@Morlockk said in #10:
> ibb.co/xfTgtXL
Blocking players does not stop you from being paired. Get some skill before you insult others.
> ibb.co/xfTgtXL
Blocking players does not stop you from being paired. Get some skill before you insult others.
In the lobby it does, but yeah that's uncalled for anyway
blocking players can't be questioned anyway if you just don't wanna play with someone
blocking players can't be questioned anyway if you just don't wanna play with someone
You obsess so much over such petty stuff as a way to cope with the fact that you suck at variants and are just what I call spam/flag player (player with WHOOPING 700-1200 more rating points than their skill level because they play super fast psychopathic time formats and they get all of their rating by unsound time scramble wins or flagging, and they never go above 30 secs in the open challenges) and most of what you say about others is false accusation, unproven (or the stuff that is proven is literally not logically sound or prohibited, such as for instance that people who switch from 3+2 to 3+0 can be considered sandbaggers, are you kidding me?! That is just one of the many non-sequiturs you've used) .
And on top of that you use your own subjectivity to assert some unwritten rules while admitting to consciously boosting, and while their being irregularities in your own timeline by your own confessions such as when you say you have stopped playing boosters but then afterwards you said you have farmed boosters between 2200-2500 whom you suspect played with bad engines and you say you know when they make mistakes so you use this to boost your rating, instead of just reporting.
If people were to assert their rules, I am sure many of the variants players would agree that 15 seconds + 0 and 30 seconds + 0 players should NOT RECEIVE RATING or there should be a separate hyperbullet and ultrabullet graph for such ratings, because a 3+0 2000 will never be equal to a 15 secs 2000, the 15 secs 2000 could very well be a 1200 who is excellent at flagging and learned the most basic of tricks.
Anyhow, I could write much longer than your post and point out the countless of intellectual flaws and self-pwns of it, but I do not want to waste my precious time (even though it would take me less than a class time (45 mins)) on such delusions and pettiness, instead this overview is enough to summarize the general erroneous nature of it.
And on top of that you use your own subjectivity to assert some unwritten rules while admitting to consciously boosting, and while their being irregularities in your own timeline by your own confessions such as when you say you have stopped playing boosters but then afterwards you said you have farmed boosters between 2200-2500 whom you suspect played with bad engines and you say you know when they make mistakes so you use this to boost your rating, instead of just reporting.
If people were to assert their rules, I am sure many of the variants players would agree that 15 seconds + 0 and 30 seconds + 0 players should NOT RECEIVE RATING or there should be a separate hyperbullet and ultrabullet graph for such ratings, because a 3+0 2000 will never be equal to a 15 secs 2000, the 15 secs 2000 could very well be a 1200 who is excellent at flagging and learned the most basic of tricks.
Anyhow, I could write much longer than your post and point out the countless of intellectual flaws and self-pwns of it, but I do not want to waste my precious time (even though it would take me less than a class time (45 mins)) on such delusions and pettiness, instead this overview is enough to summarize the general erroneous nature of it.
I want to state this (#14) is not my account nor something similar.
first thought it was meant like it was written.
got me there for a minute.
first thought it was meant like it was written.
got me there for a minute.
I understand how this concerns you, but what would be the point if you were in this table?
@CognitiveMarvel42096 said in #14:
> You obsess so much over such petty stuff as a way to cope with the fact that you suck at variants and are just what I call spam/flag player (player with WHOOPING 700-1200 more rating points than their skill level because they play super fast psychopathic time formats and they get all of their rating by unsound time scramble wins or flagging, and they never go above 30 secs in the open challenges) and most of what you say about others is false accusation, unproven (or the stuff that is proven is literally not logically sound or prohibited, such as for instance that people who switch from 3+2 to 3+0 can be considered sandbaggers, are you kidding me?! That is just one of the many non-sequiturs you've used) .
> And on top of that you use your own subjectivity to assert some unwritten rules while admitting to consciously boosting, and while their being irregularities in your own timeline by your own confessions such as when you say you have stopped playing boosters but then afterwards you said you have farmed boosters between 2200-2500 whom you suspect played with bad engines and you say you know when they make mistakes so you use this to boost your rating, instead of just reporting.
> If people were to assert their rules, I am sure many of the variants players would agree that 15 seconds + 0 and 30 seconds + 0 players should NOT RECEIVE RATING or there should be a separate hyperbullet and ultrabullet graph for such ratings, because a 3+0 2000 will never be equal to a 15 secs 2000, the 15 secs 2000 could very well be a 1200 who is excellent at flagging and learned the most basic of tricks.
> Anyhow, I could write much longer than your post and point out the countless of intellectual flaws and self-pwns of it, but I do not want to waste my precious time (even though it would take me less than a class time (45 mins)) on such delusions and pettiness, instead this overview is enough to summarize the general erroneous nature of it.
