lichess.org
Donate

Ending the Boycott

@svensp said in #71:

Society as well as private organizations don't have to follow the same standards as a court of law when deciding how to react to alleged activities and whether they think they occured. They are not officers of any court, they can think and choose as they see fit as long as it is legal.

Slippery slope, and probably there is room for gray areas when you talk about "as long as it's legal".

If an allegation let you lose job, and ability to defend yourself properly, your are not "innocent until proven guilty" anymore IMHO.
And victimize alleged criminal it's very risky (anyone can become one), accusations are just words until proven in a trial.

React to an allegation, lets in the hands of privates a prerogative that doesn't belong to them.
If any private party has to policy (after the fact) how the would react to such allegations, this open room to double standards.

Are we sure all parties will react the same way and in a coherent fashion? Even the same entity will be coherent if two cases happens at different times with different subjects involved?
History and experience answer is no.

A key point of society and law it that actions should have predictable outcome.
Accepting that an allegation may lead to whatever any private party feel it should feet subvert this idea and for that it extremely dangerous.

In history there are plenty of examples in which society feel the urge to take justice in their hands, acting on gut feeling and based on unproven allegations.
Never ended well

If protocols exist is for a reason, if separation of power and prerogative exist it's for a reason.
Let people focus on things that belong to their responsibilities, and nothing more.
If someone doesn't follow his responsibility we'll, then correct that, but try "compensate" shifting responsibilities among parties sounds crazy to me

@svensp said in #71: > Society as well as private organizations don't have to follow the same standards as a court of law when deciding how to react to alleged activities and whether they think they occured. They are not officers of any court, they can think and choose as they see fit as long as it is legal. Slippery slope, and probably there is room for gray areas when you talk about "as long as it's legal". If an allegation let you lose job, and ability to defend yourself properly, your are not "innocent until proven guilty" anymore IMHO. And victimize alleged criminal it's very risky (anyone can become one), accusations are just words until proven in a trial. React to an allegation, lets in the hands of privates a prerogative that doesn't belong to them. If any private party has to policy (after the fact) how the would react to such allegations, this open room to double standards. Are we sure all parties will react the same way and in a coherent fashion? Even the same entity will be coherent if two cases happens at different times with different subjects involved? History and experience answer is no. A key point of society and law it that actions should have predictable outcome. Accepting that an allegation may lead to whatever any private party feel it should feet subvert this idea and for that it extremely dangerous. In history there are plenty of examples in which society feel the urge to take justice in their hands, acting on gut feeling and based on unproven allegations. Never ended well If protocols exist is for a reason, if separation of power and prerogative exist it's for a reason. Let people focus on things that belong to their responsibilities, and nothing more. If someone doesn't follow his responsibility we'll, then correct that, but try "compensate" shifting responsibilities among parties sounds crazy to me

@Ender88 said in #72:

Slippery slope, and probably there is room for gray areas when you talk about "as long as it's legal".

No, there isn't. That's why it's not a slippery slope. The rule of law applies also to the reactions of society. But the rule of law does not mean that nobody can make independent judgment calls and react to alleged behavior until a judge has made a decision. It does mean that all of these reactions are subject to the law as well. No exceptions.

If an allegation let you lose job, and ability to defend yourself properly, your are not "innocent until proven guilty" anymore IMHO.

If somebody at work hits another person and they are fired immediately, that is not a violation of innocent until proven guilty. On the contrary, if you let the person come in for work and continue to hit people until all the judicial proceedings are over, you are acting inappropriately as an employer. Of course the action of letting go that person is subject to laws as well.

@Ender88 said in #72: > Slippery slope, and probably there is room for gray areas when you talk about "as long as it's legal". No, there isn't. That's why it's not a slippery slope. The rule of law applies also to the reactions of society. But the rule of law does not mean that nobody can make independent judgment calls and react to alleged behavior until a judge has made a decision. It does mean that all of these reactions are subject to the law as well. No exceptions. > If an allegation let you lose job, and ability to defend yourself properly, your are not "innocent until proven guilty" anymore IMHO. If somebody at work hits another person and they are fired immediately, that is not a violation of innocent until proven guilty. On the contrary, if you let the person come in for work and continue to hit people until all the judicial proceedings are over, you are acting inappropriately as an employer. Of course the action of letting go that person is subject to laws as well.

