@Deadban said in #112:
> RE: "guilty until proven innocent" and "this isn't a law court".
>
> Can you people explain to me how and why would USC ban Gareyev for one year and lifetime ban Ramirez under "Violations of US Chess Safe Play Guidelines" reason if nothing is true and nothing can be proven?
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think lichess should have the power to ban people for cheating?
If not, you basically say that online chess should be a cesspool where the amount of cheaters would be through the roof, the top of the rating distribution would be inaccessible to anyone who is not cheating and nobody would be likely to have any fun at all.
If you do think they should be able to, how do you think they make those decisions? Do you think they have video evidence of cheaters consulting Stockfish on their phones during games? Or do you think maybe they use circumstantial evidence like statistical likelihood, browser behaviour etc.? Might they, (shock, horror) even rely on member reports to choose players to examine more closely for possible cheating?
Now, is there a conceivable situation where lichess makes a wrong call and bans someone wrongfully? I’m sure that’s possible. But does it enable the site to run in the first place by attracting players, including those at the top of the game, to play there? Yes it does. And do people get a chance to appeal the ban decisions and offer evidence in their defence? Yes indeed. And finally, is being banned from lichess a dreadful punishment comparable to being sent to prison? Not quite. Does that make it okay to make judgements when there is a high degree of confidence but not complete certainty (which, by the way, does not exist in court either, you should read up on it, might affect your unwavering confidence in the court system a bit)? I would say so, especially considering the enormous benefit for the whole community.
Okay, if you were able to follow along this far, I’ll trust you to think of the possible implications this little analogy might have for the case at hand. (Although based on all you’ve contributed to the discussion so far I am not sure if that trust might not be slightly optimistic)