getting a warning for nothing

@game_spectator -- So, what is really the solution to this, in your opinion? No games, no guessing, just put it forth please.

Btw, I was also annoyed/confused at the beginning by these warnings. I asked in the forum and got an explanation why they were introduced + the details of their implementation (e.g. that just the warnings are new, but the temporary ban already existed; that an occasional warning will not affect anyone, but consistent stalling will eventually get banned etc.) So, I came to accept them as is because I got the LOGIC behind them.

Re. the need to publicly debate every change prior to implementation -- I respectfully disagree. Especially when it's not presented as a "nice-to-have" (e.g. via a feature request voting system), but rather as a "must-have-or-else".

Imho, admins/moderators/developers are more than entitled to make the decisions they consider proper. After all they are the "insiders" of the system + have a lot more information about how a behavior or change affects the Lichess community as a whole. And if they make occasional mistakes (they are human, after all :)), they have shown on countless occasions their receptiveness to criticism and pertinent suggestions, especially when backed up by a large user base.

So, my advice: make your pertinent suggestion here in the forum, see if others approve of it, and let the admins/moderators act upon that. Fair enough?

I just got this really great idea. It will change the world, and online chess forever. But, since you all are so smart I am not gonna share it with you.

LOL. This sounds like the "this margin is too small to contain the proof" for Fermat's Last Theorem. :)

I don't see any problem with the warning in the chat, some players take it too personally so it could be written some other way.

"USERNAME, the system has recorded this game as failed to start/aborted/idle until timeout/... . Repeated similar behaviour is automatically signalled and may result in temporary Account restrictions according to lichess.org policy".

@MessyAnswer

> I don't agree that putting warnings in a game chat is a change that should be broadly discussed with many members. It does not change any functionality whatsoever; it just notifies the users of something that was already happening.

Note, that I said nothing about functionality change, but said about interface change.

> As for your solution, the way you're talking suggests to me that you really don't have a suggestion at all about how to handle the case.

LOL

@ProgramFOX

> In the background, we would automatically temporarily ban repeat offenders. But many people were not aware of this. By having the warnings, we saved a lot of time in answering these forum posts and reports.

OK. Many people were not aware. You chose to announce much more broadly by using warnings.

The *obvious* question: have you noticed (by "wrong warning" forum posts) that the announcement is too much broad and not specific enough?

These warnings are not based on reports. They are handled by an automatic system based on time usage patterns.

@lovlas I corrected my wording in lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/getting-a-warning-for-nothing?page=3#26.

What do you propose would be a more accurate wording?

@lovlas I edited my #26 and it seems to have correct wording now (and at the moment of writing #28).