@svensp said in #73:

No, there isn't. That's why it's not a slippery slope. The rule of law applies also for the reactions of society. But the rule of law does not mean that nobody can make independent judgment calls and react to alleged behavior until a judge has a made decision. It does mean that all of these reactions are subject to the law as well. No exceptions.

Seems very naive thinking, and not very relevant, we are not talking about expressing opinions on alleged fact (always allowed IMHO), we are talking about excluding people based only on allegations.

I see honest people being called thief or worst, only for their ethnicity, and sometimes there was also blatant false (yet specific) accusations biased by racism.
I see people disassociate from them and basically marginalize them (all within the limit of law).
Society that freely decided, even in the limit of laws, who are the risky people have historically lead to racism and discrimination.

Stick to the fact, prosecute and punish only criminals, not likely or probably criminal.
It's crazy that this have to be said in 2025

@svensp said in #73:

If somebody at work hits another person and they are fired immediately, that is not a violation of innocent until proven guilty. On the contrary, if you let the person come in for work and continue to hit people until all the judicial proceedings are done, you are acting inappropriately as an employer. Of course the action of letting go that person is subject to laws as well.

You miss that as also I said, law already handle such situations.
When an accusations are made those accusations are immediately checked for : red handed cases and risky cases.

If an alleged criminal (regular people only accused) is a danger for society, based only on accusations, a judge will immediately put limits for his freedom (before trial).
Not private parties a judge.
If someone is caught red handed committing a crime a judge will restrict his freedom even before a trial set up.

If a judge doesn't make it so, it is his/her responsibility/fault, not yours.

Why you are advocating for arbitrary restricting freedom/possibility of people (innocent at the time) based only on what it was said by someone?
Why aren't you advocating for judges to make better job if the issue is that they haven't restrained a blatant criminal?

@svensp said in #73: > No, there isn't. That's why it's not a slippery slope. The rule of law applies also for the reactions of society. But the rule of law does not mean that nobody can make independent judgment calls and react to alleged behavior until a judge has a made decision. It does mean that all of these reactions are subject to the law as well. No exceptions. Seems very naive thinking, and not very relevant, we are not talking about expressing opinions on alleged fact (always allowed IMHO), we are talking about excluding people based only on allegations. I see honest people being called thief or worst, only for their ethnicity, and sometimes there was also blatant false (yet specific) accusations biased by racism. I see people disassociate from them and basically marginalize them (all within the limit of law). Society that freely decided, even in the limit of laws, who are the risky people have historically lead to racism and discrimination. Stick to the fact, prosecute and punish only criminals, not likely or probably criminal. It's crazy that this have to be said in 2025 @svensp said in #73: > If somebody at work hits another person and they are fired immediately, that is not a violation of innocent until proven guilty. On the contrary, if you let the person come in for work and continue to hit people until all the judicial proceedings are done, you are acting inappropriately as an employer. Of course the action of letting go that person is subject to laws as well. You miss that as also I said, law already handle such situations. When an accusations are made those accusations are immediately checked for : red handed cases and risky cases. If an alleged criminal (regular people only accused) is a danger for society, based only on accusations, a judge will immediately put limits for his freedom (before trial). Not private parties a judge. If someone is caught red handed committing a crime a judge will restrict his freedom even before a trial set up. If a judge doesn't make it so, it is his/her responsibility/fault, not yours. Why you are advocating for arbitrary restricting freedom/possibility of people (innocent at the time) based only on what it was said by someone? Why aren't you advocating for judges to make better job if the issue is that they haven't restrained a blatant criminal?

I think we' ll just have to agree to disagree and our discussion isn't really leading anywhere, but I appreciate your explanations.

@Ender88 said in #74:

Seems very naive thinking.
I see honest people being called thief or worst, only for their ethnicity, and some times there was also blatant false (yet specific) accusations.
I see people disassociate from them and basically marginalize them (all within the limit of law).
Society that freely decided, even in the limit of laws, who are the risky person or people have historically lead to racism and discrimination.

I'd argue that racism and discrimination have led to unfair behavior by society and not the other way around. Social exclusion is not always a bad thing though. As exemplified in the famous scene in '12 Angry Men' where they exclude the racist guy until he breaks down, because nobody listens to him (obviously a work of fiction).

Stick to the fact, prosecute and punish only criminals, not likely or probably criminal.
It's crazy that this have to be said in 2025

That would actually be the end of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It applies to people being prosecuted. They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In other words: Every person being prosecuted is legally assumed to not be a criminal until proven otherwise. So exclusively people presumed innocent are being prosecuted, not exclusively people presumed to be criminals.

