How to cheat on Lichess [sarcasm off]

@Toadofsky said in #20:
> I am not a lawyer, but on its face these points 1 and 4 seem to contradict each other for any nontrivial service; either some compromise on fairness or some compromise on clarity is necessary, or this law calls for every online service to be shut down in the name of clarity and fairness.
>
> In 10 years of being with Lichess, I haven't seen them act unfairly, and I have repeatedly pressed them to clarify their terms of service, and they have. Without shutting down Lichess, I don't think it is possible to further clarify Lichess' terms of service which already seem abundantly clear and fair.

I never questioned the fairness or good faith of Lichess.
But I remember the havoc of GDPR when it comes in force; "suddenly" there are lot of not trivial obligations, from defining data controllers, to right from users to be forgotten or obtain a copy of their whole data, to the cookies madness (you need to update your cookiebar accordingly with some changes that a third party sensor may have done maybe even without noticing to you).
I have seen many small site struggles still today to comply with GDPR, and if I remember well I have read (in a study) that a good fraction of sites didn't really comply.

So I didn't question about the gargantuan bureaucracy of those kinds of law, neither theirs somewha contradictory nature.
Question is, what is done is enough?
IMHO at this point better option to Lichess is to ask to it's internal legal team.

I will say a simple metaphor, which I hope will be understandable:

When you enter a store, it doesn't say "please do not steal" at the entrance, right ?

However, stealing is a crime that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. but since it is written in the law, it is useless to write it at every store or to warn people not to steal. because the law is sufficiently understandable, and the thieves who act will be arrested.

so if someone talks inside a store, and out loud about a plan to heist, that person will have legal problems. and yet even if it is not written on the front of the store. because it is a preventive measure to prevent a crime.

cheating is also a crime, since it is a theft of points and an act of profit aimed at deceiving an opponent and stealing a ranking or even a trophy

@Ender88 said in #21:
> Question is, what is done is enough?

Eventually, I'd be well within my rights here to start ad hominem questioning (who other than a Chess.com operative would have a genuine interest in asking so many questions?) but anyway, I answer:

The lichess.org/terms-of-service cover potential disputes, too... Lichess is incorporated in France, and as such in order to continue operation it is responsive to its legal responsibilities, like any other incorporated entity responds to its responsibilities:

> Disputes and Jurisdiction
>
> In the event of any dispute, in the first instance you will seek to settle this with us informally via the lichess.org/appeal process. In the event of the appeal process being exhausted, you may further write to us via our contact page.
>
> Alternately, you can contact us in writing at:
>
> Lichess.org
> 350 Chemin du Pré Neuf
> 38350 La Mure
> Grenoble
> France
>
> If we're unable to informally come to a solution, you agree we will go through arbitration at a place of our choosing. In any event, you'll need to give us written notice otherwise we won't be able to help you.
>
> These Terms represent an agreement between you and us. If any provision of these Terms are held to be invalid or unenforceable, you agree that provision will be limited to the minimum enforcement possible, and the remaining terms held with full effect.
>
> As a French registered charitable organisation, our website and services are provided from our registered address in France. We cannot guarantee and make no representation that our website and services are appropriate or available in other countries or jurisdictions. You agree to be bound by French law in following these Terms, and agree to be responsible for following any local laws or regulations with which you must be compliant beyond these Terms.
>
> Modification of these Terms
>
> We may update these Terms from time to time, to address a new feature of the website or services, or to clarify a provision. The updated terms will be posted online. If the change is substantive, we will announce the update through our usual channels. Your continued use of our website or services after the effective date of any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the changes.
>
> ...
>
> Miscellaneous
>
> These Terms constitute the entire agreement between you and us concerning our website and services and supersede any prior versions of these Terms. The website and services and these Terms are governed by the laws of France and the EU where relevant. In the event of a conflict between a translated version of these Terms and the English language version, the English language version shall control. In the event of a conflict between these Terms and relevant additional terms, the additional terms shall control, if the additional terms are unclear these Terms shall control.

