

@Toadofsky said in #84:

@Ender88 said in #81:

I explicitly mentioned browser with no extension nor plugin involved in games (#67).

I explicitly mentioned that browser extensions aren't the only thing which make a browser unsafe to use, but also viruses can infect the computer, network, and/or browser.

A virus infecting a network is the new to me, viruses infect devices/node in a network, not network itself.
Also viruses are self replicating software you probably mean malware or trojans btw.
First I see it as very very unlikely the probability that a thread actor will target Lichess, not directly but just to make his user base banned.

Also an end user is responsible of his device, so if he is banned due to an hack, it's unfortunate but IMHO it's up to him to stay safe.
(Otherwise who assured us he wasn't hacked on purpose or by sharing passwords?)

So assuming that we have to stick we reality, we have to agree that an user that use a compliant browser/app will be fine using the platform (meaning that he wasn't using a software that may abuse the platform not that anything he can do with such browser is implicitly ok).
Or are you telling me there's no safe way in using this platform?
(safe in the prospective that the user will be sure not to be considered abusing the platform only by the fact to have used a specific software to access it)

@Toadofsky said in #84:

https://lichess.org/terms-of-service clearly identifies risks. Adding more text would distract users from seeing the risks:

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.

I really don't understand.
Saying Lichess is not responsible for any data loss or damage sustained by the user is a way for Lichess to limit his liability.
Saying that user is infringing ToS because used a not compliant software is making the user liable.

Those are very different topics IMHO.
Surely what you cite imply that Lichess may affect/damage any users in any way (eg deleting account) without liability.
But what was written in this topic was that the user was banned because he breach ToS, and that potentially make user liable for damaging Lichess.
That part is not a consequence of what you have cited.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

@Ender88 said in #81:

Absolutely understandable, why you believe I am asking something too complex or expensive to achieve?

I've been in constant argument with Lichess about ToS being confusing and/or complex. In particular, we've debated ad nauseum the Fair Play Violations section. Rather than having simple, easy to moderate rules, this section has exploded in size and covers made-up things like "ragesitting". Any attempt by me to revise this section further will result in further disaster; but also, I fully disagree with your position for reasons I keep repeatedly mentioning:

Understood that you disagree but you didn't answer my question?
Where is the added complexity in listing suggested software that will be considered compliant (not a complete list)?
With complaint I mean users aren't considered breaching ToS solely for using such software.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

• Lichess isn't a government agency regulating which software/hardware meets certain standards; it is a charity

You keep saying so, but really I don't understand, citing a partial list of software surely compliant is not a prohibitive task IMHO.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

• Having rules about required browsers but then failing to fully enforce the rules may have legal consequences

Maybe, but it's not what I have suggested.
I have suggested to add a list of software surely compliant, without claiming to be exhaustive.
Just to let user know which are the 100% safe way to use the platform without the risk of breaching ToS.
I think (not a lawyer btw) in no way this may lead to legal issues, at least in my country.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

• The page you linked to notes another potential problem: just because we note which software/hardware we think follow the rules doesn't mean that we are correct; nor does it mean that the software/hardware will continue following the rules. There have already been cases where we helped sellers use our APIs, only for them to stab us in the back (in my opinion) by at great expense finding ways to circumvent the APIs. As a charity, economies of scale are not in our favor

Sure understand 100% for that I suggest to err on the safe side an cite as safe only official app and major browser (without extension not plugin nor automation of any kind).
Users are still free to use any not listed eBoard knowing that it MAY breach the ToS.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

For goodness' sake, if you have such strong opinions, please run your own website and show us a better way to do things.

Hahah
Calm down dude, you seem find really difficult to accept that I have different opinion than yours.
I am not asking anything to you nor to Lichess.
You asking me the why of my opinion and I am telling you.
You keep asking I keep answering simple as that, and we can keep disagreeing ab nauseam.

@Ender88 said in #85:

A bit insulting saying I am trolling only because I expressing my opinion and disagreeing with you, isn't it?
Also I was acknowledging the information you provided was useful..

Much of your shared opinion throughout this forum topic has been anything but constructive. I actually agree with your points, but that doesn't change anything for all the reasons I keep mentioning.

@Ender88 said in #85:

A virus infecting a network is the new to me, viruses infect devices/node in a network, not network itself.
Also viruses are self replicating software you probably mean malware or trojans btw.
First I see it as very very unlikely the probability that a thread actor will target Lichess, not directly but just to make his user base banned.

Also an end user is responsible of his device, so if he is banned due to an hack, it's unfortunate but IMHO it's up to him to stay safe.
(Otherwise who assured us he wasn't hacked on purpose or by sharing passwords?)

So assuming that we have to stick we reality, we have to agree that an user that use a compliant browser/app will be fine using the platform (meaning that he wasn't using a software that may abuse the platform not that anything he can do with such browser is implicitly ok).
Or are you telling me there's no safe way in using this platform?
(safe in the prospective that the user will be sure not to be considered abusing the platform only by the fact to have used a specific software to access it)

In this aspect I am saying what https://lichess.org/terms-of-service already states, plus:

1. Security is not simple. ToS are concise. Adding a recommended software/hardware list to ToS, or linking to it from ToS, would distract from the many warnings present in ToS by making ToS less concise.
2. Did Lichess intentionally publicly share that /eboard URL you shared? Who is going to keep that list up to date? This isn't "simple" either; for example, recommendations may depend upon OS (Windows, Apple, other) or hardware or region (EU, China, North Korea, etc.). A previous attempt to maintain such a public list outside of GitHub failed, and I don't know whether the list on GitHub is kept up to date either (from a ToS compliance perspective rather than a "try this and if you have issues read the ToS and be a reasonable person" perspective).