You miss that as also I said, law already handle such situations.

So nobody else can react to something as soon as it becomes subject to being a violation of the law? So if somebody lies to somebody else (legally but immorally) people can judge them and react to that within the law, but once they hit them (illegally) people can't do that anymore? Somebody could legitimately be socially excluded for saying vile things but not for being threatening or violent, because now it is a judge's responsibility even though the action is happening right now? Seriously?

When an accusations are made those accusations are immediately checked for : red handed and risk.

If an alleged criminal (regular people only accused) is a danger for society, based only for accusations a judge will put limits for his freedom.
Not private parties a judge.

One would hope that judges don't put people away for such a vague accusation of being a 'danger of society', but for more specific alleged violations of specific laws. Private parties do have agency though. They can decide who to let into a store, they can decide who to employ or who to let go, they can decide who to give certain positions or not. As you rightly point out this power is often being abused, for example due to racism. That's why there are laws against abuse of that power. But that does not mean that all exercise of that agency to the detriment of another person is illegal or wrong. Not everybody who is fired is fired unjustly for example.

If someone is caught red handed committing a crime a judge will restrict his freedom while trials go on.

If a judge doesn't make it so, it his/her responsibility, not yours.
Why you are advocating for arbitrary restricting freedom/possibility of innocent people based only on what it was said?

I'm not. Key word here is 'arbitrary'. I'm advocating for freedom in behavior of people and organizations as long as they don't violate the law.

I think we' ll just have to agree to disagree and our discussion isn't really leading anywhere, but I appreciate your explanations. @Ender88 said in #74: > Seems very naive thinking. > I see honest people being called thief or worst, only for their ethnicity, and some times there was also blatant false (yet specific) accusations. > I see people disassociate from them and basically marginalize them (all within the limit of law). > Society that freely decided, even in the limit of laws, who are the risky person or people have historically lead to racism and discrimination. I'd argue that racism and discrimination have led to unfair behavior by society and not the other way around. Social exclusion is not always a bad thing though. As exemplified in the famous scene in '12 Angry Men' where they exclude the racist guy until he breaks down, because nobody listens to him (obviously a work of fiction). > Stick to the fact, prosecute and punish only criminals, not likely or probably criminal. > It's crazy that this have to be said in 2025 That would actually be the end of the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It applies to people being prosecuted. They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In other words: Every person being prosecuted is legally assumed to not be a criminal until proven otherwise. So exclusively people presumed innocent are being prosecuted, not exclusively people presumed to be criminals. > You miss that as also I said, law already handle such situations. So nobody else can react to something as soon as it becomes subject to being a violation of the law? So if somebody lies to somebody else (legally but immorally) people can judge them and react to that within the law, but once they hit them (illegally) people can't do that anymore? Somebody could legitimately be socially excluded for saying vile things but not for being threatening or violent, because now it is a judge's responsibility even though the action is happening right now? Seriously? > When an accusations are made those accusations are immediately checked for : red handed and risk. > > If an alleged criminal (regular people only accused) is a danger for society, based only for accusations a judge will put limits for his freedom. > Not private parties a judge. One would hope that judges don't put people away for such a vague accusation of being a 'danger of society', but for more specific alleged violations of specific laws. Private parties do have agency though. They can decide who to let into a store, they can decide who to employ or who to let go, they can decide who to give certain positions or not. As you rightly point out this power is often being abused, for example due to racism. That's why there are laws against abuse of that power. But that does not mean that all exercise of that agency to the detriment of another person is illegal or wrong. Not everybody who is fired is fired unjustly for example. > If someone is caught red handed committing a crime a judge will restrict his freedom while trials go on. > > If a judge doesn't make it so, it his/her responsibility, not yours. > Why you are advocating for arbitrary restricting freedom/possibility of innocent people based only on what it was said? I'm not. Key word here is 'arbitrary'. I'm advocating for freedom in behavior of people and organizations as long as they don't violate the law.

@svensp said in #75:
as soon as it becomes subject to being a violation of the law? So if somebody lies to somebody else (legally but immorally) people can judge them and react to that within the law, but once they hit them (illegally) people can't do that anymore? Somebody could legitimately be socially excluded for saying vile things but not for being threatening or violent, because now it is a judge's responsibility even though the action is happening right now? Seriously?

