This is why lichess is the best. Those scumfucks should consider “resigning permanently”.
> I was talking about over the board, where women are forced to spend hours across the board with a man they likely wouldn't want to > otherwise.
Who is forcing these women to do anything? Didn't they enter the tournament knowing that there was probably going to be some prolonged chess as a result, and quite likely with male opponents? Presumably they entered said OTB tournament because they wanted to spend some hours across a table from someone playing chess, no? So again I ask, why the assumption that they likely don't want to do this when clearly they have entered the tourney (presumably of their own free will, unless someone is forcibly making them play OTB)!
> This makes them vulnerable to harassment. E-sports don't have this problem because it's done in an arcade setup that would prevent this in chess.
Only if the men are allowed to harass them at the tournament because either the men have no self-control, or the organsisers have taken no steps to safeguard the women in the tournaments they organise, or somehow look the other way. Also, of course, online harrassment is possible, although of a different nature.
> Maybe reread what I wrote as it's different from what you are replying to.
I'm still super confused about why the women (or the men) need to be "interested" in each other in any other way than as a chess opponent? Why are you even bringing this up?
> I was saying that if men knew what it was like to have to play people they don't find appealing they'd understand what women go through. I don't need verbal abuse over a posting and was in no way rude to anyone.
I am not verbally abusing you but I am strongly challenging your points here because I think the attitude is unacceptable.
Again, why are we talking about whether our opponent is APPEALING or not? Am I missing the point here altogether? I though the point of playing chess was to - play chess??? Not to see if our male/femle OTB opponent is "interesting" or "appealing" to us somehow. Why are you bringing looks and weight into it? That's actually a bit creepy to think that the guys at an OTB are just there to see if they can spot a hot girl or someone they find interesting/appealing.
> I was making a point with hyperbole. I think women have a tough time in chess...
Well I agree that women have a tough time in chess, as the original topic of this forum indicates all too well.
> ... and I think the personal nature of OTB chess makes it difficult to fix.
Well focusing on the physical attractiveness or otherwise of the opponents is probably not the best way to start to fix this. And just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I am relatively new to chess and have not played any OTB tournaments yet. As a teenager I did play in one long OTB backgammon tournament in the UK though. So, a big hall with lots of tables, lots of time across the table with a lot of random guys. Actually, now I think about it, I don't think I played any female opponents that day, and this is the first time I have thought about that fact. I got to the final whereas my boyfriend and his friend were knocked out in round 1 so they had to wait around for me all day. I can't say that any thoughts of finding my opponents appealing or not ever crossed my mind, I was focused on my games.
Who is forcing these women to do anything? Didn't they enter the tournament knowing that there was probably going to be some prolonged chess as a result, and quite likely with male opponents? Presumably they entered said OTB tournament because they wanted to spend some hours across a table from someone playing chess, no? So again I ask, why the assumption that they likely don't want to do this when clearly they have entered the tourney (presumably of their own free will, unless someone is forcibly making them play OTB)!
> This makes them vulnerable to harassment. E-sports don't have this problem because it's done in an arcade setup that would prevent this in chess.
Only if the men are allowed to harass them at the tournament because either the men have no self-control, or the organsisers have taken no steps to safeguard the women in the tournaments they organise, or somehow look the other way. Also, of course, online harrassment is possible, although of a different nature.
> Maybe reread what I wrote as it's different from what you are replying to.
I'm still super confused about why the women (or the men) need to be "interested" in each other in any other way than as a chess opponent? Why are you even bringing this up?
> I was saying that if men knew what it was like to have to play people they don't find appealing they'd understand what women go through. I don't need verbal abuse over a posting and was in no way rude to anyone.
I am not verbally abusing you but I am strongly challenging your points here because I think the attitude is unacceptable.
Again, why are we talking about whether our opponent is APPEALING or not? Am I missing the point here altogether? I though the point of playing chess was to - play chess??? Not to see if our male/femle OTB opponent is "interesting" or "appealing" to us somehow. Why are you bringing looks and weight into it? That's actually a bit creepy to think that the guys at an OTB are just there to see if they can spot a hot girl or someone they find interesting/appealing.
> I was making a point with hyperbole. I think women have a tough time in chess...
Well I agree that women have a tough time in chess, as the original topic of this forum indicates all too well.
> ... and I think the personal nature of OTB chess makes it difficult to fix.
Well focusing on the physical attractiveness or otherwise of the opponents is probably not the best way to start to fix this. And just because something is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
I am relatively new to chess and have not played any OTB tournaments yet. As a teenager I did play in one long OTB backgammon tournament in the UK though. So, a big hall with lots of tables, lots of time across the table with a lot of random guys. Actually, now I think about it, I don't think I played any female opponents that day, and this is the first time I have thought about that fact. I got to the final whereas my boyfriend and his friend were knocked out in round 1 so they had to wait around for me all day. I can't say that any thoughts of finding my opponents appealing or not ever crossed my mind, I was focused on my games.
I understand why female players may be unwilling to file a lawsuit against aggressors, but I also understand why chess organizations may be, in a case like this, reluctant to take even more drastic measures against those prominent male players .
I’m not sure if Lichess’ decision to stop supporting STLCC and US Chess will, alone, in the long run, discourage male aggressors and help female members of the chess community reach a safer standing.
I mainly see it as a way to force matters: maybe it was made so to test waters before someone decides to make a formal lawsuit.
I’m not sure if Lichess’ decision to stop supporting STLCC and US Chess will, alone, in the long run, discourage male aggressors and help female members of the chess community reach a safer standing.
I mainly see it as a way to force matters: maybe it was made so to test waters before someone decides to make a formal lawsuit.
