How Much Accuracy Means Cheating

@odoaker2015 said in #40:
> Well, humans can make mistakes, right? Since Lichess moderators are probably humans too, they make mistakes. Right? Especially since there are too few moderators for too many appeals.

Are you to suggest that this fictional "independent body" that you profess doesn't consist of humans?

@odoaker2015 said in #40:
> Well, humans can make mistakes, right? Since Lichess moderators are probably humans too, they make mistakes. Right? Especially since there are too few moderators for too many appeals.

Without going into details, catching cheaters isn't some moderator staring at cpl values. It doesn't work like that. Many people including OP think it does, which is fine, but it doesn't.

If someone gets banned for cheating, it really is near certainty. False positives are extremely rare. And moving the entire process to "an independent 3rd party" isn't likely to prevent them.

The only reason you could possibly have to move them to a 3rd party is if you have reason to believe that Lichess has other interests than catching cheaters. They don't. You don't do this sort of thing as a 'second opinion check'.

@Katzenschinken said in #41:
> Are you to suggest that this fictional "independent body" that you profess doesn't consist of humans?

Of course, they can also make mistakes. But according to your logic, there shouldn't be any courts either. After all, courts also consist of people who make mistakes. So your objection is wrong.

@Katzenschinken

Isn't it better that several bodies look at one thing than just one body? In this way, errors are minimized in any case.

@Molurus said in #42:
> Without going into details, catching cheaters isn't some moderator staring at cpl values. It doesn't work like that. Many people including OP think it does, which is fine, but it doesn't.
>
> If someone gets banned for cheating, it really is near certainty. False positives are extremely rare. And moving the entire process to "an independent 3rd party" isn't likely to prevent them.
>
> The only reason you could possibly have to move them to a 3rd party is if you have reason to believe that Lichess has other interests than catching cheaters. They don't. You don't do this sort of thing as a 'second opinion check'.

I never said the moderators don't do a good job here. But people do make mistakes, no matter how small the number of mistakes may be.
And how do you know how low the false positives are? I do not know it.

It's not about bodies stopping people from cheating, it's about people who are wrongly accused can go there. How many times do I have to say that?

@odoaker2015 said in #43:
> Of course, they can also make mistakes. But according to your logic, there shouldn't be any courts either.

BS. According to my logic we already have a body that reviews appeals: The Lichess mods.

@odoaker2015 said in #40:
> Especially since there are too few moderators for too many appeals.

You seem to have info that I don't. Please share it with us. So how many mods does Lichess have and how many appeals per day do they have to review on average?

@odoaker2015 said in #44:
> Isn't it better that several bodies look at one thing than just one body? In this way, errors are minimized in any case.

How many bodies do you think are adequate? Two? Three? Five?

And of what people should they consist? You refused to answer this question from #38 because according to you "you don't have to". I think this is a puzzling (and frankly ridiculous) take, especially when you are suggesting that the Lichess mods don't meet your requirements of being independent enough.

@Molurus said in #37:
> You would be moving the final judgement from one private organization to another. What would be the point in that? You would still not be seeing any evidence, and it still amounts to the question if you trust a private organization to protect the rights you didn't have in the first place.
>
> But again, if you feel you would rather have that.. go for it. Thing is: it doesn't exist. (That's strange? Why is that? Because no one is interested in it, that's why.)

As far as I know, the voices calling for such a body or bodies are growing louder.

@odoaker2015 said in #45:
> And how do you know how low the false positives are? I do not know it.

Just like the methods used for cheating, you don't need to know. So I'm not going to tell you.

> It's not about bodies stopping people from cheating, it's about people who are wrongly accused can go there. How many times do I have to say that?

You have mechanisms like this in criminal courts, not to make the execution of law more reliable, but to protect the fundamental rights of people.

And that's where you are wrong. On a chess server you have no rights to begin with.

There is absolutely no reason to think that chess cheat detection isn't reliable, nor is there any reason to believe that a 3rd party would solve the problem that doesn't exist.

I think it's relevant to understand that false positives are orders of magnitude more rare at low levels of chess play. The "Magnus Withdrawing Due to Anal Beads Drama" has very little to do with Lichess cheat detection.

@Katzenschinken said in #46:
> BS. According to my logic we already have a body that reviews appeals: The Lichess mods.
>
>
>
> You seem to have info that I don't. Please share it with us. So how many mods does Lichess have and how many appeals per day do they have to review on average?
>
>
>
> How many bodies do you think are adequate? Two? Three? Five?
>
> And of what people should they consist? You refused to answer this question from #38 because according to you "you don't have to". I think this is a puzzling (and frankly ridiculous) take, especially when you are suggesting that the Lichess mods don't meet your requirements of being independent enough.

Don't you think there are many appeals every day? Of course I can't tell you the exact number. But let's say 200 a day. Not much for a site with 10,000+ players per day. Does Lichess have 200 moderators? One can probably doubt that. It is therefore only logical to assume that the moderators cannot keep up.

And of course there are already Lichess moderators as a body. But moderators make mistakes and the whole thing is so opaque. That's why I'm in favor of other instances (bodies).. And as many as is necessary to cope with the number of cases. I'm not just talking about Lichess here, but also about the other chess sites.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to it. What's so bad about chess sites being vetted and people being able to go to independent bodies if they feel they've been treated unfairly?