Exactly I am against excluding/judging someone for not sharing a moral view (or religion) with me, or basically all the aforementioned (legal yet morally dscutible) example you made.
So as long the person is immortal (lie or swear) I am against private parties policing him/her.
He/she should be free to act freely immorality as he/she please; because after all I haven't the ownership of what moral is, so maybe his/her morals and mine simply missmatch.

I don't live in a moral or religious state, I live in a state policed by law (law who was made all together by society).
As long as you are not a danger and do not damage anyone (both things decided by a judge no by a rando) I wouldn't judge you, neither morally.

@svensp said in #75:
One would hope that judges don't put people away for such a vague accusation of being a 'danger of society',

Typo I mean danger for society.
Maybe I have translated wrongly, but at least in my country there is a pre trial phase where possible causes of peemtive measures are evaluated.
Here judge evaluate if allegations are convincing, if so it can mandate for jail while trailing.
He/she also may evaluate risk of reiteration and if the infringement is considered dangerous for society (eg: terrorism).
Judge then can prescribe mitigations to lower risks without jailing (eg ankle monitor).

@svensp said in #75:
Private parties do have agency though. They can decide who to let into a store

This is funny, in my country a store (not a club) can't choose who let in.
Otherwise it's discrimination and plain illegal.

@svensp said in #75:
they can decide who to employ or who to let go,

Again not where I live, if they reject you because of an allegation or your moral stance, it's considered discrimination.
If reject you without specifying otherwise maybe because they don't find you fit for the position and it's allowed.
But basically the law of my country is in contrast of your "view"

@svensp said in #75:
But that does not mean that all exercise of that agency to the detriment of another person is illegal or wrong.

As I said it's a gray area, sometime as in the example above is considered illegal in my country.
Sometimes not explicitly illegal, but I don't find that right anyway.

@svensp said in #75:

I'm not. Key word here is 'arbitrary'. I'm advocating for freedom in behavior of people and organizations as long as they don't violate the law.

Boycott is not asking for a free change in behaviour.
The boycott idea you are supporting is the opposite, you try with that idea, to shift the 'freedom of behaviour ' of a private party, that act in a way you don't like.
And what you don't like is that this private party isn't doing judge job.
Yet you seems to be lenient with the judges who haven't done a better job accordingly with your expectations.
After all why a judge haven't issued a restriction order? If he/she has make it so it will have lift the burden to event organizer after all.

IMHO punishment (in any form) should be predictable (or will lose its deterrent power) and driven by independent power.
Private parties aren't an independent power, and for that reason should focus on their business only.
Law then should be only driven by damage and danger factor, no room for morals in there

@svensp said in #75: as soon as it becomes subject to being a violation of the law? So if somebody lies to somebody else (legally but immorally) people can judge them and react to that within the law, but once they hit them (illegally) people can't do that anymore? Somebody could legitimately be socially excluded for saying vile things but not for being threatening or violent, because now it is a judge's responsibility even though the action is happening right now? Seriously? > Exactly I am against excluding/judging someone for not sharing a moral view (or religion) with me, or basically all the aforementioned (legal yet morally dscutible) example you made. So as long the person is immortal (lie or swear) I am against private parties policing him/her. He/she should be free to act freely immorality as he/she please; because after all I haven't the ownership of what moral is, so maybe his/her morals and mine simply missmatch. I don't live in a moral or religious state, I live in a state policed by law (law who was made all together by society). As long as you are not a danger and do not damage anyone (both things decided by a judge no by a rando) I wouldn't judge you, neither morally. > @svensp said in #75: > One would hope that judges don't put people away for such a vague accusation of being a 'danger of society', Typo I mean danger for society. Maybe I have translated wrongly, but at least in my country there is a pre trial phase where possible causes of peemtive measures are evaluated. Here judge evaluate if allegations are convincing, if so it can mandate for jail while trailing. He/she also may evaluate risk of reiteration and if the infringement is considered dangerous for society (eg: terrorism). Judge then can prescribe mitigations to lower risks without jailing (eg ankle monitor). @svensp said in #75: Private parties do have agency though. They can decide who to let into a store This is funny, in my country a store (not a club) can't choose who let in. Otherwise it's discrimination and plain illegal. @svensp said in #75: they can decide who to employ or who to let go, Again not where I live, if they reject you because of an allegation or your moral stance, it's considered discrimination. If reject you without specifying otherwise maybe because they don't find you fit for the position and it's allowed. But basically the law of my country is in contrast of your "view" @svensp said in #75: But that does not mean that all exercise of that agency to the detriment of another person is illegal or wrong. As I said it's a gray area, sometime as in the example above is considered illegal in my country. Sometimes not explicitly illegal, but I don't find that right anyway. @svensp said in #75: > I'm not. Key word here is 'arbitrary'. I'm advocating for freedom in behavior of people and organizations as long as they don't violate the law. Boycott is not asking for a free change in behaviour. The boycott idea you are supporting is the opposite, you try with that idea, to shift the 'freedom of behaviour ' of a private party, that act in a way you don't like. And what you don't like is that this private party isn't doing judge job. Yet you seems to be lenient with the judges who haven't done a better job accordingly with your expectations. After all why a judge haven't issued a restriction order? If he/she has make it so it will have lift the burden to event organizer after all. IMHO punishment (in any form) should be predictable (or will lose its deterrent power) and driven by independent power. Private parties aren't an independent power, and for that reason should focus on their business only. Law then should be only driven by damage and danger factor, no room for morals in there

