"he uses computer assistance,"
"Ok, he may be suspicious,"
No, see? This is what they call a "self-contradiction".
You are contradicting yourself.
First you say, "he uses computer assistance." You admit this. Then you say, wait a little before taking decisions. There is no "waiting" when you know the facts.
thibault specifically integrated marking people who use engines to win points in rated games. Is that what you want to happen to you? Do you want to lose points because cheaters are using engines
against you, or does dougthehead not concern himself what happens to everybody else as long as he is safe playing bullet games?
I am not only following obligations to act upon cheaters as I was hired for; I am doing what's lawful because I believe it's lawful, too, as well as most people on this site who believe, not just
thibault.
And if you consider this "being noisy", keep in mind that I didn't create this thread; nor did I blurt out in the public site chat box that I just caught another cheater like legend might (which he is
justified). I merely replied to the question about a player possibly being a cheater in the same medium as the thread creator's device of communication. The thread only happens to be in public so
that you could see the decision as well, as well as the general public so that they know not to engage the cheater.
If you still think of that as "being noisy", then your opinions register even less.
Maybe the misunderstanding comes from my level in english... I never said that he was actually using computer assistance, you (the moderators) decided it even against someone who was playing well,
maybe too much, but without solid proofs...
And about being noisy, yeah, tell someone he cheats, being rude with him....I don't think that this should be public... if someone complains about another person, just settle it between moderators,or
with private messages...If someone is adjusted, we can know it easily with the new mark, so no need to do a thread of 4 pages for each cheater
Last thing, you don't have any idea of how much I don't care about points here.... The only purpose of elo is to be allowed to play with better players; on this website, there aren't enough players so
elo become meaningless
Strictly, Papa is right: read in context, his phrase 'he uses computer assistance' was not a statement of fact.
I also feel he has a point about individual witch-hunts: by all means have a facility whereby aggrieved parties can alert the moderators to players they think may be cheating - but keep it private
until you feel you need to regrade someone: it's going too far as it is.
If you think it's without solid proofs, then why don't you explain more examples of what you think would be proof, besides obviously a confession from the cheater?
This system has always been this way, and these criteria were always those used to determine cheaters. And cheaters were indeed found and reset. So for a long-time system like this, you've waited an
awfully long time to wait until only now to start complaining about it.
It is as good as it's going to get, and it works just fine. If you have suggestions on more measurements of how to "solidly prove" cheaters (as if such a thing is possible over the internet), bring
it up with Thibault, not those fulfilling his specifications.
No, it's not only not "being noisy", it's also not "being mean". Excuse me, do you see anything about rude behavior in this thread?
This is not going too far. I don't decide whether the stuff is announced. If somebody starts a thread in the public forum I answer it there. If somebody sends a private message I answer it there.
Ultimately it doesn't matter to me either way because, as addressed, the profile already indicates if marked as cheating.
"no need to do a thread of 4 pages for each cheater"
This is your argument, not mine. The thread is continuing because you're challenging the decision.
And yes. As you well know, points have no significance.
That actually INCREASES the ease of resetting users, because points don't matter. Users are reset because they're abusing honest players over points, and they lose the points.
So why do you think this Joanet had the reaction she did?
She noticed her rating dropped down and hated it. She did NOT play like a 1600-rated player.
You are just seriously being stubborn if you continue to obsess over solid proof after her reaction to being reset. The fact that ELO points are meaningless, which yes, I'm very well aware that
you're aware of, only eases the reset purpose, not decreases.
JOANET. You say you have 1600 of ELO in Spain? And you lose games here with people who have only 1300 or 1200 ELO
Lichess.org/? Sorry but, without any offense to the players I'm talking, you in these
moments have a very, very bad day. Je, je, je, je.
You're active here for what...two months, and things haven't much changed since that moment concerning witch hunt...you're here and mb have quit, but that's it. I'm here for a year, I've seen the
website evolve, and that is not the first time I'm complaining....
By solid proofs, I mean full transparency. If you cannot provide it, do what you want, adjust who you want but keep it private
Ans concerning JOANET, actually, I don't care if he/she was really chating or not... I'm just speaking in a more global context
More like, seven months, but I don't really care. If you weren't able to persuade any of the staff at the time you were newer, then the point is all the less relevant.
Okay, so you've brought this up before then.
I know it's not easy to persuade leaders to change their ways, and you're still trying to do it. That is fine by me.
And I'm still not convinced you understand. You cannot have SOLID proof of anything over the Internet, that is not pertinent to machine data. I don't know what you mean by "full transparency"
unfortunately; I'm not the best with understanding things of a language myself.
Maybe I will keep it private. That is, after all, what I've always done every single time up until this thread, since this is the first cheater thread in public in a small while.
But just what do you expect me to do? Delete this entire thread the moment it got created, then answer the person in private? THAT is rudeness, not allowing public discussion for the general public
(including you, in case you didn't know) to debate over a cheater or to recognize that the person is a cheater. If you seriously disagree that it was justified, why are you attacking that the thread
is in public? You would never have even known or been able to challenge the decision.