lichess.org
Donate

Ending the Boycott

@theBigHig said in #8:

What does boycotting US Chess actually entail?

It entails the following:

  1. Bugger
  2. All
@theBigHig said in #8: > What does boycotting US Chess actually entail? It entails the following: 1. Bugger 2. All

Didn't know Lichess' stance or that it took one, just donated!

Didn't know Lichess' stance or that it took one, just donated!

@Shirayukihime said in #49:

Again, the only argument I am making is that the holier-than-thou attitude of lichess ("Chess organisations have a moral, if not also a legal, duty to protect the welfare of players, volunteers, and officials attending, participating in, officiating, or spectating at their events.") is very, very selective. Effectively, lichess administrators position themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong, with these opinions not necessarily representative of the user body. What's more appalling, "We have never claimed to be apolitical." is not stated in the "About Us" page.

Just be honest -- add "Lichess does not claim to be an apolitical organization and may take a unilateral action against any organization and individual whose actions are deemed unacceptable to the Lichess administration." to the "About Us" page.

Do not write -- "With no investors demanding profits, Lichess staff can focus on improving the site as their only goal."
Apparently, as indicated by all these actions, promoting viewpoints of the administration is a goal as well.

I just can't understand how you are making a political argument about an issue about sexual and child abuse. As for the "viewpoints of the administration," would you not agree that stopping such incidents should be a viewpoint of not just the Lichess administration but for the global community? Is it not an issue of morality and justice, not of politics?

What's the point of adding that "Lichess does not claim to be an apolitcal organization"? Is that not just fact? With your argument, Lichess should also add "Lichess does not claim that it eats cake" or some other preposterous garbage.

Change does not just come about on its own. Boycotting in itself is a right of free speech in the US is it not?

@Shirayukihime said in #49: > Again, the only argument I am making is that the holier-than-thou attitude of lichess ("Chess organisations have a moral, if not also a legal, duty to protect the welfare of players, volunteers, and officials attending, participating in, officiating, or spectating at their events.") is very, very selective. Effectively, lichess administrators position themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong, with these opinions not necessarily representative of the user body. What's more appalling, "We have never claimed to be apolitical." is not stated in the "About Us" page. > > Just be honest -- add "Lichess does not claim to be an apolitical organization and may take a unilateral action against any organization and individual whose actions are deemed unacceptable to the Lichess administration." to the "About Us" page. > > Do not write -- "With no investors demanding profits, Lichess staff can focus on improving the site as their only goal." > Apparently, as indicated by all these actions, promoting viewpoints of the administration is a goal as well. I just can't understand how you are making a political argument about an issue about sexual and child abuse. As for the "viewpoints of the administration," would you not agree that stopping such incidents should be a viewpoint of not just the Lichess administration but for the global community? Is it not an issue of morality and justice, not of politics? What's the point of adding that "Lichess does not claim to be an apolitcal organization"? Is that not just fact? With your argument, Lichess should also add "Lichess does not claim that it eats cake" or some other preposterous garbage. Change does not just come about on its own. Boycotting in itself is a right of free speech in the US is it not?

I don't care about technical shoulds or oughts in terms of any kind of policy... very easy for US Chess to say not nothing. Obviously morally right for them to say not nothing. But... they're saying nothing. I'm also unaware of any mitigating circumstances that would change how I feel. I say, yay Lichess boo US Chess.

I don't care about technical shoulds or oughts in terms of any kind of policy... very easy for US Chess to say not nothing. Obviously morally right for them to say not nothing. But... they're saying nothing. I'm also unaware of any mitigating circumstances that would change how I feel. I say, yay Lichess boo US Chess.

All I will say is that allegations are just that, allegations. I find changing from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" quite concerning. Even after due process and lengthy trials, some innocent people are still wrongfully incarcerated. Drawing a verdict and lynch mobbing people (or assassinating their character) based solely on accusations, I would not call that progress. The proper venue to litigate alleged S.A. is in a court of law, not a chess club/organization.

All I will say is that allegations are just that, allegations. I find changing from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" quite concerning. Even after due process and lengthy trials, some innocent people are still wrongfully incarcerated. Drawing a verdict and lynch mobbing people (or assassinating their character) based solely on accusations, I would not call that progress. The proper venue to litigate alleged S.A. is in a court of law, not a chess club/organization.

I write as a lichess donor and as a US Chess donor, volunteer, and former Delegate. I am also in the awkward position of being a (distant) friend of both Ms. Shahade and of several decision-makers at US Chess. I know more than I am putting in this post.

The evidence supporting Mr. Ramírez's alleged conduct is by all accounts overwhelming. See the Wall Street Journal article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alejandro-ramirez-jennifer-shahade-chess-allegations-622263b8?st=Ao6et3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Shahade was the victim of two sexual assaults by Mr. Ramírez, and that she was not his only victim. In many US jurisdictions, Mr. Ramírez's conduct in at least one instance (see the WSJ article) would be classified as rape. I take this matter with the utmost seriousness.

Having said that, I do believe that lichess has only a partial understanding of the full story. I certainly don't believe that US Chess handled the situation optimally with respect to Ms. Shahade, and I express no opinion regarding pending litigation. However, I know of no behavior whatsoever by US Chess that countenanced sexual assault by anyone or blamed any victim.

Note that St. Louis Chess Club is being praised for adopting US Chess's revised "Guidelines on Safe Play and Conduct." Our tournament directors now receive annual Safe Play training, and those hired by US Chess are subject to background checks.

I was profoundly disappointed by the referenced article in ACM #37. That article should not be taken as the position of US Chess.

