@svensp said in #110:
> The principles that are quoted apply to judicial proceedings. They are meant for defendants and prosecuted people to protect them from abuse of power by prosecutors, police, juries and judges. Chess federations and clubs do not fall in any of these categories.
>
> Sure, their own proceedings need to follow fairness standards as well, but given that the argument repeatedly made has been that courts are the proper place for this instead of actions by chess clubs / federations, clearly the principles referred to are those of the judicial process.
>
> They simply do not apply here.
>
IMHO law is shaped around principle, eg fairness principle led to law being equal to anyone.
Not the viceversa, is not that principles are something related to law and just that context.
Innocent until proven guilty as principle is not something related to legal system, but more related to common sense.
It mean being doubtful, and don't keep for granted any other words that isn't self evident (sometimes even if from a trusted source).
Trust data and evidence should be a way of living not only a legal basis.
@Ender88 said in #112:
> IMHO law is shaped around principle, eg fairness principle led to law being equal to anyone.
> Not the viceversa, is not that principles are something related to law and just that context.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty as principle is not something related to legal system, but more related to common sense.
> It mean being doubtful, and don't keep for granted any other words that isn't self evident (sometimes even if from a trusted source).
> Trust data and evidence should be a way of living not only a legal basis.
Yes, data and evidence should be very important for any investigation or measure taken by private organizations. Yes, the effects of measures on accused individuals need to be taken into account there as well, which they share with a court situation. Both of these are correct.
However, there is a difference between a court of law and factual judgments made by other parties.
There is also a difference between the reasonable doubt standard and the standard of balance of probabilities.
'Innocent until proven guilty' is especially important in the judicial context or prosecution, because of the immense power differential between the state and an accused individual. It is specific to that situation. You can even see it in some countries in the difference between criminal trials and civil trials. That is still within the legal system. It even doesn't apply to police arrests. Otherwise nobody could ever be arrested without violating that principle, because it happens way before a trial outcome.
So even within legal proceedings there are differing standards depending on the stage or the nature of the proceedings.
Outside of judicial proceedings, this is even more true.
So this is quite a specific principle which does not apply here, even though parts of it, such as fairness or being led by the evidence available are more generally applicable.
What's more, in the course of this debate, these principles are regularly brought up in connection with the argument that the court was the proper place. To me that sounds as though having any investigation or consequences besides it should stop once there are legal proceedings. I strongly disagree with that notion.
If the argument was 'We don't think that the measures taken against that person were fair or evidence-led' then there could be a debate. But that is not what's happening. Instead any measures by private parties are implicitly painted as absurd, because a chess federation or club is not a judge or a court. This is not convincing at all in my view.
@svensp said in #113:
> Yes, data and evidence should be very important for any investigation or measure taken by private organizations. Yes, the effects of measures on accused individuals need to be taken into account there as well, which they share with a court situation. Both of these are correct.
>
> However, there is a difference between a court of law and factual judgments made by other parties.
> There is also a difference between the reasonable doubt standard and the standard of balance of probabilities.
>
> 'Innocent until proven guilty' is especially important in the judicial context or prosecution, because of the immense power differential between the state and an accused individual. It is specific to that situation. You can even see it in some countries in the difference between criminal trials and civil trials. That is still within the legal system. It even doesn't apply to police arrests. Otherwise nobody could ever be arrested without violating that principle, because it happens way before a trial outcome.
> So even within legal proceedings there are differing standards depending on the stage or the nature of the proceedings.
> Outside of judicial proceedings, this is even more true.
>
> So this is quite a specific principle which does not apply here, even though parts of it, such as fairness or being led by the evidence available are more generally applicable.
>
So because outside of a law procedure you keep whatever you read or listen for true?
I doubt that it's true; being doubtful and relying on data and evidence, as I said, is common sense and things people do on regular basis.
Of course there also people who fall for the famous prince scam, because they trust an email.. but I hope those are exceptions.
Or are you really so naive to telling me that baking opinions with facts is a thing only for the legal system?
@svensp said in #113:
> What's more, in the course of this debate, these principles are regularly brought up in connection with the argument that the court was the proper place. To me that sounds as though having any investigation or consequences besides it should stop once there are legal proceedings. I strongly disagree with that notion.
Wow simply wow I am amaze.
My country law simply state what you disagree upon, and what I strongly believe in.
