Breaking the Silence

@CyberShredder said in #371:
>
You can decide it's not enough proof if you like, but don't pretend it's just one person making each claim. Frankly the number of people in this thread willing to believe these men who as far as I know didn't actually deny anything, over the reports of multiple women over many years, is disgusting and shameful. I can't comprehend the morality or logic of it.

The number of false reports of sexual assault is actually in line with false reporting of pretty much every other crime. It's not some big agenda where secret groups of women decide to ruin some guy's life. In fact as we've seen in this thread, many women don't report precisely because they don't want to ruin someone's life and they give the benefit of the doubt.

Why is it so hard to treat victims of sexual assault with even the absolute minimum of respect? Instead you assume the worst of the victim and the innocence of the perpetrator, in the face of overwhelming evidence.

@somethingpretentious said in #373:
> You can decide it's not enough proof if you like, but don't pretend it's just one person making each claim. Frankly the number of people in this thread willing to believe these men who as far as I know didn't actually deny anything, over the reports of multiple women over many years, is disgusting and shameful. I can't comprehend the morality or logic of it.
>
> The number of false reports of sexual assault is actually in line with false reporting of pretty much every other crime. It's not some big agenda where secret groups of women decide to ruin some guy's life. In fact as we've seen in this thread, many women don't report precisely because they don't want to ruin someone's life and they give the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Why is it so hard to treat victims of sexual assault with even the absolute minimum of respect? Instead you assume the worst of the victim and the innocence of the perpetrator, in the face of overwhelming evidence.
#

Unbeliebable. indeed. Like thosusands of Gareevs and Ramirez' undercover underway.

TL;DR:
a) I understand why lichess did what they did, but I think it is being poorly handled
b) The timeline section has some journalistic bias that concerns me-- when you introduce this, you give ammunition to those who want to blame victims, while also being unfair to other parties (I'm a firm believer in people being punished only for the wrongs they committed)
====================================================================
I'm a little concerned not that lichess is taking action, but what they're doing. I always am alarmed when allegations are the primary motivator for drastic actions. Remember-- if you find that your course of action wasn't harsh enough, you can always impose harsher restrictions later on. You can't retroactively make punishment less severe if you later find out that it was unwarranted.

Additionally, there seems to either be some journalistic license taken with the timeline, or some research errors. I'll admit I kinda glanced over the sources myself (there's a LOT of research going on, which is a good thing), but a couple things seemed a bit skeevy.
Here's an example:

Lichess Narrative:
> On 11 July, Jennifer Shahade publicly challenged the accuracy of US Chess’ final Ramirez statement (issued 24 May) in a Facebook post, writing that US Chess’ conclusion that its response to the Ramirez allegations was timely and appropriate “doesn’t dovetail with my records, in which I notified US Chess at least four times about Alejandro’s alleged misconduct against girls and women [...] including his assaults against me...and pleaded they not send him there.” The next day, she posted a similar message on Twitter.
------------------------------
Shahade Tweet:
> However, "(our) response was timely and appropriate" conflicts with my records--I notified the org at least four times of Alejandro's alleged abuse of girls/women (including of me + a 15 y.o) *before* he was paid to coach the Women's Olympic Team.

I pleaded he not be sent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Chess Statement:
> ... The primary focus of this investigation was to determine when US Chess had knowledge of the various allegations and what
responsive actions US Chess took. The third party, independent investigation is complete, and, based on the information received, the third party concluded that the US Chess response was timely and appropriate regarding the reports it received about Ramirez’s conduct. [...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason you get a third-party investigator is because it's a third party. According to the third party investigator (not USCF or Shahade), the response was "timely and appropriate". Shahade was indeed disagreeing with this analysis, but the Lichess narrative is written as though the analysis situation was made by USCF (and not a third party investigator), which paints a different picture

@somethingpretentious said in #373:
> You can decide it's not enough proof if you like, but don't pretend it's just one person making each claim. Frankly the number of people in this thread willing to believe these men who as far as I know didn't actually deny anything, over the reports of multiple women over many years, is disgusting and shameful. I can't comprehend the morality or logic of it.
>
> The number of false reports of sexual assault is actually in line with false reporting of pretty much every other crime. It's not some big agenda where secret groups of women decide to ruin some guy's life. In fact as we've seen in this thread, many women don't report precisely because they don't want to ruin someone's life and they give the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Why is it so hard to treat victims of sexual assault with even the absolute minimum of respect? Instead you assume the worst of the victim and the innocence of the perpetrator, in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I don't pretend anything, but it is still words. She say, he say, he denies etc. etc.
I base my claim that people deny allegations on a Gareyev post from the article, while Ramirez stated in this articles that he denies allegations and looking share his part of the story www.chess.com/news/view/alejandro-ramirez-under-investigation-for-sexual-misconduct www.kmov.com/2023/02/18/us-chess-officials-investigating-allegations-against-slu-chess-coach/

Yes it is in line probably, though we doesn't have any statistics. But even if random man/woman told me that Ramirez is a killer or terrorist or whatever else, I wouldn't say that Ramirez is killer or terrorist if there isn't any court desision behind this claim.