@CSKA_Moscou said in #22:
> I will say a simple metaphor, which I hope will be understandable:
>
> When you enter a store, it doesn't say "please do not steal" at the entrance, right ?
>
> However, stealing is a crime that is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. but since it is written in the law, it is useless to write it at every store or to warn people not to steal. because the law is sufficiently understandable, and the thieves who act will be arrested.
>
> so if someone talks inside a store, and out loud about a plan to heist, that person will have legal problems. and yet even if it is not written on the front of the store. because it is a preventive measure to prevent a crime.
>
> cheating is also a crime, since it is a theft of points and an act of profit aimed at deceiving an opponent and stealing a ranking or even a trophy

Absolutely clear, in fact ToS state you have to follow the law.
Quite redundant but is stated.
Cheating here is a lawful business (I don't talk of site rule but proper law, law doesn't consider cheating on a chess site crime), so a private agreement is needed (again ToS) to forbid it; in fact ToS specify you can't cheat.
If other lawful business are forbidden here, people need to know, ToS are like a contract need to be clear.

And again I am 100% convinced by your and others, reasons on why it's common sense, that it should be forbidden and actionable by moderator, banning who plan to cheat. And I know it's a quite blatant/absurd example I made.
I haven't any doubt before, that it was actionable, but now that a new law come to force in EU (the DSA); now I have doubt that actual ToS wording maybe is not enough (regardless of extreme examples).
I have the impression that now moderation is enforceable only it cause of moderation are clearly stated/explained in ToS.

But at this point of the conversation I am also convinced that nor I nor anyone who doesn't do this as profession may have the answer.
What I mean is that now I quite clear that all my doubts reduce to a pure technical question about DSA. So I think that for answering is needed someone who practicing law

@Toadofsky said in #23:
> Eventually, I'd be well within my rights here to start ad hominem questioning (who other than a Chess.com operative would have a genuine interest in asking so many questions?)

Damnit, you was so close, I am not a Chess.com operative (the well known nemesis of this site).
I am a reptilian operative, who just discovered that talking about the wording of current ToS in relation to DSA is the right course of action to achieve the new world order (:

@Toadofsky said in #23:
>but anyway, I answer:
>
> The lichess.org/terms-of-service cover potential disputes, too... Lichess is incorporated in France, and as such in order to continue operation it is responsive to its legal responsibilities, like any other incorporated entity responds to its responsibilities:

I don't get it, arbitration come to force when there is disagreement between parties.
What I am questioning is ToS compliance with a new law.
It's like saying that a site don't need to bother of GDPR or don't needed to define a data protection officer, because have arbitration.
If as I think actual ToS dose not comply with the bare minimum wording/format requested by DSA, it's a lack of compliance, and define arbitration is not useful.
If the EU commission (or national regulator) would dispute the actual compliance, I don't think that will do that through an arbitration.

@Ender88 said in #25:
> What I am questioning is ToS compliance with a new law.

We could argue over definitions all day long. How does the new law describe what you initially asked about (intention to cheat)?

@CyberShredder said in #26:
> lichess.org/page/how-to-cheat

Amazing thanks.
It's really beautiful to see that I am not the first one to use this provocative title to get attention (even if blogger have different objectives and use it for discouraging cheating)

@Toadofsky said in #27:
> We could argue over definitions all day long. How does the new law describe what you initially asked about (intention to cheat)?

I repeat again plain and simple, as state in post #1 title here is a provocation.

Don't focus too much on the details of my first example and follow my reasoning.
You are right, I started from there, and probably this is misleading; but as long as I answered to nadjarostowa (he made a very good point) in #9 I had the clear impression (from there on) that the whole question is reducible to ToS wording in relation DSA.
So from there on i start questioning a bit different (but IMHO better focus question) about ToS wording.

New law seems to me (maybe I am mistaken) to have ToS strictly worden; if my understanding is correct actual ToS are't (formula like "[..]Both registered and anonymous users of our website and services agree to behave with good conduct. You agree that if, at our sole discretion, we determine your account is not behaving with good conduct[...]" IMHO are considered too broad now).

So my doubts are if actual ToS comply with law or need a fix because too broad in terminology.

In #19 I provide examples of other platforms like LinkedIn that addresses this issue with a hugely specific ToS, and point out how IMHO those ToS are different and for that i think theirs are law abiding and this one may be not.
But as stated many times I am not a lawyer, my understanding of complex law, as this one is, may be wrong, because such law are difficult to interpret (especially when new).

Hope to have clarified and summarised how the topic evolved during the discussion and why I feel puzzled about current status of ToS

@Ender88 said in #21:
> Question is, what is done is enough?
> IMHO at this point better option to Lichess is to ask to it's internal legal team.

Thank you for your concern. Both our internal legal team as well as external legal experts were extensively consulted when our ToS were rewritten.