I was banned for moving back and forth against Stockfish?

While lichess moderators have the right to ban whoever they want, I don't see how the games violate the lichess terms of service.

Lichess specifically allows you to play custom positions versus stockfish at any allowed time control. So I really don't see how this is much different from messaging an active lichess user who plays hundreds of games per day, and telling them to stop playing so many because it "wastes server resources".

I do also think that once a moderator warns you once though, you should stop. But in this case, I don't see any reason for a moderator to give such a warning in the first place.

Completely agree with Trxps.

OK... I feel that maybe putting a limit on the ultrabullet games vs Stockfish 1 per day or something analogous would be a reasonable restriction. Maybe we could use listage.ovh?

However, I don't feel that closing Chesstroll's account is warranted and I believe it should be reopened.

That's just my opinion though, I know that the mods will always do what is right for lichess.*

Thanks for your consideration,
Some dude.

*Except when they won't.

@Trxps the staggering amount of resources wasted is the problem like thibault said. And if a warning is given then ignoring it is not an option, just because you feel that you are right.

@Morozov What i implied was "I do also think that once a moderator warns you once though, you should stop. And if you don't stop, then you will probably get banned".

Ignoring a warning is an option, but prepare for repercussions as a result of it.

Edit: And if the amount of resources wasted actually is an issue, then why not ban any other player who plays that amount of games in a day. Maybe warn german11 because of the amount of games he plays? It would be the exact same thing as warning Chesstroll_Ingot.

@Morozov
I wasn't expecting to see the categorical imperative, I like it

@Trxps Yes ofc you are right Ignoring Thibault or Mods is ofc an option.
I did not mean to come across as if I didnt understand your point, just my second sentance was not part of me adressing you, I should have made that clearer.

But my point still stands. And while Thibault has every right to kick people if he feels like it he never did that once. And its the same here: he discovered a very selfish and blatant violation of ToS and still took time to give fair warning first and an explanation afterwards.

Kant, sure. The maxime.

Discussing warnings is the beginning of the end in the majority of cases. As a mod (not here) I can tell there are valid reasons usually.

There are two sorts of people: those in front of the counter and those behind. Those behind have to care for the whole business in general.

I must say, I believe that ultrabullet players know better than any mods who are below 1900 in ultrabullet how important it is to train. Only truly elite ultrabullet players like Chesstroll and Trxps understand how important playing Stockfish is to their playing. Mods that aren't very fast just can't comprehend the practice that it takes to master a skill.

I actually do agree that cookie clicker is very helpful. But playing Stockfish 1 is the most important training method that an ultrabullet player could wish for.

For now, we'll just play on listage or play vs Stockfish anonymously (until the mods inevitably start ip banning or something).

It's also worth noting that the lichess mods are going to close this thread probably within the next 24 hours because it is "controversial" (meaning that it puts the mods in a negative light).

Thanks for your consideration,
Some dude.

@Morozov " he discovered a very selfish and blatant violation of ToS"

How is it at all a selfish or blatant violation? It would be one thing if he found a way to automate it so that thousands of games are played versus stockfish per day, but that's clearly not the case. This is just the case of someone who is passionate about his speed, and likes to use stockfish as training.

If playing too many games in a day is sufficient reason for a warning, then that should be added to the terms of service. If repeating moves versus a non-human opponent is reason for a warning, then that should also be added to the terms of service.

Not listening to a warning is obviously a bad way to handle it, but it makes no sense for a warning to be given in the first place.

@Trxps The issue is not "making moves against non human players". The CPU use is. As in real life ToS or any set of rules for that matter are as much perscriptive as they are discriptive for human behaviour and interactions. Therefore a precedent can be set and arguing that "but its not specified in ToS" is not a valid defence.

Besides that: thibaults comment #7 is a crystal clear explanation that it is in the ToS.