I have talked too many girls in the scene, they all confirmed.
I don’t second any of my male fellows. Shame on you, you Alejandro Gareevs.
I don’t second any of my male fellows. Shame on you, you Alejandro Gareevs.
<Comment deleted by user>
@librocubiculartist -- But don't you think that this supports / encourages "cancel culture"?
I mean, here are the facts: we have some (yet unproven) allegations for stuff that normally should be a police / criminal matter, USChess and STLCC respond to the best of their ability (while trying to balance their response with self-preservation), and apparently it's still not enough?
Just to clarify my position (if it wasn't clear enough until now): if these allegations are proven true in court, these guys should be in jail, not just banned from chess.
I mean, here are the facts: we have some (yet unproven) allegations for stuff that normally should be a police / criminal matter, USChess and STLCC respond to the best of their ability (while trying to balance their response with self-preservation), and apparently it's still not enough?
Just to clarify my position (if it wasn't clear enough until now): if these allegations are proven true in court, these guys should be in jail, not just banned from chess.
I'm not sure but I think many here are not fully understanding the article. It is not saying that people should be banned from chess based on accusations alone, though temporarily barring them from events while an investigation is underway if they have received multiple reports against them sounds more reasonable.
The issue was that these organizations did not have a timely response to the accusations and offered no protections to those who made those reports. So even if we can't be sure if an accusation is true/false, one can still provide protection to the accuser, and take their claims seriously and investigate them more urgently than they were.
I was about to post in agreement with @Pashut and others that we shouldn't be banning people based on accusations alone. But if you carefully read the article, it is really talking about something completely different than what people in the comment section are discussing.
Ironically I also dislike social justice as in many cases I think it goes way too far, but in this case there is nothing to be upset about
The issue was that these organizations did not have a timely response to the accusations and offered no protections to those who made those reports. So even if we can't be sure if an accusation is true/false, one can still provide protection to the accuser, and take their claims seriously and investigate them more urgently than they were.
I was about to post in agreement with @Pashut and others that we shouldn't be banning people based on accusations alone. But if you carefully read the article, it is really talking about something completely different than what people in the comment section are discussing.
Ironically I also dislike social justice as in many cases I think it goes way too far, but in this case there is nothing to be upset about
All the people whining about lichess making this statement should simply ask for a refund and play chess elsewhere.
@ButterPecan said in #105:
I didn't know you had to give an entity money to criticize it.
I didn't know you had to give an entity money to criticize it.
@Pashut said in #103:
> @librocubiculartist -- But don't you think that this supports / encourages "cancel culture"?
I'll bite, but this is probably the last I'm going to say about it :-).
Women (or anyone else who is sexually assaulted) shouldn't have to put up with this shit. I understand the need to have reasonable proof and guard against false accusations, but if within an organization if there is reasonable evidence that these guys did what was alleged those organizations should take appropriate action. You can argue about if the action was appropriate, but I personally don't think there's a place in USCF or STLCC for anyone that sexually assaults another person. And I don't personally think it has to go through a court for an organization to take action. Now, it's tricky as I've alluded to and I'm not saying that it's easy for these organizations to craft policies and procedures to handle this well. But I do feel they need to work towards that. Whether or not US Chess or STLCC can make the public admission of mistakes that lichess and others wants, it seems if all these allegations and the timelines are accurate (and I personally believe they are), there is a lot of work that needs to be done to help women and others feel safer in attending chess events with these organizations.
> @librocubiculartist -- But don't you think that this supports / encourages "cancel culture"?
I'll bite, but this is probably the last I'm going to say about it :-).
Women (or anyone else who is sexually assaulted) shouldn't have to put up with this shit. I understand the need to have reasonable proof and guard against false accusations, but if within an organization if there is reasonable evidence that these guys did what was alleged those organizations should take appropriate action. You can argue about if the action was appropriate, but I personally don't think there's a place in USCF or STLCC for anyone that sexually assaults another person. And I don't personally think it has to go through a court for an organization to take action. Now, it's tricky as I've alluded to and I'm not saying that it's easy for these organizations to craft policies and procedures to handle this well. But I do feel they need to work towards that. Whether or not US Chess or STLCC can make the public admission of mistakes that lichess and others wants, it seems if all these allegations and the timelines are accurate (and I personally believe they are), there is a lot of work that needs to be done to help women and others feel safer in attending chess events with these organizations.