A lot of comments missing the point when they bring up the whole Shahade-Ramirez debacle. Lichess never made any statements regarding the case itself so much as that they disagree heavily with how the two organizations involved handled it very poorly and had poor standards in place to prevent or act against sexual harassment, intimidation and hazing.

Whether Ramirez was guilty is completely beyond the point.

Although from the outside looking at the claims presented it seems the evidence was overwhelming. People should always been innocent until proven guilty but when someone finds a dozen witnesses whose stories align and the accused makes an effort to become as invisible as possible, I think that sticking to "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a toxic method for bad actors get away with crimes because no one was there to fingerprint him and take pictures/videos while he was doing them.

A lot of comments missing the point when they bring up the whole Shahade-Ramirez debacle. Lichess never made any statements regarding the case itself so much as that they disagree heavily with how the two organizations involved handled it very poorly and had poor standards in place to prevent or act against sexual harassment, intimidation and hazing. Whether Ramirez was guilty is completely beyond the point. Although from the outside looking at the claims presented it seems the evidence was overwhelming. People should always been innocent until proven guilty but when someone finds a dozen witnesses whose stories align and the accused makes an effort to become as invisible as possible, I think that sticking to "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a toxic method for bad actors get away with crimes because no one was there to fingerprint him and take pictures/videos while he was doing them.

@Sandbucket said in #77:

Although from the outside looking at the claims presented it seems the evidence was overwhelming. People should always been innocent until proven guilty but when someone finds a dozen witnesses whose stories align and the accused makes an effort to become as invisible as possible, I think that sticking to "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a toxic method for bad actors get away with crimes because no one was there to fingerprint him and take pictures/videos while he was doing them.

I don't want to talk about this specific case, because my knowledge about it is poor.

My point is that if the act was as blatant as you described (I am not doubting what you said), I would be puzzled on why the judges who choose not to apply all the restrictions the may had; so that a private entity, who isn't involved too much in the criminal acts, didn't have to handle the situation form them.

Judges may well have issued restrictions over the alleged criminal, in such cases usually those orders forbid the alleged criminal to get close to alleged victim less than X meters.
Or in worse case forbid entirely freedom of movement for the alleged criminal (city or home depending on cases).
I don't understand why didn't happened here, again I am no well informed, puzzled anyway.

I find astonishing that should be a private chess organisation to handle the situation instead of property law enforcement/judge.

Since when a chess organisation should have to be competent and knowledgeable about how to handle such situations?

@Sandbucket said in #77: > Although from the outside looking at the claims presented it seems the evidence was overwhelming. People should always been innocent until proven guilty but when someone finds a dozen witnesses whose stories align and the accused makes an effort to become as invisible as possible, I think that sticking to "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a toxic method for bad actors get away with crimes because no one was there to fingerprint him and take pictures/videos while he was doing them. I don't want to talk about this specific case, because my knowledge about it is poor. My point is that if the act was as blatant as you described (I am not doubting what you said), I would be puzzled on why the judges who choose not to apply all the restrictions the may had; so that a private entity, who isn't involved too much in the criminal acts, didn't have to handle the situation form them. Judges may well have issued restrictions over the alleged criminal, in such cases usually those orders forbid the alleged criminal to get close to alleged victim less than X meters. Or in worse case forbid entirely freedom of movement for the alleged criminal (city or home depending on cases). I don't understand why didn't happened here, again I am no well informed, puzzled anyway. I find astonishing that should be a private chess organisation to handle the situation instead of property law enforcement/judge. Since when a chess organisation should have to be competent and knowledgeable about how to handle such situations?

