@heckerboy I sincerely doubt neither Grammarly or Chat Gpt can find this.
Does it have something to do with the n-dashes, singular/plural disagreements, the phrase "these particular rules are also against the law", or the phrase "nor with a national federation, and neither with FIDE"?
@clousems
I must admit "nor with a national federation, and neither with FIDE" Good observation. I hadn't noticed this.
"neither" and "nor" should be switched around.
"these particular rules are also against the law"
Okay. You broke me. I promise henceforth not to abide by Lichess rules, as I must follow the law.
But not the one I was referring to.
Edited: Grammer... ;-D
I must admit "nor with a national federation, and neither with FIDE" Good observation. I hadn't noticed this.
"neither" and "nor" should be switched around.
"these particular rules are also against the law"
Okay. You broke me. I promise henceforth not to abide by Lichess rules, as I must follow the law.
But not the one I was referring to.
Edited: Grammer... ;-D
clousems said in #12:
> Does it have something to do with the n-dashes, singular/plural disagreements, the phrase "these particular rules are also against the law", or the phrase "nor with a national federation, and neither with FIDE"?
We reported both of these errors to the lichess legal departement – I am told they will be fixed soon. Thank you!
NaturalBornTraveller said in #13:
> But not the one I was referring to.
Yes, and this is why that one will not be fixed soon.
> Does it have something to do with the n-dashes, singular/plural disagreements, the phrase "these particular rules are also against the law", or the phrase "nor with a national federation, and neither with FIDE"?
We reported both of these errors to the lichess legal departement – I am told they will be fixed soon. Thank you!
NaturalBornTraveller said in #13:
> But not the one I was referring to.
Yes, and this is why that one will not be fixed soon.
anonmod said in #14:
> Yes, and this is why that one will not be fixed soon.
Regarding the error in the ToS, I did report it 6 months ago in the feedback section :-)
ToS, under §Community Guideline Violations:
"Impersonation - This is when a user pretends to be someone who they are not,"
Whom is the object of the impersonation, and who is the subject that impersonates.
So the correct word in this context should be "whom".
An example for who/whom:
Whom did I impersonate?
Who impersonated me?
As I said, it's a small error, but it's also a common error. Which is why I don't think an ai would detect it. Since I speculate this error would also appear many times in the ai's coding. Perhaps not always, but on occasions.
My original report:
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/suggestion-word-needs-change-gained-1-new-followerfriend#1
> Yes, and this is why that one will not be fixed soon.
Regarding the error in the ToS, I did report it 6 months ago in the feedback section :-)
ToS, under §Community Guideline Violations:
"Impersonation - This is when a user pretends to be someone who they are not,"
Whom is the object of the impersonation, and who is the subject that impersonates.
So the correct word in this context should be "whom".
An example for who/whom:
Whom did I impersonate?
Who impersonated me?
As I said, it's a small error, but it's also a common error. Which is why I don't think an ai would detect it. Since I speculate this error would also appear many times in the ai's coding. Perhaps not always, but on occasions.
My original report:
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/suggestion-word-needs-change-gained-1-new-followerfriend#1
So I don't want to imagine what the world will be like in 20+ years. When people completely degrade. Bring back the days when you had to look for everything in books.
Service is almost always a term.
It seldom happens.
It seldom happens.
@NaturalBornTraveller
That does appear on my TOS proofreading document (yes, I have one).
I think the issue is that the Lichess staff doesn't want to make the ToS appear too formal. "Who" is so often used in place of "whom" that they are often used interchangeably (much in the way of "I" vs. "Me"). "Who" just appears less stuffy.
Compare with this sentence:
"If any other person accesses your account, you are solely responsible for all their actions whether or not you authorised, allowed or enabled their access in any way."
My proofread version of it is:
"If any other person(s) accesses your account, you are solely responsible for all of his (or her*) actions, whether or not you authorized, allowed or enabled their access in any way."
*optional
Ignoring the differences in commas (which I have a tendency to overuse anyways) and the American English thing, we still have some grammatical weirdness from the omission of an "of" and the singular/plural disagreement. My version is technically more correct.
However, the meaning doesn't really change between the two-- "of" is, course, dropped quite a lot these days, while the singular/plural pronoun disagreement is not only common in modern written English, it has become a highly controversial issue. Both are legible, but my version is a lot more formal and technical looking than the less "correct", more casual original version.
Also, it is a lot easier for lichess to do nothing knowing that the page is decipherable than it is to mess with ToS, which requires legal to get involved.
That does appear on my TOS proofreading document (yes, I have one).
I think the issue is that the Lichess staff doesn't want to make the ToS appear too formal. "Who" is so often used in place of "whom" that they are often used interchangeably (much in the way of "I" vs. "Me"). "Who" just appears less stuffy.
Compare with this sentence:
"If any other person accesses your account, you are solely responsible for all their actions whether or not you authorised, allowed or enabled their access in any way."
My proofread version of it is:
"If any other person(s) accesses your account, you are solely responsible for all of his (or her*) actions, whether or not you authorized, allowed or enabled their access in any way."
*optional
Ignoring the differences in commas (which I have a tendency to overuse anyways) and the American English thing, we still have some grammatical weirdness from the omission of an "of" and the singular/plural disagreement. My version is technically more correct.
However, the meaning doesn't really change between the two-- "of" is, course, dropped quite a lot these days, while the singular/plural pronoun disagreement is not only common in modern written English, it has become a highly controversial issue. Both are legible, but my version is a lot more formal and technical looking than the less "correct", more casual original version.
Also, it is a lot easier for lichess to do nothing knowing that the page is decipherable than it is to mess with ToS, which requires legal to get involved.
Shows how many people actually bother to read the ToS thoroughly.
@clousems Where as I agree with you regarding singularity/plurality n-dashes.
Excluding them does help keep a legal text more easy to read, and thereby understand.
I however don't think who/whom is in the same category as those.
True they are often used interchangeable, but not because they are the same, but because they are words that looks similar, with similar reference.
But when used wrong, they can cause confusion.
Let's rephrase the text, using me/I.
"This is when 'me' pretends to be someone"
This would imply that the writer of the ToS is talking about himself.
"This is when 'I' pretends to be someone"
This could imply that it is referring to me as the reader.
No one uses "me" unless "me" is either referring to the writer, or it's followed by a question/exclamation mark.
And we don't want a question mark in a legal text.
Excluding them does help keep a legal text more easy to read, and thereby understand.
I however don't think who/whom is in the same category as those.
True they are often used interchangeable, but not because they are the same, but because they are words that looks similar, with similar reference.
But when used wrong, they can cause confusion.
Let's rephrase the text, using me/I.
"This is when 'me' pretends to be someone"
This would imply that the writer of the ToS is talking about himself.
"This is when 'I' pretends to be someone"
This could imply that it is referring to me as the reader.
No one uses "me" unless "me" is either referring to the writer, or it's followed by a question/exclamation mark.
And we don't want a question mark in a legal text.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.