I don't treat supposed victim without respect. I am just saying that it always "innocent until proven guilty". Justice is based on evidence for a reason. Because as I already wrote in #310 "The value of the concept of evidence-based justice for society is higher than the ability of individual criminals to avoid punishment". Societies that neglect this principle don't go in a right direction.

@jose1122 said in #361:
> I’m assuming everyone lies, women included.

I assume you don't assume the bible lies though, right?

@sin_kills said in #362:
> @jose1122 Jose, I tell you one story of many that I know firsthand: A friend of mine is around 1,60 cm height. She was raped in one year 2 times by a 17 year old youngster while she was 19 years old, but bodily inferior. When it was brought to court, the rapist went out free. The judge decided that she was older and it was strange that it happened two times. If you want to find an explanation why it's unnecessary to be righteous, I guess you will.
> You can rationalize whatever you want and explain away anything, but evil is still evil and good is good and the LORD would say:
> Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.
> And:
> The witness of 2 or 3 people is enough to decide about a matter and if many come forward it's evil to ignore.
> Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.
2 or 3 people is enough

Two or three christians witnesses of Christ’s teachings against the sins, the goal is the conversion of the sinner not to make a court, and the proof is that in the last instance the sinner shall be considered heathen, not guilty.

How do you know if these men broke the sixth commandment of guarding the chastity or if these women broke the eighth commandment of not giving false witness?
You simply don’t know, you can’t know, you are assuming the women’s side and that’s it!

You are running a huge risk of being like the judge who acquitted the rapist in the case you said. I don’t understand how hard is it to you to compreehend such an obvious thing, you don’t know the truth so you don’t take part!

I think some people will only understand after living the experience of being called a criminal being innocent.

@Deadban said in #377:
> I assume you don't assume the bible lies though, right?

I don’t get your point só I’ll answer in many ways.

The Holy Scriptures don’t act, they are a tool, they can’t lie.
The Holy Scriptures are 100% correct even being made by human hands, they were inspired by God.
People can lie using the Holy Scriptures distortedly once it’s a tool.
The Holy Scriptures may have mistranslated, miscopied and deliberately tampered versions.

@CyberShredder said in #376:
> I don't pretend anything, but it is still words. She say, he say, he denies etc. etc.

You know that witness testimony is used in courts of law right?

> I base my claim that people deny allegations on a Gareyev post from the article, while Ramirez stated in this articles that he denies allegations and looking share his part of the story www.chess.com/news/view/alejandro-ramirez-under-investigation-for-sexual-misconduct www.kmov.com/2023/02/18/us-chess-officials-investigating-allegations-against-slu-chess-coach/

Neither of these are actual denials, they just say they will say their version. Pedantic but a difference.

> Yes it is in line probably, though we doesn't have any statistics. But even if random man/woman told me that Ramirez is a killer or terrorist or whatever else, I wouldn't say that Ramirez is killer or terrorist if there isn't any court desision behind this claim.

Actually many studies have been done and statistics are available. You shouldn't need a court to confirm everything for you. If someone tells you not to sit on a bench because the paint is wet do you demand a trial? And again you change the level of evidence, it is not just one person it is many and over several years.

> I don't treat supposed victim without respect. I am just saying that it always "innocent until proven guilty". Justice is based on evidence for a reason. Because as I already wrote in #310 "The value of the concept of evidence-based justice for society is higher than the ability of individual criminals to avoid punishment". Societies that neglect this principle don't go in a right direction.

You do treat them without respect even if it's unintentional. If someone has been assaulted and the first thing you say is prove it that is disrespectful and shows such distain for these women. I think you should reflect on your adherence to the courts of law. It's admirable and correct to say innocent until proven guilty, but your level of expectation for proof goes well beyond any reasonable expectation. Again, it is not just he said she said, there is a wealth of evidence.

Beautifully written and researched. The fact that it's up to independent journalists to expose things like this is evidence enough it's gone to damn far already.

@somethingpretentious said in #380:
> You know that witness testimony is used in courts of law right?
Okay. Then bring them all to the courts. Let Justice happen.
> Neither of these are actual denials, they just say they will say their version. Pedantic but a difference.
Gareyev said that there is "badmouth and gossip promoted by certain individuals" it seems like denial. www.kmov.com/2023/02/18/us-chess-officials-investigating-allegations-against-slu-chess-coach/ in this article Alejandro's advocate, Watkins, said Ramirez denies the allegations.
> Actually many studies have been done and statistics are available. You shouldn't need a court to confirm everything for you. If someone tells you not to sit on a bench because the paint is wet do you demand a trial? And again you change the level of evidence, it is not just one person it is many and over several years.
There can be lots and lots of studies, the problem is, that we can't say, are cases when there isn't enough evidence are false or true. I didn't change anything. Words are words, court is court.
> You do treat them without respect even if it's unintentional. If someone has been assaulted and the first thing you say is prove it that is disrespectful and shows such distain for these women. I think you should reflect on your adherence to the courts of law. It's admirable and correct to say innocent until proven guilty, but your level of expectation for proof goes well beyond any reasonable expectation. Again, it is not just he said she said, there is a wealth of evidence.
I treat everyone with respect and it is completely intentional. Someone allegedly assaulted someone, first thing I say: treat both individuals with respect and let Justice happen. Big organisations shouldn't ban, treat person as shit over allegations.