@Ender88 said in #70:

Yes, the players should be responsible for their actions, not US Chess. They aren't the police, they literally run chess tournaments, not the players' lives.

@Ender88 said in #70: > Yes, the players should be responsible for their actions, not US Chess. They aren't the police, they literally run chess tournaments, not the players' lives.

@Ender88 said in #78:

I don't want to talk about this specific case, because my knowledge about it is poor.

My point is that if the act was as blatant as you described (I am not doubting what you said), I would be puzzled on why the judges who choose not to apply all the restrictions the may had; so that a private entity, who isn't involved too much in the criminal acts, didn't have to handle the situation form them.

Judges may well have issued restrictions over the alleged criminal, in such cases usually those orders forbid the alleged criminal to get close to alleged victim less than X meters.
Or in worse case forbid entirely freedom of movement for the alleged criminal (city or home depending on cases).
I don't understand why didn't happened here, again I am no well informed, puzzled anyway.

I find astonishing that should be a private chess organisation to handle the situation instead of property law enforcement/judge.

Since when a chess organisation should have to be competent and knowledgeable about how to handle such situations?

It is not that anyone expects the chess organization to dole out punishments or in any way be the mediator of this happening. It is that, among others, when the abuse of UNDERAGED MINORS is brought up it was not seriously handled and/or forwarded to those who should have policed this.

If a teacher turned out to do the unspeakable to your own children and it is brought up with the school who promptly dismisses it, you don't go "oh well we should've just gone to the police, the school did nothing wrong". Especially when children and parents put trust in the fact that the school takes responsibility for what happens while you entrust your kids to them.

Rape is not a cut and dry issue. People can be abused through positions of power, possibly ruining careers if you don't keep silent. It is painfully hard to prove and many victims are told that they might as well keep quiet to not suffer any further.

People who say "oh the judge didn't put him in jail for 50 years so it must not be that bad" don't seem to realize that the current justicial system is woefully unequiped to address something that can be so hard to prove, especially years after the fact.

To note. One of the major failures was that after MULTIPLE sexual assault allegations towards minors. The USCF claimed to have understood and heard about the issues any promised to not put him in a coaching position anymore. Then they put him in the position to coach over a 100 kids for the Olympiad, putting him in positions where he coached women's teams.

Over the span of multiple years the USCF repeatedly assured that complaints regarding ramirez were taken seriously yet thrown into the wind when you look at their actual actions.

It is just a clear indication that there was either misogyny or corruption at play considering that such allegations were not handled properly.

@Ender88 said in #78: > I don't want to talk about this specific case, because my knowledge about it is poor. > > My point is that if the act was as blatant as you described (I am not doubting what you said), I would be puzzled on why the judges who choose not to apply all the restrictions the may had; so that a private entity, who isn't involved too much in the criminal acts, didn't have to handle the situation form them. > > Judges may well have issued restrictions over the alleged criminal, in such cases usually those orders forbid the alleged criminal to get close to alleged victim less than X meters. > Or in worse case forbid entirely freedom of movement for the alleged criminal (city or home depending on cases). > I don't understand why didn't happened here, again I am no well informed, puzzled anyway. > > I find astonishing that should be a private chess organisation to handle the situation instead of property law enforcement/judge. > > Since when a chess organisation should have to be competent and knowledgeable about how to handle such situations? It is not that anyone expects the chess organization to dole out punishments or in any way be the mediator of this happening. It is that, among others, when the abuse of UNDERAGED MINORS is brought up it was not seriously handled and/or forwarded to those who should have policed this. If a teacher turned out to do the unspeakable to your own children and it is brought up with the school who promptly dismisses it, you don't go "oh well we should've just gone to the police, the school did nothing wrong". Especially when children and parents put trust in the fact that the school takes responsibility for what happens while you entrust your kids to them. Rape is not a cut and dry issue. People can be abused through positions of power, possibly ruining careers if you don't keep silent. It is painfully hard to prove and many victims are told that they might as well keep quiet to not suffer any further. People who say "oh the judge didn't put him in jail for 50 years so it must not be that bad" don't seem to realize that the current justicial system is woefully unequiped to address something that can be so hard to prove, especially years after the fact. To note. One of the major failures was that after MULTIPLE sexual assault allegations towards minors. The USCF claimed to have understood and heard about the issues any promised to not put him in a coaching position anymore. Then they put him in the position to coach over a 100 kids for the Olympiad, putting him in positions where he coached women's teams. Over the span of multiple years the USCF repeatedly assured that complaints regarding ramirez were taken seriously yet thrown into the wind when you look at their actual actions. It is just a clear indication that there was either misogyny or corruption at play considering that such allegations were not handled properly.