I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened.
> You obsess so much over such petty stuff as a way to cope with the fact that you suck at variants and are just what I call spam/flag player (player with WHOOPING 700-1200 more rating points than their skill level because they play super fast psychopathic time formats and they get all of their rating by unsound time scramble wins or flagging, and they never go above 30 secs in the open challenges) and most of what you say about others is false accusation, unproven (or the stuff that is proven is literally not logically sound or prohibited, such as for instance that people who switch from 3+2 to 3+0 can be considered sandbaggers, are you kidding me?! That is just one of the many non-sequiturs you've used) .
> And on top of that you use your own subjectivity to assert some unwritten rules while admitting to consciously boosting, and while their being irregularities in your own timeline by your own confessions such as when you say you have stopped playing boosters but then afterwards you said you have farmed boosters between 2200-2500 whom you suspect played with bad engines and you say you know when they make mistakes so you use this to boost your rating, instead of just reporting.
> If people were to assert their rules, I am sure many of the variants players would agree that 15 seconds + 0 and 30 seconds + 0 players should NOT RECEIVE RATING or there should be a separate hyperbullet and ultrabullet graph for such ratings, because a 3+0 2000 will never be equal to a 15 secs 2000, the 15 secs 2000 could very well be a 1200 who is excellent at flagging and learned the most basic of tricks.
> Anyhow, I could write much longer than your post and point out the countless of intellectual flaws and self-pwns of it, but I do not want to waste my precious time (even though it would take me less than a class time (45 mins)) on such delusions and pettiness, instead this overview is enough to summarize the general erroneous nature of it.
I ain't reading all that. I'm happy for u tho. Or sorry that happened.
Guys.
He doesn't deny that he boosted. He knows how he did that, and never did it again. He wants a new chance as he admits the wrongdoings, and that's his good right.
He probably deserved some kind of sanction back then, but does he deserve it *permanently*? It was for three-check, and he played lots of three-check games since. If his boosted rating were unrightful, it should have lowered again, but as he stabilized this rating with plenty more games, it's definitely rightful by now.
It doesn't matter that he only plays hyper for variants, as long as rated hyper variants exists - a good share of the leaderboard is hyperfarmers!
and last, is it really fair that boosting in *one* category or variant gets you banned not only from *one* leaderboard but from *ALL*?
Apparently the problem is that Fritzi thought the rankban would eventually lift itself automatically, as the information message implicitely suggested - if you're not very familiar with Lichess' moderation and appeal policy, it's easy to interpret this way ...
@Fritzi_2003 did you file an actual appeal in the meantime? You don't need 1000 characters - just a brief statement that you know what was wrong, that your ratings can be considered rightful and that it won't happen again the way you want to play variants.
He doesn't deny that he boosted. He knows how he did that, and never did it again. He wants a new chance as he admits the wrongdoings, and that's his good right.
He probably deserved some kind of sanction back then, but does he deserve it *permanently*? It was for three-check, and he played lots of three-check games since. If his boosted rating were unrightful, it should have lowered again, but as he stabilized this rating with plenty more games, it's definitely rightful by now.
It doesn't matter that he only plays hyper for variants, as long as rated hyper variants exists - a good share of the leaderboard is hyperfarmers!
and last, is it really fair that boosting in *one* category or variant gets you banned not only from *one* leaderboard but from *ALL*?
Apparently the problem is that Fritzi thought the rankban would eventually lift itself automatically, as the information message implicitely suggested - if you're not very familiar with Lichess' moderation and appeal policy, it's easy to interpret this way ...
@Fritzi_2003 did you file an actual appeal in the meantime? You don't need 1000 characters - just a brief statement that you know what was wrong, that your ratings can be considered rightful and that it won't happen again the way you want to play variants.
@Cedur216 said in #21:
> Guys.
>
> He doesn't deny that he boosted. He knows how he did that, and never did it again. He wants a new chance as he admits the wrongdoings, and that's his good right.
>
> He probably deserved some kind of sanction back then, but does he deserve it *permanently*? It was for three-check, and he played lots of three-check games since. If his boosted rating were unrightful, it should have lowered again, but as he stabilized this rating with plenty more games, it's definitely rightful by now.
>
> It doesn't matter that he only plays hyper for variants, as long as rated hyper variants exists - a good share of the leaderboard is hyperfarmers!
>
> and last, is it really fair that boosting in *one* category or variant gets you banned not only from *one* leaderboard but from *ALL*?
>
> Apparently the problem is that Fritzi thought the rankban would eventually lift itself automatically, as the information message implicitely suggested - if you're not very familiar with Lichess' moderation and appeal policy, it's easy to interpret this way ...
