If only you'd break the silence and ban all players who still use the Russian flag on your website
@Pashut said in #503:
>
@Pashut said in #503:
> Come on, let's not play games here... And don't put words in my mouth: I never said I trust anyone.
you said
> They got independent confirmation (the report) that they did handle it correctly. So why should they resign?
To me that means you believe the report you haven't seen, and you believe the report was independent, so you trust what was said about the report was true. I don't trust what was said about the report, I don't believe the report was independent.
> Precisely because it's all: "she says, he says, they say" for now. Shahade says. Ramirez says. Witnesses say. Journalists say. US Chess says. STLCC says. Lawfirm says. Re-read the article to confirm this, study the language: the word "allege" ("say") appears 32 times.
allege is the right word to use.
> We (you, me, Lichess, all those who commented here) don't actually KNOW anything. We weren't there. We didn't see it. We didn't hear it directly from eye witnesses. We haven't even read witness statements.
I've read the information available and used critical thinking to decide for myself there's truth to the allegations. I've used critical thinking to decide the two organisations were, at a minimum, slow to act. but I suspect the stlcc had no plans to act and only did when it became public.
I would say for most decisions we make we don't have all the information.
> So instead of criticizing or taking sides or expect public shaming (against Lichess ToS, btw) and demand public acknowledments of mishandling, instead of lynching and ceasing collaboration -- we should WAIT until we KNOW. That's all.
YOU should feel free to WAIT, but let others do what they do, let them use their own critical thinking and judgement.
and here is were I say I enjoyed chatting with you. it gave me the opportunity to think hard about what I've read, what I believe, what I believe is right and wrong. We don't agree but that's all good. cheers and bye.
>
@Pashut said in #503:
> Come on, let's not play games here... And don't put words in my mouth: I never said I trust anyone.
you said
> They got independent confirmation (the report) that they did handle it correctly. So why should they resign?
To me that means you believe the report you haven't seen, and you believe the report was independent, so you trust what was said about the report was true. I don't trust what was said about the report, I don't believe the report was independent.
> Precisely because it's all: "she says, he says, they say" for now. Shahade says. Ramirez says. Witnesses say. Journalists say. US Chess says. STLCC says. Lawfirm says. Re-read the article to confirm this, study the language: the word "allege" ("say") appears 32 times.
allege is the right word to use.
> We (you, me, Lichess, all those who commented here) don't actually KNOW anything. We weren't there. We didn't see it. We didn't hear it directly from eye witnesses. We haven't even read witness statements.
I've read the information available and used critical thinking to decide for myself there's truth to the allegations. I've used critical thinking to decide the two organisations were, at a minimum, slow to act. but I suspect the stlcc had no plans to act and only did when it became public.
I would say for most decisions we make we don't have all the information.
> So instead of criticizing or taking sides or expect public shaming (against Lichess ToS, btw) and demand public acknowledments of mishandling, instead of lynching and ceasing collaboration -- we should WAIT until we KNOW. That's all.
YOU should feel free to WAIT, but let others do what they do, let them use their own critical thinking and judgement.
and here is were I say I enjoyed chatting with you. it gave me the opportunity to think hard about what I've read, what I believe, what I believe is right and wrong. We don't agree but that's all good. cheers and bye.
@h2b2 said in #505:
> To me that means you believe the report you haven't seen, and you believe the report was independent, so you trust what was said about the report was true. I don't trust what was said about the report, I don't believe the report was independent.
You misunderstood. I don't believe the report, because I haven't seen it. But I do believe USChess has seen it, and based on what they saw, they believed they handled it right. :)
> allege is the right word to use.
True, regarding the statements of ALL parties.
> I've read the information available and used critical thinking to decide for myself there's truth to the allegations. I've used critical thinking to decide the two organisations were, at a minimum, slow to act. but I suspect the stlcc had no plans to act and only did when it became public.
No matter the amount of critical thinking used, when not all facts are publicly known, the conclusion runs a great risk of being skewed. That is why I don't support jumping to conclusions (and even less so, banning people based on those conclusions) until all the facts are known and verified.
> YOU should feel free to WAIT, but let others do what they do, let them use their own critical thinking and judgement.
Take it easy., it's just a conversation. Lichess took action and invited people to comment. That's what I'm doing.
> and here is were I say I enjoyed chatting with you. it gave me the opportunity to think hard about what I've read, what I believe, what I believe is right and wrong. We don't agree but that's all good. cheers and bye.
Same here + thanks. Bye!
> To me that means you believe the report you haven't seen, and you believe the report was independent, so you trust what was said about the report was true. I don't trust what was said about the report, I don't believe the report was independent.