I appreciate that lichess is doing its best to act honorably. Women's rights and children's rights are far more important. If lichess does not want to partner with US Chess in the foreseeable future, I understand. But I truly think this is an overreaction.

I write as a lichess donor and as a US Chess donor, volunteer, and former Delegate. I am also in the awkward position of being a (distant) friend of both Ms. Shahade and of several decision-makers at US Chess. I know more than I am putting in this post. The evidence supporting Mr. Ramírez's alleged conduct is by all accounts overwhelming. See the Wall Street Journal article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/alejandro-ramirez-jennifer-shahade-chess-allegations-622263b8?st=Ao6et3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Shahade was the victim of two sexual assaults by Mr. Ramírez, and that she was not his only victim. In many US jurisdictions, Mr. Ramírez's conduct in at least one instance (see the WSJ article) would be classified as rape. I take this matter with the utmost seriousness. Having said that, I do believe that lichess has only a partial understanding of the full story. I certainly don't believe that US Chess handled the situation optimally with respect to Ms. Shahade, and I express no opinion regarding pending litigation. However, I know of no behavior whatsoever by US Chess that countenanced sexual assault by anyone or blamed any victim. Note that St. Louis Chess Club is being praised for adopting US Chess's revised "Guidelines on Safe Play and Conduct." Our tournament directors now receive annual Safe Play training, and those hired by US Chess are subject to background checks. I was profoundly disappointed by the referenced article in ACM #37. That article should not be taken as the position of US Chess. I appreciate that lichess is doing its best to act honorably. Women's rights and children's rights are far more important. If lichess does not want to partner with US Chess in the foreseeable future, I understand. But I truly think this is an overreaction.

@itakitsu said in #47:

Bad faith comments here trying to frame child abuse prevention as "politics" that Lichess should stay out of. Gross. Thank you Lichess.

Bad faith does not mean "Opinions that differ from mine."

Your characterization is in bad faith. This is not about "child abuse prevention" but the agenda of circumventing law enforcement. The allegations referred to in the OP were and are criminal allegations. Chess clubs and websites are not equipped or empowered to be arbiters of criminal allegations.

Rather than make formal criminal allegations with appropriate authorities, the victims chose social coalition building and to use that influence to make policy changes without bothering with that pesky concept of due process or criminal investigation.

To be clear, I think all criminal allegations should be fully investigated, and if credible, the guilty should be held fully accountable. But let's not pretend that ever happened. The whole thing is inherently political.

@itakitsu said in #47: > Bad faith comments here trying to frame child abuse prevention as "politics" that Lichess should stay out of. Gross. Thank you Lichess. ********* Bad faith does not mean "Opinions that differ from mine." Your characterization is in bad faith. This is not about "child abuse prevention" but the agenda of circumventing law enforcement. The allegations referred to in the OP were and are *criminal* allegations. Chess clubs and websites are not equipped or empowered to be arbiters of criminal allegations. Rather than make formal criminal allegations with appropriate authorities, the victims chose social coalition building and to use that influence to make policy changes without bothering with that pesky concept of due process or criminal investigation. To be clear, I think all criminal allegations should be fully investigated, and if credible, the guilty should be held fully accountable. But let's not pretend that ever happened. The whole thing is inherently political.

Lichess cannot get along with Chess.com
Lichess does not get along with USCF
Lichess could not get along with STLCC
Maybe we could try to work out the differences and have a better community where chess improvement is even easier!

Lichess cannot get along with Chess.com Lichess does not get along with USCF Lichess could not get along with STLCC Maybe we could try to work out the differences and have a better community where chess improvement is even easier!

I have never understood why being against sexual harassment constitutes as "politics".

Sure, they may be allegations, but if you read the evidence, it is quite overwhelming.

I have never understood why being against sexual harassment constitutes as "politics". Sure, they may be allegations, but if you read the evidence, it is quite overwhelming.

@d0ugh said in #40:

Shahade's lawsuit against US Chess is an allegation. There hasn't been a trial yet. But Lichess has decided to act as judge and jury, siding with Shahade without waiting for the evidence to be presented at trial.

My understanding is that Lichess did not persecute, prosecute, nor condemn the accused - I agree that is outside their purview.

What I see is that Lichess has upheld basic standards of good sportsmanship (on their own website) in questioning how these organizations were handling this kind of situation. It seems Lichess did not act on hearsay but reached out to these organizations and found directly that their responses and policies did not meet (their own, nor in general) reasonable expectations and standards.

In short, it seems to me, Lichess had decided to remove their support and resources from organizations which did not meet their own standards. They have led by example with accountability, responsibility, and transparency in their actions in addressing this on their own site as well as supporting and contributing to standards of good sportsmanship in the larger chess community.

@d0ugh said in #40: > Shahade's lawsuit against US Chess is an allegation. There hasn't been a trial yet. But Lichess has decided to act as judge and jury, siding with Shahade without waiting for the evidence to be presented at trial. My understanding is that Lichess did not persecute, prosecute, nor condemn the accused - I agree that is outside their purview. What I see is that Lichess has upheld basic standards of good sportsmanship (on their own website) in questioning how these organizations were handling this kind of situation. It seems Lichess did not act on hearsay but reached out to these organizations and found directly that their responses and policies did not meet (their own, nor in general) reasonable expectations and standards. In short, it seems to me, Lichess had decided to remove their support and resources from organizations which did not meet their own standards. They have led by example with accountability, responsibility, and transparency in their actions in addressing this on their own site as well as supporting and contributing to standards of good sportsmanship in the larger chess community.