@Sarg0n That doesn’t make any sense.
@biscuitfiend There is a way that I think might be able to fix this. If someone gets chatbanned, it says to them: you were chatbanned for <mod selects reason or puts a quick 5-10 second explanation down>. So that person can share the info if they want to or keep it to themselves. This info will greatly help them in their appeal (if they are innocent) and they can get the matter sorted out easily. Once they are un-chatbanned, people will no longer be curious for too long (it will die down) if the person chooses to hide the reason. Or, they can choose to reveal it if they want. Either way works.
Granted, appeals still exist now, but look at @tpr in this case - unwilling to appeal because he is chatbanned because he knows he didn't do anything wrong. He, I'm sure, would have been told later, but naturally, if tpr was told earlier, he would have told that he was going to appeal because he was banned for some reason that doesn't make sense to him and he will appeal. If he was automatically told earlier, this would work.
On the other hand, what happened here was a lot more confusion and chaos.
Also one more thing: if someone very well-known in the lichess community (eg. tpr or like well-known helpful players or titled players) for their help is banned, the reason they were banned should be given out. Just like how when famous people irl go to prison, the reason why they went to prison is easy to find.
I mean either this or what else? A bunch of people not knowing who to trust?
Granted, appeals still exist now, but look at @tpr in this case - unwilling to appeal because he is chatbanned because he knows he didn't do anything wrong. He, I'm sure, would have been told later, but naturally, if tpr was told earlier, he would have told that he was going to appeal because he was banned for some reason that doesn't make sense to him and he will appeal. If he was automatically told earlier, this would work.
On the other hand, what happened here was a lot more confusion and chaos.
Also one more thing: if someone very well-known in the lichess community (eg. tpr or like well-known helpful players or titled players) for their help is banned, the reason they were banned should be given out. Just like how when famous people irl go to prison, the reason why they went to prison is easy to find.
I mean either this or what else? A bunch of people not knowing who to trust?
@A_0123456.
"Also one more thing: if someone very well-known in the lichess community (eg. tpr or like well-known helpful players or titled players) for their help is banned, the reason they were banned should be given out. Just like how when famous people irl go to prison, the reason why they went to prison is easy to find."
I don't think we should play-favorites.
Every innocent person should be treated equally.
Let's not be biased.
A reason for everyone should be given. Or no one.
My thoughts.
"Also one more thing: if someone very well-known in the lichess community (eg. tpr or like well-known helpful players or titled players) for their help is banned, the reason they were banned should be given out. Just like how when famous people irl go to prison, the reason why they went to prison is easy to find."
I don't think we should play-favorites.
Every innocent person should be treated equally.
Let's not be biased.
A reason for everyone should be given. Or no one.
My thoughts.
@shadow1414 Well this is the problem. Giving a reason for everyone is public shaming but giving a reason for nobody at all would be a problem too.
I think the solution then is just to give the reason and the player decides what to do with it.
I think the solution then is just to give the reason and the player decides what to do with it.
Maybe one can deduct something useful from the emojis distributed by tpr himself?
@Sarg0n Tpr also gives a good analysis of games posted in the forum and he just shares his experience which he has gained and he has also helped many players to improve their chess.
@somethingpretentious I know it will be public shaming but in this case @tpr is also interested to say something or tell the reason( if there is a reason). When he is only interested to share it then it is not public shaming but he can't . He is also disliking your posts which means that he is not agreeing with your posts. But if @tpr is banned for sharing is experience and his knowledge then it is unfair. We are asking this questions because we are in thought that lichess moderation system is trust worthy or not?
@somethingpretentious I know it will be public shaming but in this case @tpr is also interested to say something or tell the reason( if there is a reason). When he is only interested to share it then it is not public shaming but he can't . He is also disliking your posts which means that he is not agreeing with your posts. But if @tpr is banned for sharing is experience and his knowledge then it is unfair. We are asking this questions because we are in thought that lichess moderation system is trust worthy or not?
Tpr can post the statement for which he was banned and we can see some bits of it from his profile
Will he ?
Will he ?
@tpr Do you know the reason why you are chatbanned? If you know then you react with a horsey and if you don't know then react with a thinking.
lichess is not a gov but does behave like (a bad) one.
do we need moderation in the first place ? nope.
i guess nothing is perfect.
do we need moderation in the first place ? nope.
i guess nothing is perfect.
An unmoderated big community on the internet? You must be new on this planet! @PaWnBaRiaN
As a mod I can state: there’s rather too little moderation here.
As a mod I can state: there’s rather too little moderation here.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.