You'll only ever play a cheater in casual games. If you think you're playing a cheater, just resign and make a new game, or just hover over the seek before accepting to check. No need for an option here, just taking an extra second before playing to check.
Don't let normal users to be paired with cheaters when searching for an opponent (even in unrated games)
why aren't cheaters simply banned from playing completely? i'm just curious about the reasons.
#11 Are you kidding me?
I don't want to waste any single second checking if I'm going to play with a honest person or not. I want this process to be authomatic for me, without needing me to care about it everytime. That's why technology exists, hello.
And plus, I have a bad memory and I don't want to find out that I have been wasting my time playing against a computer when I'm already in the middle of the game, just because I forgot to check it.
Are you maybe against to add a little option in the Settings tab for avoiding the cheaters? And if so, why? Unless that affects you in some way, you have no reasons to be afraid about Lichess evolution.
I don't want to waste any single second checking if I'm going to play with a honest person or not. I want this process to be authomatic for me, without needing me to care about it everytime. That's why technology exists, hello.
And plus, I have a bad memory and I don't want to find out that I have been wasting my time playing against a computer when I'm already in the middle of the game, just because I forgot to check it.
Are you maybe against to add a little option in the Settings tab for avoiding the cheaters? And if so, why? Unless that affects you in some way, you have no reasons to be afraid about Lichess evolution.
#12 because casual games don't matter.
#13 because casual games don't matter. I honestly could not care less if halfway through a casual game I had to resign because the other guy is cheating.
You're asking for an option which will save you .5 seconds of hovering over somebodies name, which is usually done anyway, a solution which would take more than .5 seconds to code.
If this bit "unless that affects you in some way" is an implication that I use an engine, I find that quite funny. I'm not afraid of an "evolution", I've suggested features in the past which have found their way to existence here. I am afraid of "bloat".
#13 because casual games don't matter. I honestly could not care less if halfway through a casual game I had to resign because the other guy is cheating.
You're asking for an option which will save you .5 seconds of hovering over somebodies name, which is usually done anyway, a solution which would take more than .5 seconds to code.
If this bit "unless that affects you in some way" is an implication that I use an engine, I find that quite funny. I'm not afraid of an "evolution", I've suggested features in the past which have found their way to existence here. I am afraid of "bloat".
#14 To me casual games matter. There are multiple reasons why people choose to play casual games, and my personal reason is just for experimenting, to allow myself to make mistakes and to learn from them, and I don't enjoy playing hopeless games against an opponent that won't help me to improve my game.
And it's true that it would take more than 0.5 seconds to code, but I don't think this is a correct comparison, since that option won't be only used by me once, but by thousands players every day and multiple times each player.
Multiply these 0.5 saved seconds per game by the total amount of times that this option will be used and the total time saved to Lichess players becomes gigantic.
And it's true that it would take more than 0.5 seconds to code, but I don't think this is a correct comparison, since that option won't be only used by me once, but by thousands players every day and multiple times each player.
Multiply these 0.5 saved seconds per game by the total amount of times that this option will be used and the total time saved to Lichess players becomes gigantic.
Maybe it's just because I use the graph to find opponents, but then when you click their icon, you automatically see their info. Maybe just add that to the list instead.
@14, while i agree that the "do you object for some reason" comment seems a little rude with perhaps a tinge of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" in it; i can see why people would want this feature.
You may not care about casual games, or about .5 seconds before picking a game; but it is easy to imagine why someone would care.
if it takes more than .5 seconds to write the code, you have to weight that against .5 seconds *times* every person who cares; in every game they play in which they care.
Pretty much every instance of computer programming is about taking way too much time to automate a pretty simple process which has to be done many times.
This seems like a fair and good suggestion which would tighten up this already really fantastic platform.
Unless there is some evidence that there would be an enormous decline in the number of games played AND a worse user experience (especially for the fair players); i can't see why anyone would protest this idea.
You may not care about casual games, or about .5 seconds before picking a game; but it is easy to imagine why someone would care.
if it takes more than .5 seconds to write the code, you have to weight that against .5 seconds *times* every person who cares; in every game they play in which they care.
Pretty much every instance of computer programming is about taking way too much time to automate a pretty simple process which has to be done many times.
This seems like a fair and good suggestion which would tighten up this already really fantastic platform.
Unless there is some evidence that there would be an enormous decline in the number of games played AND a worse user experience (especially for the fair players); i can't see why anyone would protest this idea.
Agree 100% with #17's assessment.
1) It's a .5 second task that has to be done by every user on the site that doesn't want to play cheaters 100% of the time they make a casual game. If even only 100 users care enough to check for cheaters in casual, and each of them only played 10 games a day, that's 500 seconds a day that users have wasted doing a process that could easily be automated.
2) Here's your implementation which I already suggested in another thread months ago: you can already filter out anonymous users in casual games. Make the cheater flag treat the user as anonymous when filtering games. Solved.
1) It's a .5 second task that has to be done by every user on the site that doesn't want to play cheaters 100% of the time they make a casual game. If even only 100 users care enough to check for cheaters in casual, and each of them only played 10 games a day, that's 500 seconds a day that users have wasted doing a process that could easily be automated.
2) Here's your implementation which I already suggested in another thread months ago: you can already filter out anonymous users in casual games. Make the cheater flag treat the user as anonymous when filtering games. Solved.
A problem might be that anyone can log in as anonymous and cheat in unrated(casual) games without being sanctioned so there might be a problem having a rule forbidding it.
Exactly #19, which is why it would seem if you want to filter out engines, you filter out anonymous. So why not just set up the seek to filter cheaters as if they are anonymous and then you shouldn't have any cheaters in your casual games, yes? I think that is the easiest solution to this problem that comes up every few weeks. I think in the amount of time each of the mods has taken to type "it's not worth the time to develop this, just check their names and don't start a game with someone flagged as a cheater" it could have been fixed already. I think they just don't understand why it matters for casual games.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.