@Goatscabinfragrance said in #513:
> I understand why female players may be unwilling to file a lawsuit against aggressors
Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
>maybe it’s a way to test waters before someone decides to make a formal lawsuit.
So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate, that's what they do, that's what their role is. And if you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
> I understand why female players may be unwilling to file a lawsuit against aggressors
Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
>maybe it’s a way to test waters before someone decides to make a formal lawsuit.
So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate, that's what they do, that's what their role is. And if you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
@Top-Quark said in #515:
> It isn't really the job of lichess to stop male aggressors now is it? It was someone else and they seemingly seriously messed that up. In that case all lichess can do is raise awareness that there is serious negligence to sexual misconduct charges in the chess world. Because even if all these charges turn out to be wrong (which would greatly surprise me) the fact that they were not investigated is a huge red flag
True, it isn't Lichess' job. Nor is it STLCC or US Chess' job. This is a POLICE matter. Had these incidents been promptly reported to police (and it's a pity they weren't), we wouldn't be in this predicament.
> It isn't really the job of lichess to stop male aggressors now is it? It was someone else and they seemingly seriously messed that up. In that case all lichess can do is raise awareness that there is serious negligence to sexual misconduct charges in the chess world. Because even if all these charges turn out to be wrong (which would greatly surprise me) the fact that they were not investigated is a huge red flag
True, it isn't Lichess' job. Nor is it STLCC or US Chess' job. This is a POLICE matter. Had these incidents been promptly reported to police (and it's a pity they weren't), we wouldn't be in this predicament.
@Pashut said in #514:
> Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
> So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate, that's what they do, that's what their role is. And if you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
Yeah that is the theory but there are quite a few reasons that women might feel unsafe to report a aggressor. For starters what if the police just said "We will look into it" and the aggressor found out that you reported him to the police that can go quite a few ways. But even if he doesn't find out a depressing number accusations are straight up ignored by the police so you can report it sure but how would you feel when law enforcement doesn't do anything to help you? And even if the police does their job how do you prove something like that in a court of law? Most aggressor aren't exactly going to assault their victim on CCTV footage in front of a crowd of witnesses.
> Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
> So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate, that's what they do, that's what their role is. And if you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
Yeah that is the theory but there are quite a few reasons that women might feel unsafe to report a aggressor. For starters what if the police just said "We will look into it" and the aggressor found out that you reported him to the police that can go quite a few ways. But even if he doesn't find out a depressing number accusations are straight up ignored by the police so you can report it sure but how would you feel when law enforcement doesn't do anything to help you? And even if the police does their job how do you prove something like that in a court of law? Most aggressor aren't exactly going to assault their victim on CCTV footage in front of a crowd of witnesses.
@Pashut said in #516:
> True, it isn't Lichess' job. Nor is it STLCC or US Chess' job. This is a POLICE matter. Had these incidents been promptly reported to police (and it's a pity they weren't), we wouldn't be in this predicament.
It isn't just the polices job to prevent sexual aggression. Would you sign your kids up to a summer camp that says it isn't out job to stop pedophiles we have the police for that? I hope you won't and while the example is hyperbolical the same applies here. If you host a chess tournament and aren't even trying to prevent and look into sexual misconduct charges then who are you really trying to protect? The predator or the prey?
> True, it isn't Lichess' job. Nor is it STLCC or US Chess' job. This is a POLICE matter. Had these incidents been promptly reported to police (and it's a pity they weren't), we wouldn't be in this predicament.
It isn't just the polices job to prevent sexual aggression. Would you sign your kids up to a summer camp that says it isn't out job to stop pedophiles we have the police for that? I hope you won't and while the example is hyperbolical the same applies here. If you host a chess tournament and aren't even trying to prevent and look into sexual misconduct charges then who are you really trying to protect? The predator or the prey?
@Pashut said in #514:
> Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
> So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate. If you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
Because making a formal accusation means becoming a target. Who defends will try to discredit you in any possible way, digging in your private life and in your past and disclosing unpleasant stuff .
Even if they end up winning, some damage will also happen to the accusers.
> Why? Also, why not report to police and let them investigate?
> So that's the new standard for handling sexual assault issues? In my book, if you feel you've been wronged / assaulted in such a way, you go to the police right away. You give police all the details and ask them to investigate. If you feel unsafe, you file for a restraint order. No?
Because making a formal accusation means becoming a target. Who defends will try to discredit you in any possible way, digging in your private life and in your past and disclosing unpleasant stuff .
Even if they end up winning, some damage will also happen to the accusers.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Stop the witch hunts.
Remain a chess server, Lichess.
Stop the witch hunts.
Remain a chess server, Lichess.
@Goatscabinfragrance said in #519:
> Because making a formal accusation means becoming a target. Who defends will try to discredit you in any possible way, digging in your private life and in your past and disclosing unpleasant stuff .
>
> Even they end up winning, some damage will also happen to the accusers.
What else do you propose then, friend? "Help me media, this guy assaulted me! Please make him go away and blow up his entire career and life, but trust me and don't look into it because that might damage my credibility and make me a target"
Some of the things posted in this thread are pure nonsense.
> Because making a formal accusation means becoming a target. Who defends will try to discredit you in any possible way, digging in your private life and in your past and disclosing unpleasant stuff .
>
> Even they end up winning, some damage will also happen to the accusers.
What else do you propose then, friend? "Help me media, this guy assaulted me! Please make him go away and blow up his entire career and life, but trust me and don't look into it because that might damage my credibility and make me a target"
Some of the things posted in this thread are pure nonsense.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.