People shouldn't suffer the consequences for being investigated or trialed (until found guilty), otherwise the very premises of fairness is negated.
How easy will be for wealthy people or political parties to just make allegations on opposing citizens who criticise them, if the allegation alone have consequences on citizen life?
It will easily become a coercion method.
Spoiler it was already used, and for this reason my country incorporated a law to prevent that in the future.
@svensp said in #113:
>If the argument was 'We don't think that the measures taken against that person were fair or evidence-led' then there could be a debate
After what I said, there is also that point, you can't make rules afterwards.
I mean you may, as private organisations pretend some moral standards from participants, as not have percent nor pending trial.
But you make such rule "before" they joined, you can't unilaterally change rules while they already have joined.
Or at least, you technically can, but is very bad
@Ender88 said in #114:
> So because outside of a law procedure you keep whatever you read or listen for true?
No. It just means that outside of a court and legal proceedings there is no trial and therefore it's also not breaking legal rules of a trial.
> I doubt that it's true; being doubtful and relying on data and evidence, as I said, is common sense and things people do on regular basis.
I agree and did agree with that in the last post. That is not the same though as 'innocent until proven guilty' or applying the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.
> People shouldn't suffer the consequences for being investigated or trialed (until found guilty), otherwise the very premises of fairness is negated.
I agree that in internal investigations in companies or clubs a fair, evidence led process is also important. This does not mean that they have to follow the exact same standard as a court of law does in a criminal trial. Clubs and associations have rules and when those are violated there should be consequences, including when the behavior in question also violates a law at the same time.
> Wow simply wow I am amaze.
> My country law simply state what you disagree upon, and what I strongly believe in.
Really? So if somebody commits a crime at work they can only be fired once the legal proceedings are over? If a person is abusive towards their wife the wife can only divorce once legal proceedings are over? If a friend steals from a friend they can only end their friendship once legal proceedings are over? The entire universe stops simply because legal proceedings exist?
So if I want to behave badly and not face consequences outside of a court I just have to make sure to behave badly enough.
@svensp said in #115:
> Really? So if somebody commits a crime at work they can only be fired once the legal proceedings are over?
Yes, if the fact is serious it can be suspended with pay AFAIK.
Same apply for disciplinary proceedings.
If the subject is caught red handed situation changed, but only because a judge say so in the pre-trial phase.
@svensp said in #115:
>If a person is abusive towards their wife the wife can only divorce once legal proceedings are over?
Unrelated, they can divorce anytime, for any reason. An association is not husband nor wife anyway.
@svensp said in #115:
> If a friend steals from a friend they can only end their friendship once legal proceedings are over?
Unrelated, they can end friendship anytime, for any reason. An association is not a friend anyway.
@svensp said in #115:
>The entire universe stops simply because legal proceedings exist?
>
Exactly the opposite, for the millionth time.
Till the proceedings didn't end is like it never started for the subject involved (exceptions are made by curt in severe and dangerous situations like organisation crime).
If allegation only, or trial only (that's a consequence of an allegations) would have any direct impact on people, then wealthy people would have a means for coerce others.
Sue doesn't have any meaningful cost for a wealthy person, and is not against the law to fill as many lawsuit as you like (even if you lose all).
What's not clear about that?
@svensp said in #115:
> So if I want to behave badly and not face consequences outside of a court I just have to make sure to behave badly enough.
Not sure what you mean, but I start having the feeling to talk with a Martian..
If someone act badly a judge evaluate the situation, the safety of someone is at risk? There is plausible risk of reiteration?
If any of the above answers is yes, he may choose to restrict freedom of the person (the judge, the only one in charge to choose so) and preemptively put the subject in jail or to home arrest.
If both the answer are no, the subject is pretty free as usual until the trial ended.
Otherwise what "innocent until proven guilt" would mean if there are any consequences before you are found guilty?
@svensp said in #115:
>.. or applying the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.
That's an issue I have never raised, so don't include fallacies in my reasoning.
Obviously organisations haven't to follow a court standard of certainty, but at the meantime they can't exclude people arbitrary.
Because an allegation is not a fact they can't exclude people based on them, because allegations produce consequences only when proved.
The only exception is if the private entity is club that in the statute have set some standard or procedure for affiliate approval (and those standards abide the law).
