<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
I hope that these women get the justice they deserve, this is not okay in any circumstances, what happened already happened, we can’t change that, but what we can change is the rules, and take action immediately to prevent more women from being abused like this.
@Sarg0n said in #741:
> To the „innocent until proven guilty“ community resp. no evidence:
>
> Let those innocent guys continue coaching girls?
Hey, I‘d like to have an answer: Is it ok for u that they teach your daughters?
> To the „innocent until proven guilty“ community resp. no evidence:
>
> Let those innocent guys continue coaching girls?
Hey, I‘d like to have an answer: Is it ok for u that they teach your daughters?
lichess should not be so political...
we need further FACTS brought forward onto the court, not OPINIONS or EMOTIONS to make decision...
anyway it depends on the website runners to make the final decision, they sucks
we need further FACTS brought forward onto the court, not OPINIONS or EMOTIONS to make decision...
anyway it depends on the website runners to make the final decision, they sucks
I am against lichess.org and chess.com decision. I think it is bad for chess overall but i understand their reasoning.
The billionaire spent millions of his own money to further chess and support competitive chess especially in the US.
Nevermind. Life goes on.
The billionaire spent millions of his own money to further chess and support competitive chess especially in the US.
Nevermind. Life goes on.
@King_Kill_33 said in #746:
> At this point, it is all alleged; what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Organizations don't have to wait for court verdicts.
If for example an employee steals company property he can be fired at once without a court case even having been started.
The elevated court standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't apply in everyday life. In everyday life judgement calls made on the balance of probabilities are very common.
> At this point, it is all alleged; what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Organizations don't have to wait for court verdicts.
If for example an employee steals company property he can be fired at once without a court case even having been started.
The elevated court standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't apply in everyday life. In everyday life judgement calls made on the balance of probabilities are very common.
Skill issue
@Pashut, thanks again for a wonderful comment in #725
@Pashut said in #725:
> 100% true. Which is why I think Lichess' reaction is premature (imature?).
I don't know about that, mixed feelings honestly. Perhaps it was somewhat premature or an over-reaction. Perhaps a warning first to stop collaboration would have been more appropriate. I understand the rationale and sentiment behind this though. There are pros and cons, hence the mixed feelings.
> In sexual allegation matters there are things that don't usually occur in other cases. For example: the issue of consent (affirming / withdrawing), the usually private settings in which sexual stuff happens, which in turn leads to a lack of (or a diminished number of) witnesses, cultural differences, personal bias, sexism (both genders), tribalism ("us" vs "them") etc. It's a hard question to answer.
Very true. There is also a feedback loop at work. People refusing to believe victims because of this bias creates more mistrust and an environment where victims don't feel safe or supported to come out, let alone legally. This can in turn create another level of mistrust in people when victims take alternate courses of action to seek support or justice.
> Correct, I would go straight to police. I would tell them my story, provide what little evidence I can gather (if any). I would ask them to do their job and investigate. I would file for a restraining order while the investigation is ongoing. And yes, if the evidence found doesn't support my case, I'd be sad. Maybe devastated. I would feel perhaps this adds insult to injury. And then I'll try to move on. Because life isn't always fair and just, and the world is not perfect. It might sound cynical or fake, but I truly believe it.
> What I would most certainly *not* do is try to replace the police with public opinion. Why? Because when doing this, several things happen (in random order, and list is not exhaustive):
> (a) chances of obtaining justice and preventing future misconduct diminish
> (b) evidence (particularly from witness testimony) is potentially tainted
> (c) the victim is subjected to *more* (not less!) scrutiny, shame, criticism, acusations, labeling etc.
> (d) the message sent is weakened ("yeah, it was bad, but not bad enough for me to go to police")
> (e) it detracts and diverts attention from the accusation itself
> (f) the victim is portrayed as a zealot for vigilante justice rather than a law-abiding moral individual
> (g) it encourages doubt about the whole case, rather than help eliminate it
That's very reasonable. I agree with all of your points. That's what I'd do and advocate myself too. Except if it did happen to me or someone else that I love, there is a good chance I'd not be able to let it go if going to the authorities didn't help eventually. I'm not advocating or justifying this though, what you say is the better approach.
I asked you another question though. You've already agreed that there is clear discrimination and disbelief from many people in case of sexual allegations, even within the law. This is unjustified because it is non-supportive, oriented towards shifting some blame to the victim, and irrational because the false allegation rates for sexual assaults do not differ when compared to similar non-sexual allegation rates. Given this scenario, can you understand how some people might choose to not go to the police and handle such trauma differently? Possibly by staying silent, suffering inside, going to the press or social media or reporting internally to lesser authorities.