@Sandbucket said in #80:

It is not that anyone expects the chess organization to dole out punishments or in any way be the mediator of this happening. It is that, among others, when the abuse of UNDERAGED MINORS is brought up it was not seriously handled and/or forwarded to those who should have policed this.

If a teacher turned out to do the unspeakable to your own children and it is brought up with the school who promptly dismisses it, you don't go "oh well we should've just gone to the police, the school did nothing wrong". Especially when children and parents put trust in the fact that the school takes responsibility for what happens while you entrust your kids to them.

Rape is not a cut and dry issue. People can be abused through positions of power, possibly ruining careers if you don't keep silent. It is painfully hard to prove and many victims are told that they might as well keep quiet to not suffer any further.

People who say "oh the judge didn't put him in jail for 50 years so it must not be that bad" don't seem to realize that the current justicial system is woefully unequiped to address something that can be so hard to prove, especially years after the fact.

To note. One of the major failures was that after MULTIPLE sexual assault allegations towards minors. The USCF claimed to have understood and heard about the issues any promised to not put him in a coaching position anymore. Then they put him in the position to coach over a 100 kids for the Olympiad, putting him in positions where he coached women's teams.

Over the span of multiple years the USCF repeatedly assured that complaints regarding ramirez were taken seriously yet thrown into the wind when you look at their actual actions.

It is just a clear indication that there was either misogyny or corruption at play considering that such allegations were not handled properly.

However, unlike a teacher at a school, a chess player is not being affiliated with, or helping, or working for USCHESS, only using their services.
The conflict between players should remain between players. Take for example the following analogy: I walk into a public restaurant and am harassed by another customer. Should I immediately blame the owners of the restaurant for not being more selective in the people they let in? No, if anything I would take action directly against that person, not against the owners or the business who had no part in it. It would be immediately thrown out by any judge if I sued the restaurant over that. I feel that the same rules apply to this case, and that we should be less ready to play the blame game for no reason other than personal gain.

@Sandbucket said in #80: > It is not that anyone expects the chess organization to dole out punishments or in any way be the mediator of this happening. It is that, among others, when the abuse of UNDERAGED MINORS is brought up it was not seriously handled and/or forwarded to those who should have policed this. > > If a teacher turned out to do the unspeakable to your own children and it is brought up with the school who promptly dismisses it, you don't go "oh well we should've just gone to the police, the school did nothing wrong". Especially when children and parents put trust in the fact that the school takes responsibility for what happens while you entrust your kids to them. > > Rape is not a cut and dry issue. People can be abused through positions of power, possibly ruining careers if you don't keep silent. It is painfully hard to prove and many victims are told that they might as well keep quiet to not suffer any further. > > People who say "oh the judge didn't put him in jail for 50 years so it must not be that bad" don't seem to realize that the current justicial system is woefully unequiped to address something that can be so hard to prove, especially years after the fact. > > To note. One of the major failures was that after MULTIPLE sexual assault allegations towards minors. The USCF claimed to have understood and heard about the issues any promised to not put him in a coaching position anymore. Then they put him in the position to coach over a 100 kids for the Olympiad, putting him in positions where he coached women's teams. > > Over the span of multiple years the USCF repeatedly assured that complaints regarding ramirez were taken seriously yet thrown into the wind when you look at their actual actions. > > It is just a clear indication that there was either misogyny or corruption at play considering that such allegations were not handled properly. However, unlike a teacher at a school, a chess player is not being affiliated with, or helping, or working for USCHESS, only using their services. The conflict between players should remain between players. Take for example the following analogy: I walk into a public restaurant and am harassed by another customer. Should I immediately blame the owners of the restaurant for not being more selective in the people they let in? No, if anything I would take action directly against that person, not against the owners or the business who had no part in it. It would be immediately thrown out by any judge if I sued the restaurant over that. I feel that the same rules apply to this case, and that we should be less ready to play the blame game for no reason other than personal gain.