Did they have any evidence to support their allegations?
for one instance, this would be a dangerous reply by Lichess. but as we know... this guy has been accused by multiple women, multiple times. as a result, i think we can forget about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing... in that time, it might happen even more.
To be honest, I rather just have a chess site. With news related to chess. Political opinions written as news feels kind of abusive? Business between two people does not belong here, it belongs in justice system. Or so I think, anyway..
@ArtofDefeat said in #19:
> I think there are 100% situations where the criminal law is woefully insufficient and the organization needs to take independent responsibility. A college sports team is one of the most obvious examples, where the athletes are virtual gods on campus and peer pressures enormous. An officially sanctioned team doctor is another clear example. I could see situations like that arising in chess. A coach giving lessons on club property would be another clear case, where the organization might become privy to facts not resulting in police allegations. Maybe the St. Louis incidents were of this nature, havent read up on those. But does this second wave of incidents really raise these kinds of facts? One of the alleged incidents did not even occur in the venue. Or is this more like saying *any* organization is *always* responsble for conducting its own investigation or acting on allegations alone? I feel like these days aweful criminal conduct brings out an army of crusaders, and there isn't always careful thought given to whether the complaints really make sense when directed to an organization with little or nothing to do with what may have happened. The criminal law exists for a reason, and while not always sufficient, it isn't always the independent responsibility of an organization to do more either
Innocence until proven guilty is how the law works. I’m not saying the matter was handled correctly by the cooperations it wasn’t, but suppose the people are innocence, their careers have been ruined completely, and their reputations are continuing to be tarnished due to pressure when there isn’t any concrete president (nothing to convey an official verdict anyways). And the cooperations acted from public pressure not in the way of the law.
> I think there are 100% situations where the criminal law is woefully insufficient and the organization needs to take independent responsibility. A college sports team is one of the most obvious examples, where the athletes are virtual gods on campus and peer pressures enormous. An officially sanctioned team doctor is another clear example. I could see situations like that arising in chess. A coach giving lessons on club property would be another clear case, where the organization might become privy to facts not resulting in police allegations. Maybe the St. Louis incidents were of this nature, havent read up on those. But does this second wave of incidents really raise these kinds of facts? One of the alleged incidents did not even occur in the venue. Or is this more like saying *any* organization is *always* responsble for conducting its own investigation or acting on allegations alone? I feel like these days aweful criminal conduct brings out an army of crusaders, and there isn't always careful thought given to whether the complaints really make sense when directed to an organization with little or nothing to do with what may have happened. The criminal law exists for a reason, and while not always sufficient, it isn't always the independent responsibility of an organization to do more either
Innocence until proven guilty is how the law works. I’m not saying the matter was handled correctly by the cooperations it wasn’t, but suppose the people are innocence, their careers have been ruined completely, and their reputations are continuing to be tarnished due to pressure when there isn’t any concrete president (nothing to convey an official verdict anyways). And the cooperations acted from public pressure not in the way of the law.
@keatanpatel said in #16:
> I’m slightly confused - were any of the allegations actually proven through a court of law? If they weren’t how come the players lost their memberships?
Courts are for legal consequences mandated by a government. You don't need to utilise governmental courts of justice to fire someone, or revoke their membership to a club.
It's a common mistake that people make in thinking that unless a court has positively proven guilt then no social or organisational action can be taken. These people might end up in a court being judged by a jury of their peers, but neither STLCC nor USCF require such a judgement prior to taking action, and you don't want to live in a world where they do.
> I’m slightly confused - were any of the allegations actually proven through a court of law? If they weren’t how come the players lost their memberships?
Courts are for legal consequences mandated by a government. You don't need to utilise governmental courts of justice to fire someone, or revoke their membership to a club.
It's a common mistake that people make in thinking that unless a court has positively proven guilt then no social or organisational action can be taken. These people might end up in a court being judged by a jury of their peers, but neither STLCC nor USCF require such a judgement prior to taking action, and you don't want to live in a world where they do.
@juoksentelisinkohan said in #24:
> for one instance, this would be a dangerous reply by Lichess. but as we know... this guy has been accused by multiple women, multiple times. as a result, i think we can forget about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing... in that time, it might happen even more.
That’s another thing. I understand what you’re saying and if he’s guilty that’s horrible and my heart goes out to the victims. But if we go by that logic I could pay off 100 people to accuse someone of a crime like that (not saying this happened) and by your logic they wouldn’t even need a trial to be deemed instantly guilty despite being innocent.
> for one instance, this would be a dangerous reply by Lichess. but as we know... this guy has been accused by multiple women, multiple times. as a result, i think we can forget about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing... in that time, it might happen even more.
That’s another thing. I understand what you’re saying and if he’s guilty that’s horrible and my heart goes out to the victims. But if we go by that logic I could pay off 100 people to accuse someone of a crime like that (not saying this happened) and by your logic they wouldn’t even need a trial to be deemed instantly guilty despite being innocent.
@LFC2020 said in #28:
> Also I do think your claim about the "army of crusaders" is untruthful, you assume it is criminal conduct in the case of Shahade and whilst it may be represhible, she hasn't brought a criminal case to trial (be it for lack of evidence or something else). I wouldn't be surprised if Ramirez or others bring libel cases against Lichess or her for slandering them without bring it to trial.
Without a suit or even with, there is nothing to say he can’t sue for slander. Certainly seems like a plausible continuation given this post as well.
> Also I do think your claim about the "army of crusaders" is untruthful, you assume it is criminal conduct in the case of Shahade and whilst it may be represhible, she hasn't brought a criminal case to trial (be it for lack of evidence or something else). I wouldn't be surprised if Ramirez or others bring libel cases against Lichess or her for slandering them without bring it to trial.
Without a suit or even with, there is nothing to say he can’t sue for slander. Certainly seems like a plausible continuation given this post as well.
Ouch... the chess world has its very own #metoo scandal. Painful. But it's good to break the silence.
not a single mention in the entire article of the alleged victims going to the police
everyone knows that when you're assaulted you should go to your brother instead to write a strongly worded letter
everyone knows that when you're assaulted you should go to your brother instead to write a strongly worded letter
N' Trump is running For President of The United States Again Despite ADMITTING Inappropriate touching & BOASTING about'
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.