If you can agree that given the reality, it is not unreasonable (but not ideal too) for some people to not go to the police, then I think we are in harmony regarding this. Also, it's not too much to ask the organizations to provide some sort of preventive countermeasures when they are notified of such allegations. You seem to agree here as well since you have asserted in your earlier posts how you believe the actions of USCF were reasonable. Whether these were in fact reasonable or not is another discussion, however.
> Look, I hear where you're going with this... But these public declarations are *always* politically correct. :) Lawyers write them. Then other lawyers review them. First thing they teach you in the US is to "admit no wrongdoing". Don't accept liability. Ever. Plead the fifth.
> Now. I've said it before: I feel their actions + declaration *are* an acknowledgement of sorts, the maximum we can hope for. Imagine they came out now and said: "yep, we did it, guilty as charged". Do you think all this would be over? Do you think the officials would be congratulated for finally owning up to their mistakes and "repenting"? Not a chance! They would instead be shunned, bashed, sued for damages based on their own admissions and cancelled even more. That is the ugly reality in USA (and elsewhere). Honestly, I woudn't be surprised if all this will be settled in a confidential agreement, somewhere, somehow.
Yes, their actions and declarations are of course some sort of acknowledgment. Not denying that, the post didn't too. Credit goes where it's due. According to the post though, most of these actions only happened when these matters were revealed publicly. Which is concerning. In any case, regarding pleading the fifth and getting backlash for owning up to their mistakes, you are correct. Practically, it's career suicide for those involved. The fifth amendment is necessary, but I wish there was a culture that encouraged people to own up to mistakes. Sadly, it's not always how we want it to be in the real world.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
@Pashut said in #725:
> 100% true. Which is why I think Lichess' reaction is premature (imature?).
I don't know about that, mixed feelings honestly. Perhaps it was somewhat premature or an over-reaction. Perhaps a warning first to stop collaboration would have been more appropriate. I understand the rationale and sentiment behind this though. There are pros and cons, hence the mixed feelings.
> In sexual allegation matters there are things that don't usually occur in other cases. For example: the issue of consent (affirming / withdrawing), the usually private settings in which sexual stuff happens, which in turn leads to a lack of (or a diminished number of) witnesses, cultural differences, personal bias, sexism (both genders), tribalism ("us" vs "them") etc. It's a hard question to answer.
Very true. There is also a feedback loop at work. People refusing to believe victims because of this bias creates more mistrust and an environment where victims don't feel safe or supported to come out, let alone legally. This can in turn create another level of mistrust in people when victims take alternate courses of action to seek support or justice.
> Correct, I would go straight to police. I would tell them my story, provide what little evidence I can gather (if any). I would ask them to do their job and investigate. I would file for a restraining order while the investigation is ongoing. And yes, if the evidence found doesn't support my case, I'd be sad. Maybe devastated. I would feel perhaps this adds insult to injury. And then I'll try to move on. Because life isn't always fair and just, and the world is not perfect. It might sound cynical or fake, but I truly believe it.
> What I would most certainly *not* do is try to replace the police with public opinion. Why? Because when doing this, several things happen (in random order, and list is not exhaustive):
> (a) chances of obtaining justice and preventing future misconduct diminish
> (b) evidence (particularly from witness testimony) is potentially tainted
> (c) the victim is subjected to *more* (not less!) scrutiny, shame, criticism, acusations, labeling etc.
> (d) the message sent is weakened ("yeah, it was bad, but not bad enough for me to go to police")
> (e) it detracts and diverts attention from the accusation itself
> (f) the victim is portrayed as a zealot for vigilante justice rather than a law-abiding moral individual
> (g) it encourages doubt about the whole case, rather than help eliminate it
That's very reasonable. I agree with all of your points. That's what I'd do and advocate myself too. Except if it did happen to me or someone else that I love, there is a good chance I'd not be able to let it go if going to the authorities didn't help eventually. I'm not advocating or justifying this though, what you say is the better approach.
I asked you another question though. You've already agreed that there is clear discrimination and disbelief from many people in case of sexual allegations, even within the law. This is unjustified because it is non-supportive, oriented towards shifting some blame to the victim, and irrational because the false allegation rates for sexual assaults do not differ when compared to similar non-sexual allegation rates. Given this scenario, can you understand how some people might choose to not go to the police and handle such trauma differently? Possibly by staying silent, suffering inside, going to the press or social media or reporting internally to lesser authorities.