>
> @Fritzi_2003 did you file an actual appeal in the meantime? You don't need 1000 characters - just a brief statement that you know what was wrong, that your ratings can be considered rightful and that it won't happen again the way you want to play variants.
Wrong.
To me, boosting is either farming 1500? players or playing accounts that lose on purpose against you (your own/friends (2.) accounts) or even when you paid for that.
Neither of this happened. I mainly got challenged personally by these accounts, sometimes I accepted challenge of them in the lobby.
I don't want or need a "new chance" myself. To me, standing in the leaderboard isn't worth anything. Why should it, it's temporary. I just didn't see a reason for me not standing there looking at what kind of accounts are on the leaderboard. The main idea for the appeal wasn't that I can have these trophies on my profile, like I wrote on the blog post.
Yes. Even #14 is clearly sarcasm, I don't want to be good at variants. I started playing variants to get rid of playing theory lines up and down. The problem is that variants got exactly like that (or even more than standard chess, as I wrote in the blog).
No, I believe you should get banned for every category when (after lichess) you did wrong in one. As I believe, it wasn't 3Check alone that I got rank banned for, just like the extreme example. Even I don't think I ever did something wrong there myself, if lichess thinks so, they can ban me like they want (but also have to take the consequences).
I knew back then that you can apply for getting banned for cheating, but not for rank bans. Maybe I'm wrong and this was also possible back in 2021, but I first discovered it in late 2022. Yes, I kind of thought that back in 2021 for the first 3 months, but why should this be a problem?
In my opinion, this blog was a good chance to address some problems with ratings and leaderboards, sadly it turned the other way. But it also not my task to change them ...
> Guys.
>
> He doesn't deny that he boosted. He knows how he did that, and never did it again. He wants a new chance as he admits the wrongdoings, and that's his good right.
>
> He probably deserved some kind of sanction back then, but does he deserve it *permanently*? It was for three-check, and he played lots of three-check games since. If his boosted rating were unrightful, it should have lowered again, but as he stabilized this rating with plenty more games, it's definitely rightful by now.
>
> It doesn't matter that he only plays hyper for variants, as long as rated hyper variants exists - a good share of the leaderboard is hyperfarmers!
>
> and last, is it really fair that boosting in *one* category or variant gets you banned not only from *one* leaderboard but from *ALL*?
>
> Apparently the problem is that Fritzi thought the rankban would eventually lift itself automatically, as the information message implicitely suggested - if you're not very familiar with Lichess' moderation and appeal policy, it's easy to interpret this way ...
>
> @Fritzi_2003 did you file an actual appeal in the meantime? You don't need 1000 characters - just a brief statement that you know what was wrong, that your ratings can be considered rightful and that it won't happen again the way you want to play variants.
Wrong.
To me, boosting is either farming 1500? players or playing accounts that lose on purpose against you (your own/friends (2.) accounts) or even when you paid for that.
Neither of this happened. I mainly got challenged personally by these accounts, sometimes I accepted challenge of them in the lobby.
I don't want or need a "new chance" myself. To me, standing in the leaderboard isn't worth anything. Why should it, it's temporary. I just didn't see a reason for me not standing there looking at what kind of accounts are on the leaderboard. The main idea for the appeal wasn't that I can have these trophies on my profile, like I wrote on the blog post.
Yes. Even #14 is clearly sarcasm, I don't want to be good at variants. I started playing variants to get rid of playing theory lines up and down. The problem is that variants got exactly like that (or even more than standard chess, as I wrote in the blog).
No, I believe you should get banned for every category when (after lichess) you did wrong in one. As I believe, it wasn't 3Check alone that I got rank banned for, just like the extreme example. Even I don't think I ever did something wrong there myself, if lichess thinks so, they can ban me like they want (but also have to take the consequences).
I knew back then that you can apply for getting banned for cheating, but not for rank bans. Maybe I'm wrong and this was also possible back in 2021, but I first discovered it in late 2022. Yes, I kind of thought that back in 2021 for the first 3 months, but why should this be a problem?
In my opinion, this blog was a good chance to address some problems with ratings and leaderboards, sadly it turned the other way. But it also not my task to change them ...
> this blog was a good chance to address some problems with ratings and leaderboards
if that was the point, and if you care 0% about being in the leaderboard, and if you're never gonna do a real appeal anyway (barring the fact that it could be ignored due to 6 months statute of limitation) then I think it should have been named quite differently than "my rank ban appeal".
Like, first approach is to ban rated hyper, I wanted this all the time
if that was the point, and if you care 0% about being in the leaderboard, and if you're never gonna do a real appeal anyway (barring the fact that it could be ignored due to 6 months statute of limitation) then I think it should have been named quite differently than "my rank ban appeal".
Like, first approach is to ban rated hyper, I wanted this all the time