You misunderstood. I don't believe the report, because I haven't seen it. But I do believe USChess has seen it, and based on what they saw, they believed they handled it right. :)
> allege is the right word to use.
True, regarding the statements of ALL parties.
> I've read the information available and used critical thinking to decide for myself there's truth to the allegations. I've used critical thinking to decide the two organisations were, at a minimum, slow to act. but I suspect the stlcc had no plans to act and only did when it became public.
No matter the amount of critical thinking used, when not all facts are publicly known, the conclusion runs a great risk of being skewed. That is why I don't support jumping to conclusions (and even less so, banning people based on those conclusions) until all the facts are known and verified.
> YOU should feel free to WAIT, but let others do what they do, let them use their own critical thinking and judgement.
Take it easy., it's just a conversation. Lichess took action and invited people to comment. That's what I'm doing.
> and here is were I say I enjoyed chatting with you. it gave me the opportunity to think hard about what I've read, what I believe, what I believe is right and wrong. We don't agree but that's all good. cheers and bye.
Same here + thanks. Bye!
who cares what u have to say guys its lichess communist dogs aka nobody
@Pashut said in #503:
> Come on, let's not play games here... And don't put words in my mouth: I never said I trust anyone. Precisely because it's all: "she says, he says, they say" for now. Shahade says. Ramirez says. Witnesses say. Journalists say. US Chess says. STLCC says. Lawfirm says. Re-read the article to confirm this, study the language: the word "allege" ("say") appears 32 times.
>
> We (you, me, Lichess, all those who commented here) don't actually KNOW anything. We weren't there. We didn't see it. We didn't hear it directly from eye witnesses. We haven't even read witness statements. We were not privy to the conversations among the officials of US Chess and STLCC. We haven't verified how the journalists investigated. We haven't read the lawfirm's report. We don't have a police investigation. We don't have the outcome of a lawsuit (criminal or civil). None of that.
>
> So instead of criticizing or taking sides or expect public shaming (against Lichess ToS, btw) and demand public acknowledments of mishandling, instead of lynching and ceasing collaboration -- we should WAIT until we KNOW. That's all.
By this same reasoning, no chess server (including Lichess) would ever be able to ban a player for cheating. From your end, any player banned for cheating is merely accused of cheating. You have no way of knowing they did cheat, nor do you have any way of verifying how it was determined that a player cheated. You weren't there.
Here's the thing: this isn't a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, nor should it apply. Lichess can ban any player for whatever reason they please. And in a similar manner Lichess can suspect cooperation with anyone for whatever reason they please.
In the case of Ramirez, all that is required, as far as I'm concerned, is a credible accusation. That is more than sufficient, without any trace of proof whatsoever.
> Come on, let's not play games here... And don't put words in my mouth: I never said I trust anyone. Precisely because it's all: "she says, he says, they say" for now. Shahade says. Ramirez says. Witnesses say. Journalists say. US Chess says. STLCC says. Lawfirm says. Re-read the article to confirm this, study the language: the word "allege" ("say") appears 32 times.
>
> We (you, me, Lichess, all those who commented here) don't actually KNOW anything. We weren't there. We didn't see it. We didn't hear it directly from eye witnesses. We haven't even read witness statements. We were not privy to the conversations among the officials of US Chess and STLCC. We haven't verified how the journalists investigated. We haven't read the lawfirm's report. We don't have a police investigation. We don't have the outcome of a lawsuit (criminal or civil). None of that.
>
> So instead of criticizing or taking sides or expect public shaming (against Lichess ToS, btw) and demand public acknowledments of mishandling, instead of lynching and ceasing collaboration -- we should WAIT until we KNOW. That's all.
By this same reasoning, no chess server (including Lichess) would ever be able to ban a player for cheating. From your end, any player banned for cheating is merely accused of cheating. You have no way of knowing they did cheat, nor do you have any way of verifying how it was determined that a player cheated. You weren't there.
Here's the thing: this isn't a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, nor should it apply. Lichess can ban any player for whatever reason they please. And in a similar manner Lichess can suspect cooperation with anyone for whatever reason they please.
In the case of Ramirez, all that is required, as far as I'm concerned, is a credible accusation. That is more than sufficient, without any trace of proof whatsoever.
@Molurus said in #508:
> By this same reasoning, no chess server (including Lichess) would ever be able to ban a player for cheating.
Wrong. Lichess doesn't ban players for ALLEGATIONS of cheating, no matter how "credible" they seem. They ban them after a team of Lichess moderators independently verifies these allegations, aided by Stockfish and other tools. When verifying, Lichess has access to all relevant facts: the games, the moves, the times, the patterns etc.
Which is NOT the case here, because a significant part of the facts (exact dates, names of witnesses, witness statement, police reports, outcomes of court cases, minutes of USChess officials meetings, lawfirm report etc.) were not made public or don't exist at all.
