@Pletwonurkov said in #181:
> who cares? leave politics out of chess you cancel culture scum
In what way is sexual misconduct "politics"?
I certainly hope you're not politically active.
"Lichess: our own reporting"
In the very same blog post (in which case you can write "above") or reported earlier elsewhere? (in which case provide the link) Please clarify
@Deadban said in #129:
> A: Someone has kissed me against my will.
>
> B: Show me scientific proof of that!
So, science doesn't know anything about how we make our choices to have sex, so what.
#Lichess on Extended Mission#
#Beyond Charity#
Voicing opinion and support could have been sufficient. Taking unilateral actions against a community based on accusations or even proof against single person is not in good spirit of overall Chess Community.
Political waters are turbulent.
I remember Ukraine stance of Lichess, ignoring recent wars fought for the treaty organisation. By logical anology, all Americans should be banned.
No articles about that. Why?
It's important to keep site running with expenses covered.
Such statements are seeds of future divide in chess community or Lichess.
Women in chess are very important and I appreciate supporting them, but acting as a voice, just as Lichess did for Stockfish licence violation.
Acting against another chess community is war and has costs.
Is there any court sentence or its only allegations? It's very easy to cancel and destroy somebody just on allegations.
Shocking.
@DrogaDo1600 said in #189:
> Is there any court sentence or its only allegations? It's very easy to cancel and destroy somebody just on allegations.
The title is only about a federation - i dont like them so its good not to cooperate with bad corporations or federations. Never support bad corporations and tell other about them.
Speaking entirely personally, I think there's some misconception over what this blog post is.
Those who are raising topics about the burden of proof and evidential standards are not seeing the wood for the trees. The article sets out why Lichess no longer wishes to provide the support and visibility to the USCF and STLCC which it has historically done so. This is because Lichess has lost faith in the USCF and STLCC to provide a fully safe and accessible space for girls and women in chess.
Lichess has the charitable mission of "to promote and encourage the play and study of chess and its variants". In good faith, how can Lichess believe that the USCF and STLCC also further these objectives when there are well documented and seemingly deep set organisational issues in both the USCF and STLCC, towards girls and women in chess? The article sets out that the issue goes beyond just Ramirez, including at least one other well-known titled player, again with the same pattern of failing to take responsibility, accountability, and failing to take genuine steps to make chess a safer and more welcoming place for women and girls in chess.
To those claiming this is a political issue - where are the politics? Pointing out what appear to be repeated organisational failures are not politics. Trying to make our sport and hobby a more inclusive and welcoming place for half the populace is not politics.
To those who believe action should only be taken following judicial action, this simply isn't the case for organisations or businesses. They are generally free to take actions and implement policies they believe are in their best interests, without needing a judicial or legislative process. If that were the case otherwise, industry and private business would only be able to take action once it was cleared by judges or legislators. That clearly isn't the case.
To those who want more evidence - what more evidence is there? The inaction and ostrich-like behaviour from STLCC and USCF is clear to see. Witness or victim statements are themselves evidence. Whether one believes those witnesses or victims is a completely different question; but there's no smoke without fire and the pattern is clear.
At best these are confused criticisms, at worst they are simply smokescreens to excuse or turn a blind eye to an issue which is clearly an epidemic within the US Chess scene lately, and likely within chess globally as a whole.
I think the allegations are very serious and it seems that some women risked a lot to come forward but
1) presumption of innocence is a human right, even for the worst accused or "obvious guilty" like severe war criminals and all deserve to hear their charges, prepare a defence and let a fair court rule; until that point anybody has a right of full protection by the state and law which means that "this is not just for legal procedures" but for how a society works and everybody should uphold it, even if personal opinion differs, this does not legitimatize self justice or condemning or ostrazing in a public court. There are excemptions but it is an incredible thin line to tread between what is known, what is evidence and in so far we can ban someone from events or jobs given what is known. For example, if it strongly indicates an accused might be danger to some then "preventive measures or intervention" should be taken etc but it would or might be wrong to "sanction" the accused much further than in relation to the evidence come forth eg. public speaking, work, travelling etc... else there will be more and more cases where random lives have been destroyed due to anonymous accusations or only those by individuals eg. a tv host or journalist ousted.
2) May I ask why nobody went to the police?
3) What should come out of it if nobody goes to the police?
4) Disclaimer: I have only read this article and have not read the concrete evidence or allegations and by whom, though the accusations are severe and it seems they range over a span of years but I don't want to share thoughts about a case I know very little about.
I hope 1) came across and the very thin red line one treads in treating such allegations in a) not trying to shush them, acting on them but b) not responding blindly or overreaching to them, else it harms future accusations.
@thefrickouttaherelol said in #180:
> 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.
You mean the title player who said the alleged victim and the father of the alleged victim both decided to not take action against him? That title player?