Queda claro que solo sabe mover piezas en el aire, y concretamente el mundo real no tiene idea de como hacerlo.
So if I held a chess event, is it my responsibility to hire private police officers, investigators and judges? Because apparently, when there's an allegation of sexual harassment, it's the organizer's responsibility to state a verdict and impose a penalty.
I don't understand why the victims don't go to the police immediately. "This man kissed me against my will". They'll call the witnesses, check security cameras or what not. If they have a case, it goes to the court. If found guilty, an appropriate punishment would be a restraining order and a fine/community service, possibly also a prohibition of activity and jail time for repeated or more serious violations.
Restraining order would mean that the offender isn't allowed to get near the victim for a period of time. If the victim attends a chess event, it implies the offender isn't allowed to attend the same event.
A "prohibition of activity" is incorporated in the Czech legal system and I assume it's in the American as well. For example, a pedophile who's found guilty of abusing children wouldn't be allowed to run a kindergarten and a dishonest businessman wouldn't be able to run a business. I don't see why a professional chessplayer who's sexually harassing other players couldn't receive the same punishment.
"Cancel culture" is toxic and anti-social. It creates more tensions than it helps to solve. I would understand taking individual actions (locally) if the victims did in fact go to police and the police refused to handle the case, despite all evidence being clear as night. If the system doesn't function properly, then yes, other measures need to be taken – but measures that actually solve something. What does this decision by Lichess really achieve?
I'm not defending sexual harassment, but it happened at some place and it should primarily be solved locally at that place (either by a punch to the face or by calling the police). Most Lichess users are sitting at least hundreds if not thousands kilometers away and there's no way for them to understand what actually happened there and to take an appropriate action. Globalization is turning the entire world into a chaotic mess.
I don't understand why the victims don't go to the police immediately. "This man kissed me against my will". They'll call the witnesses, check security cameras or what not. If they have a case, it goes to the court. If found guilty, an appropriate punishment would be a restraining order and a fine/community service, possibly also a prohibition of activity and jail time for repeated or more serious violations.
Restraining order would mean that the offender isn't allowed to get near the victim for a period of time. If the victim attends a chess event, it implies the offender isn't allowed to attend the same event.
A "prohibition of activity" is incorporated in the Czech legal system and I assume it's in the American as well. For example, a pedophile who's found guilty of abusing children wouldn't be allowed to run a kindergarten and a dishonest businessman wouldn't be able to run a business. I don't see why a professional chessplayer who's sexually harassing other players couldn't receive the same punishment.
"Cancel culture" is toxic and anti-social. It creates more tensions than it helps to solve. I would understand taking individual actions (locally) if the victims did in fact go to police and the police refused to handle the case, despite all evidence being clear as night. If the system doesn't function properly, then yes, other measures need to be taken – but measures that actually solve something. What does this decision by Lichess really achieve?
I'm not defending sexual harassment, but it happened at some place and it should primarily be solved locally at that place (either by a punch to the face or by calling the police). Most Lichess users are sitting at least hundreds if not thousands kilometers away and there's no way for them to understand what actually happened there and to take an appropriate action. Globalization is turning the entire world into a chaotic mess.
Lichess is a chess website.
What it is not, and what it should not try to be, is an investigative journalism website, or a judge, or an executioner.
It is currently trying to be all of this, largely overreaching its mandate.
Let's stick to chess and leave the criminal accusations & the requests for apologies in the hands of the responsible courts, organizations, and individuals involved.
I agree that there was conduct that was unacceptable and possibly unresolved, but Lichess cannot know for certain what has been done or undone in these organizations that it is accusing.
To protest against Lichess's decision to exclude these organizations, I will not be renewing my Lichess patronage next month.
What it is not, and what it should not try to be, is an investigative journalism website, or a judge, or an executioner.
It is currently trying to be all of this, largely overreaching its mandate.
Let's stick to chess and leave the criminal accusations & the requests for apologies in the hands of the responsible courts, organizations, and individuals involved.
I agree that there was conduct that was unacceptable and possibly unresolved, but Lichess cannot know for certain what has been done or undone in these organizations that it is accusing.
To protest against Lichess's decision to exclude these organizations, I will not be renewing my Lichess patronage next month.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.