By your logic, if I make a "credible accusation" that you cheated, you should be banned instantly without a trace of proof whatsoever.
> Here's the thing: this isn't a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, nor should it apply. Lichess can ban any player for whatever reason they please. And in a similar manner Lichess can suspect cooperation with anyone for whatever reason they please.
Of course they CAN ban anyone for any reason. The question is: SHOULD they? Is it MORAL they do when not all facts are known?
> In the case of Ramirez, all that is required, as far as I'm concerned, is a credible accusation. That is more than sufficient, without any trace of proof whatsoever.
ROFL. What more to say after such a statement? No comment, really.
> By this same reasoning, no chess server (including Lichess) would ever be able to ban a player for cheating.
Wrong. Lichess doesn't ban players for ALLEGATIONS of cheating, no matter how "credible" they seem. They ban them after a team of Lichess moderators independently verifies these allegations, aided by Stockfish and other tools. When verifying, Lichess has access to all relevant facts: the games, the moves, the times, the patterns etc.
Which is NOT the case here, because a significant part of the facts (exact dates, names of witnesses, witness statement, police reports, outcomes of court cases, minutes of USChess officials meetings, lawfirm report etc.) were not made public or don't exist at all.
By your logic, if I make a "credible accusation" that you cheated, you should be banned instantly without a trace of proof whatsoever.
> Here's the thing: this isn't a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply, nor should it apply. Lichess can ban any player for whatever reason they please. And in a similar manner Lichess can suspect cooperation with anyone for whatever reason they please.
Of course they CAN ban anyone for any reason. The question is: SHOULD they? Is it MORAL they do when not all facts are known?
> In the case of Ramirez, all that is required, as far as I'm concerned, is a credible accusation. That is more than sufficient, without any trace of proof whatsoever.
ROFL. What more to say after such a statement? No comment, really.
@mojo_jojo_1985 said in #504:
> If only you'd break the silence and ban all players who still use the Russian flag on your website
Why bring geopolitics to sports?
> If only you'd break the silence and ban all players who still use the Russian flag on your website
Why bring geopolitics to sports?
@Pashut said in #509:
> Which is NOT the case here, because a significant part of the facts (exact dates, names of witnesses, witness statement, police reports, outcomes of court cases, minutes of USChess officials meetings, lawfirm report etc.) were not made public or don't exist at all.
Throughout the article, there are multiple statements of Lichess having reviewed evidence. You're right that it's not made public, this is very common with media reporting to protect sources. It seems that you will never be satisfied.
> Which is NOT the case here, because a significant part of the facts (exact dates, names of witnesses, witness statement, police reports, outcomes of court cases, minutes of USChess officials meetings, lawfirm report etc.) were not made public or don't exist at all.
Throughout the article, there are multiple statements of Lichess having reviewed evidence. You're right that it's not made public, this is very common with media reporting to protect sources. It seems that you will never be satisfied.
@somethingpretentious -- Throughout the article, there are multiple other statements as well. For example:
> For its part, the club has said in public statements that it received no reports of alleged sexual misconduct by Ramirez that occurred while he was a club employee, and that it initiated an investigation as soon as it received reports from an identified source.
> According to the Post-Dispatch, in a letter sent to Shahade two months later, a lawyer for the club said that STLCC was not “aware of any inappropriate conduct” by Ramirez that was connected to his employment at the club, and that it was not the appropriate body to investigate allegations that were “external or unrelated” to STLCC
> Thus, it appears that STLCC were provided with an opportunity to potentially substantiate an allegation about Ramirez but declined to do so.
It seems that Lichess is criticizing STLCC for not agreeing to become the police (which they shouldn't).
It also seems that Lichess is not criticizing Shahade for not going to the police instead with these allegations.
> For its part, the club has said in public statements that it received no reports of alleged sexual misconduct by Ramirez that occurred while he was a club employee, and that it initiated an investigation as soon as it received reports from an identified source.
> According to the Post-Dispatch, in a letter sent to Shahade two months later, a lawyer for the club said that STLCC was not “aware of any inappropriate conduct” by Ramirez that was connected to his employment at the club, and that it was not the appropriate body to investigate allegations that were “external or unrelated” to STLCC
> Thus, it appears that STLCC were provided with an opportunity to potentially substantiate an allegation about Ramirez but declined to do so.
It seems that Lichess is criticizing STLCC for not agreeing to become the police (which they shouldn't).
It also seems that Lichess is not criticizing Shahade for not going to the police instead with these allegations.
@Pashut said in #512:
Sure, change the subject completely when you have a good point made against you. Mature and convincing.
Sure, change the subject completely when you have a good point made against you. Mature and convincing.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.