I am not a lawyer but AFAIK that the law (at least in my country).
Otherwise a private entity may refuse to interact with some ethnic groups, or people with some religions.
And about the allegations that should exclude automatically people, what about constant racist allegations made by racist people to others people of some specific ethnicity?
Should we listen also that allegations? And if not who decides which allegations have to be enforced preemptively?
Spoiler a judge..
This is such a dumb discussion.
Lichess is a private org, it has the right of free association, a legal principle that _actually_ applies in this case: it can choose not to associate itself with organizations.
Let's say the bartender in a bar you frequent is caught sexually assaulting customers, and it turns out the bar was aware of this happening, it is not only within your rights, but morally justified to not go to that bar again.
So that's a private person, sure, you may argue that's different somehow (it's not), but just in case that doesn't convince you, let's say your local chessclub plays at this bar every week. It is equally within their right, and equally morally justified, for them not to associate themselves with the bar. Not only are they using their right to free association to distance themselves from the bar in question, they are also protecting their members from a culture which causes harm to them.
This whole "innocent before proven guilty" -spiel that people are pulling here honestly reads like a failed high school civics essay, you do not know what you're talking about, your arguments have no valid basis in legal principle, nor do they have any basis in moral principle, and even if they did have a basis in some moral framework, LICHESS IS STILL FREE TO ACT ACCORDING TO ITS OWN VALUES.
Any educated person will dismiss your line of reasoning immediately, because it is absolute nonsense.It serves no purpose except to oppose lichess' stance in general. Why are you even discussing this? Are you this politically invested in defending a system that perpetrates sexism and misogyny? Is this a culture war thing? Because I really can't understand what else it could be. Please understand that you are completely out of your depth and embarrassing yourselves. Perhaps _you_ are the ones who should be focusing on chess instead of politics.
@oj33 said in #118:
> This is such a dumb discussion.
>
This is ironic..and this was not my argument.
Pleas where you read I was talking about Lichess?
You literally made up..
I am not talking about Lichess boycotting, a thing I dislike (as stated previously), but that's just a private entity distancing from another private entity.
That's not the core of what I have written many many times in different post of this thread.
I am talking, in general (as already said and written), about a private entity that refuses to accept "customer" (better a participant) cause it has a pending allegation.
So I am talking about an organisation that rejects or expel a member cause he has an allegation (and is somewhat considered" less innocent" already)
If a subject is dangerous a judge have certainly restricted him, if not why should be a private entity to police preemptively him?
I have stated that clearly, I see racism very often, and people get accused cause theirs ethnicity.
What if restaurant, pub and so on apply what you call freedom of association and refuse to let them in?
You guys seems to have ended your arguments, if your last resort is adding made up faulty statement to mine..
And that said, go back to the irony of calling this a dumb discussion..
Right of free association <> right to marginalise someone based on allegations
The law "freedom of association" you cite (it seems to me is "association loi de 1901") allow people to create group or association.
But never ever, give a specific association the power to arbitrary refuse or marginalize some people, quite the opposites.
I previously clearly mentioned that, a private organisation (club) can set standard in the statute and refuse people accordingly.
Can't refuse people arbitrary, or due to allegations if those people meet the statue requirements
@Ender88 said in #119:
> The law "freedom of association" you cite (it seems to me is "association loi de 1901") allow people to create group or association.
> But never ever, give a specific association the power to arbitrary refuse or marginalize some people, quite the opposites.
> I previously clearly mentioned that, a private organisation (club) can set standard in the statute and refuse people accordingly.
> Can't refuse people arbitrary, or due to allegations if those people meet the statue requirements
Freedom of association does not encompass only a specific law, it is a general principle. But yes, it has indeed been codified into law in liberal and social democracies.
I find it amusing that you call these decisions arbitrary. It is not arbitrary to bar someone credibly accused of sex crimes, or to distance yourself from an organisation due to their mishandling of such cases.
That is a specific criteria, not arbitrary, which --- according to this very post I'm quoting --- you acknowledge is perfectly in order.
But it goes further than that, it is a specific criteria that furthers the interests of the members and the larger category they belong to (chess players), since this action calls attention to harmful practices, and advocates for better handling in the broader community, thereby reducing harm, thereby furthering the interests of all chess players.
You are once again rambling and out of your depth.
Thanks Lichess!
This should not be tolerated