lichess.org
Donate

Ending the Boycott

@TurtleMat said in #89:

be weary when you come close to the big bad A word :p

A... A.... Ana...
Dear TurtleMat, thank you for your comment, I had a laugh. (I would invite you to a beer:)) Indeed, it is a delicate matter and we shall be careful not to wake the great unwashed masses with such trickery.

@TurtleMat said in #89: > be weary when you come close to the big bad A word :p A... A.... Ana... Dear TurtleMat, thank you for your comment, I had a laugh. (I would invite you to a beer:)) Indeed, it is a delicate matter and we shall be careful not to wake the great unwashed masses with such trickery.

Great to hear that the Saint Louis Chess Club have shifted their course and also nice to see, that Lichess does not religiously point their finger but accept that they have changed and lifted the boycott. Maybe US chess will eventually also change course.

Great to hear that the Saint Louis Chess Club have shifted their course and also nice to see, that Lichess does not religiously point their finger but accept that they have changed and lifted the boycott. Maybe US chess will eventually also change course.

this boycott is stupid AF

this boycott is stupid AF

Lichess really proved Tamburro right. They don't understand due process.

Any attempt at due process involves scrutinizing both sides of the story. By definition, in order to treat the accusation with the respect it deserves, you MUST seriously call into question the validity of her claims before you take her side. If you do not scrutinize her claims before taking her side, you're not a defender of victims, you're plainly prejudiced. You do not know if she is a victim or not because you did not bother to test the claims. As this article suggests, Tamburro fails to support due process, because he scrutinizes her claims when in reality supporting due process requires the scrutinization of claims.

I believe that she's correct and Ramirez is a criminal but the position presented by Lichess in this article is ignorant, dishonest, and discrediting. I support the victim, which is something I get to do because I was responsible and went to the effort to weigh the facts.

Lichess really proved Tamburro right. They don't understand due process. Any attempt at due process involves scrutinizing both sides of the story. By definition, in order to treat the accusation with the respect it deserves, you MUST seriously call into question the validity of her claims before you take her side. If you do not scrutinize her claims before taking her side, you're not a defender of victims, you're plainly prejudiced. You do not know if she is a victim or not because you did not bother to test the claims. As this article suggests, Tamburro fails to support due process, because he scrutinizes her claims when in reality supporting due process *requires* the scrutinization of claims. I believe that she's correct and Ramirez is a criminal but the position presented by Lichess in this article is ignorant, dishonest, and discrediting. I support the victim, which is something I get to do because I was responsible and went to the effort to weigh the facts.

men are guilt until proven innocent, right lichess?

men are guilt until proven innocent, right lichess?

@Ichthys3 said in #94:

this boycott is stupid AF

Comment #94 is stupid AF.

@lxknvlk said in #96:

men are guilt until proven innocent, right lichess?

1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process BTW) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually.
2- men whose only participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are really suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one).

@Ichthys3 said in #94: > this boycott is stupid AF Comment #94 is stupid AF. @lxknvlk said in #96: > men are guilt until proven innocent, right lichess? 1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process BTW) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually. 2- men whose *only* participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are *really* suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one).

It is heartening to hear that Lichess takes a stand on moral issues, I understand the Russian federation is also experiencing the wrath of Lichess sanctions. Then it is disheartening to realise that the genocide elephant in the room has been there since, since...

It is heartening to hear that Lichess takes a stand on moral issues, I understand the Russian federation is also experiencing the wrath of Lichess sanctions. Then it is disheartening to realise that the genocide elephant in the room has been there since, since...

@TurtleMat said in #98:

Comment #94 is stupid AF.

1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process BTW) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually.

2- men whose only participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are really suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one).

The fallacy you're engaging in is called "begging the question"

You are assuming that the alleged aggressor is guilty based on accusations. Most people who are opposing Lichess' actions are not defending Ramirez, they're defending principles, specifically one or more of the following:

  1. Innocent until proven guilty
  2. Due process
  3. The right to a fair hearing
  4. Right of reply
  5. Chess clubs/organizations are not the proper venue to litigate alleged crimes. Expecting chess clubs/organizations to have a whole host of policies and procedures to investigate alleged sexual abuse is an unreasonable request, especially when that's what the judicial system is for.
@TurtleMat said in #98: > Comment #94 is stupid AF. > > > > 1- innocent until proven guilty (and due process BTW) only concerns courts of law, not any other organization/person. Lichess can have an opinion and express it. Do you only have opinions on matters for which a court of law ruled? Do you have no opinions of your own? Well, that I could believe actually. > 2- men whose *only* participation on Lichess forums is to defend sexual aggressors are *really* suspect (But don't worry, you're not the only one). The fallacy you're engaging in is called "begging the question" You are assuming that the *alleged* aggressor is guilty based on accusations. Most people who are opposing Lichess' actions are not defending Ramirez, they're defending principles, specifically one or more of the following: 1) Innocent until proven guilty 2) Due process 3) The right to a fair hearing 4) Right of reply 5) Chess clubs/organizations are not the proper venue to litigate alleged crimes. Expecting chess clubs/organizations to have a whole host of policies and procedures to investigate alleged sexual abuse is an unreasonable request, especially when that's what the judicial system is for.

@kjf said in #30:

you are a chess site. a service. maybe start behaving like one again. don't bother me with your private politics.

Lichess is not merely a service, if they were, they would be taking your money, or serving ads to you to perform said service for you. No, Lichess is a charity, and to provide chess to the world—for absolutely, completely free—is an inherently political thing to be doing in the first place. It's a rejection of the deep-seeded capitalist systems we find ourselves in.

So for an organisation like Lichess to make a stand on a topic like this is not surprising in the slightest and I for one much appreciate them doing so. They are leading by example it is wonderful to see.

@kjf said in #30: > you are a chess site. a service. maybe start behaving like one again. don't bother me with your private politics. Lichess is not merely a service, if they were, they would be taking your money, or serving ads to you to perform said service for you. No, Lichess is a charity, and to provide chess to the world—for absolutely, completely free—is an inherently political thing to be doing in the first place. It's a rejection of the deep-seeded capitalist systems we find ourselves in. So for an organisation like Lichess to make a stand on a topic like this is not surprising in the slightest and I for one much appreciate them doing so. They are leading by example it is wonderful to see.