If you can agree that given the reality, it is not unreasonable (but not ideal too) for some people to not go to the police, then I think we are in harmony regarding this. Also, it's not too much to ask the organizations to provide some sort of preventive countermeasures when they are notified of such allegations. You seem to agree here as well since you have asserted in your earlier posts how you believe the actions of USCF were reasonable. Whether these were in fact reasonable or not is another discussion, however.
> Look, I hear where you're going with this... But these public declarations are *always* politically correct. :) Lawyers write them. Then other lawyers review them. First thing they teach you in the US is to "admit no wrongdoing". Don't accept liability. Ever. Plead the fifth.
> Now. I've said it before: I feel their actions + declaration *are* an acknowledgement of sorts, the maximum we can hope for. Imagine they came out now and said: "yep, we did it, guilty as charged". Do you think all this would be over? Do you think the officials would be congratulated for finally owning up to their mistakes and "repenting"? Not a chance! They would instead be shunned, bashed, sued for damages based on their own admissions and cancelled even more. That is the ugly reality in USA (and elsewhere). Honestly, I woudn't be surprised if all this will be settled in a confidential agreement, somewhere, somehow.
Yes, their actions and declarations are of course some sort of acknowledgment. Not denying that, the post didn't too. Credit goes where it's due. According to the post though, most of these actions only happened when these matters were revealed publicly. Which is concerning. In any case, regarding pleading the fifth and getting backlash for owning up to their mistakes, you are correct. Practically, it's career suicide for those involved. The fifth amendment is necessary, but I wish there was a culture that encouraged people to own up to mistakes. Sadly, it's not always how we want it to be in the real world.
Thanks for the interesting discussion!
@svensp said in #742:
> There is a difference whether an organization decides not to let an individual against who several allegations of sexual harassment had been made become coach of a women's team or whether a hairdresser refuses to serve a customer for the same reason. A huge, almost grotesque difference.
Exactly my feelings, thanks for so neatly summarizing them. I believe I over-explained and over-complicated the matter when trying to express this simple thing.
> The first instance is about protecting players in your care from potentially severe harm. Yes, you do have a responsibility towards people that you might sanction due to multiple allegations given that your actions can have severe consequences for them and there may be a liability as well. But you also have a responsibility to players and what risks you might expose them to by putting them in prolonged close proximity to people against who multiple allegations had been made. If ethical considerations are the guideline it should have been a straightforward decision.
@svensp said in #748:
> Organizations don't have to wait for court verdicts.
> The elevated court standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't apply in everyday life. In everyday life, judgment calls made on the balance of probabilities are very common.
@Sarg0n said in #748:
> Hey, I‘d like to have an answer: Is it ok for u that they teach your daughters?
^ THIS! These three posts above. Everyone crying about allegations or witch hunts needs to read them and attempt to answer these before making the same old arguments. As @svensp mentions, a judgment call is made on the balance of probabilities. This is perfect. Given the situation, there are downsides to everything. It's just about minimizing that downside. Nothing more complicated than that.
> There is a difference whether an organization decides not to let an individual against who several allegations of sexual harassment had been made become coach of a women's team or whether a hairdresser refuses to serve a customer for the same reason. A huge, almost grotesque difference.
Exactly my feelings, thanks for so neatly summarizing them. I believe I over-explained and over-complicated the matter when trying to express this simple thing.
> The first instance is about protecting players in your care from potentially severe harm. Yes, you do have a responsibility towards people that you might sanction due to multiple allegations given that your actions can have severe consequences for them and there may be a liability as well. But you also have a responsibility to players and what risks you might expose them to by putting them in prolonged close proximity to people against who multiple allegations had been made. If ethical considerations are the guideline it should have been a straightforward decision.
@svensp said in #748:
> Organizations don't have to wait for court verdicts.
> The elevated court standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't apply in everyday life. In everyday life, judgment calls made on the balance of probabilities are very common.
@Sarg0n said in #748:
> Hey, I‘d like to have an answer: Is it ok for u that they teach your daughters?
^ THIS! These three posts above. Everyone crying about allegations or witch hunts needs to read them and attempt to answer these before making the same old arguments. As @svensp mentions, a judgment call is made on the balance of probabilities. This is perfect. Given the situation, there are downsides to everything. It's just about minimizing that downside. Nothing more complicated than that.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.