Thank you lichess for letting us know. Titled players are often treated like gods (in a way) in the chess community and this does in fact lead to situations like the ones mentioned in the post unless action is taken. It's great that we are no longer paired with an organization that can't deal with sexual assault cases properly.
Except sometimes they get it wrong. Vigilantes tend to seek "acceptable" targets." There's a reason it's illegal to do that. Also don't make martyrs out of them.
With that said...well, things happen.
@Tenakel said in #112:
> If Ramirez and Gareyev feel guilty, then the two must have had many sleepless nights for a long time. They have to fear that the fathers, brothers, friends, husbands of their numerous victims will turn up at their door one evening to settle matters in their own way.
With that said...well, things happen.
@Tenakel said in #112:
> If Ramirez and Gareyev feel guilty, then the two must have had many sleepless nights for a long time. They have to fear that the fathers, brothers, friends, husbands of their numerous victims will turn up at their door one evening to settle matters in their own way.
@rotten-toe said in #175:
> "why don't we just let the government take care of it?" is a gross overestimation of how effective the US criminal justice system is at handling this sort of thing.
And you expect the chess organization to handle it better? We're here because that doesn't happen.
What's being discussed are crimes not blunders. This belongs in a court of law. When the chessplayers, like every other human, realize they can go to jail for a very long time for these crimes, especially against minors, a lot of people will learn to behave like they should.
On top of that, if such a crime occurs and in not reported to the police, it's a disservice to the future victims and the reason this bad mess has come to be. Chess rules are not a substitute for the law.
> "why don't we just let the government take care of it?" is a gross overestimation of how effective the US criminal justice system is at handling this sort of thing.
And you expect the chess organization to handle it better? We're here because that doesn't happen.
What's being discussed are crimes not blunders. This belongs in a court of law. When the chessplayers, like every other human, realize they can go to jail for a very long time for these crimes, especially against minors, a lot of people will learn to behave like they should.
On top of that, if such a crime occurs and in not reported to the police, it's a disservice to the future victims and the reason this bad mess has come to be. Chess rules are not a substitute for the law.
@rhobspier said in #172:
> So any proof or we just banning people on accusations?
I like how you downvoted a titled player for speaking up. It's one thing to jump on a bandwagon and assume guilt and it's another to come out and say that you literally saw inappropriate behaviors.
But you immediately reacted and downvoted them. Nice.
> So any proof or we just banning people on accusations?
I like how you downvoted a titled player for speaking up. It's one thing to jump on a bandwagon and assume guilt and it's another to come out and say that you literally saw inappropriate behaviors.
But you immediately reacted and downvoted them. Nice.
<Comment deleted by user>
Good decision from Lichess and the detailed info is much appreciated.
great job publishing this, these things cannot be allowed to happen
It's precisely because relevant authorities haven't batten an eye lid on anything that this is coming out in the open, like it should have happened as early as possible. Life long trauma is not fun for these people, and to have to suffer in the hands of their co-players is pathetic, but public scrutiny becomes too political and now everyone wants big corps to handle it.
They never took responsibility in the first place, at least Lichess has stood up to repeated claims of harassment. Have to take the mantel, no point waiting for someone else. Let the courts handle it is applicable when there's been fair addressal of the situation. Even St.Louis club almost feigned ignorance till recently, so it's complete lack of accountability that needs to be exposed.
And if anyone made the issue political, it's the US chess themselves by not acting.
They never took responsibility in the first place, at least Lichess has stood up to repeated claims of harassment. Have to take the mantel, no point waiting for someone else. Let the courts handle it is applicable when there's been fair addressal of the situation. Even St.Louis club almost feigned ignorance till recently, so it's complete lack of accountability that needs to be exposed.
And if anyone made the issue political, it's the US chess themselves by not acting.
@ChaeDoc said in #61:
> Oh boy. Can you imagine an organisation making that defence?
>
> "It's not our jobs to make sure the children we have at our chess camps are safe from the sexual predators we employ. That's the police's job".
>
> That would be very funny.
"It's not our job to publically shame someone and open ourselves up to litigation without concrete proof."
While they should have removed him from that position, it does not change the fact that for an action they undertake they will immediately open themselves up to being sued to oblivion.
I love your hyperfocusing on one aspect to appeal to the sentiments shared by everyone (i.e. that children must be protected) , and completely missing the point.
> Oh boy. Can you imagine an organisation making that defence?
>
> "It's not our jobs to make sure the children we have at our chess camps are safe from the sexual predators we employ. That's the police's job".
>
> That would be very funny.
"It's not our job to publically shame someone and open ourselves up to litigation without concrete proof."
While they should have removed him from that position, it does not change the fact that for an action they undertake they will immediately open themselves up to being sued to oblivion.
I love your hyperfocusing on one aspect to appeal to the sentiments shared by everyone (i.e. that children must be protected) , and completely missing the point.
@rotten-toe said in #175:
> "why don't we just let the government take care of it?" is a gross overestimation of how effective the US criminal justice system is at handling this sort of thing.
The efficiency or inefficiency is irrelevant. If it is the job of the US Legal System then we have to let it take its course
We do not condone people who murder alleged murderers. Why? Because innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
> "why don't we just let the government take care of it?" is a gross overestimation of how effective the US criminal justice system is at handling this sort of thing.
The efficiency or inefficiency is irrelevant. If it is the job of the US Legal System then we have to let it take its course
We do not condone people who murder alleged murderers. Why? Because innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.