@Ender88 said in #85:

I really don't understand.
Saying Lichess is not responsible for any data loss or damage sustained by the user is a way for Lichess to limit his liability.
Saying that user is infringing ToS because used a not compliant software is making the user liable.

Those are very different topics IMHO.
Surely what you cite imply that Lichess may affect/damage any users in any way (eg deleting account) without liability.
But what was written in this topic was that the user was banned because he breach ToS, and that potentially make user liable for damaging Lichess.
That part is not a consequence of what you have cited.

Lichess ToS do not separate "risks to Lichess" and "risks to users who break ToS" but simply identify what risks are in English. I understand that this differs from Chess.com ToS which favor "user-friendly" language over clarity. Another way to say that is: Lichess ToS may seem rude in many ways, but they are clear.

@Ender88 said in #85:

Understood that you disagree but you didn't answer my question?
Where is the added complexity in listing suggested software that will be considered compliant (not a complete list)?
With complaint I mean users aren't considered breaching ToS solely for using such software...

You keep saying so, but really I don't understand, citing a partial list of software surely compliant is not a prohibitive task IMHO...
@Toadofsky said in #84:

• Having rules about required browsers but then failing to fully enforce the rules may have legal consequences

Maybe, but it's not what I have suggested.
I have suggested to add a list of software surely compliant, without claiming to be exhaustive.
Just to let user know which are the 100% safe way to use the platform without the risk of breaching ToS.
I think (not a lawyer btw) in no way this may lead to legal issues, at least in my country.

See above points 1 and 2. My responses get shorter since fundamentally we disagree on almost everything.

@Ender88 said in #85:

Sure understand 100% for that I suggest to err on the safe side an cite as safe only official app and major browser (without extension not plugin nor automation of any kind).
Users are still free to use any not listed eBoard knowing that it MAY breach the ToS.

@Toadofsky said in #84:

For goodness' sake, if you have such strong opinions, please run your own website and show us a better way to do things.

Hahah
Calm down dude, you seem find really difficult to accept that I have different opinion than yours.
I am not asking anything to you nor to Lichess.
You asking me the why of my opinion and I am telling you.
You keep asking I keep answering simple as that, and we can keep disagreeing ab nauseam.

Until now I haven't asked you for anything, but I continue trying to explain why things are the way they are for the sake of others in this public forum. There are many reasons why unfortunately we can't have nice things.

@Toadofsky said in #86:

Much of your shared opinion throughout this forum topic has been anything but constructive.

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).

@Toadofsky said in #86:

In this aspect I am saying what https://lichess.org/terms-of-service already states, plus:

@Toadofsky said in #86:

Lichess ToS do not separate "risks to Lichess" and "risks to users who break ToS" but simply identify what risks are in English.

IMHO this is the core on which we disagree upon.
As not a lawyer (so I could be wrong) I believe that ToS need to be clear in explanation to be enforceable.
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.
And IMHO if the ToS was not clear about it they may be voidable (I keep repeating.. just my opinion not a layer).

@Toadofsky said in #84:

For goodness' sake, if you have such strong opinions, please run your own website
@Toadofsky said in #86:
Until now I haven't asked you for anything

Yes you did, you asked "please run your own website".. in a quite rude manner.. just because I disagree with you..

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.

@Toadofsky said in #86:
Much of your shared opinion throughout this forum topic has been anything but constructive.

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).

@Toadofsky said in #86:

In this aspect I am saying what https://lichess.org/terms-of-service already states, plus:

@Toadofsky said in #86:

Lichess ToS do not separate "risks to Lichess" and "risks to users who break ToS" but simply identify what risks are in English.

IMHO this is the core on which disagree upon.
As not a lawyer (so I could be wrong) I believe that ToS need to be clear in explanation to be enforceable.
I think that not explaining clearly which are the way to interact with the platform in a safe way is therefore an issue, because end user may claim ignorance about the tools he use to interact the platform.
And IMHO if the ToS was not clear about it they may be voidable (I keep repeating.. just my opinion not a layer).

@Toadofsky said in #84:

For goodness' sake, if you have such strong opinions, please run your own website

@Toadofsky said in #86:

Until now I haven't asked you for anything

Yes you did, you asked "please run your own website".. in a quite rude manner.. just because I disagree with you.
Forgive my sarcasm, but is that what you mean with being constructive?
:) sorry for the joke just a way to dissipate tension.

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.

@Ender88 said in #87:

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

When people choose to purchase or build software and/or hardware, they can negotiate over anything. For example, when buying a cell phone some people choose GrapheneOS so they can control every aspect of the phone; when buying computers, some people purchase with Windows, OS X, or Linux installed; when buying cars, some pay monthly licenses to be able to operate their cars:
https://consumerrights.wiki/w/BMW's_heated_seat_subscription

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.

@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.

@Ender88 said in #83:

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.