Breaking the Silence

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #839:
> If we're talking about women who play chess I mentioned using the e-sport model of playing in arcades rather than directly over the board. If we're talking about women who might choose raising a family that includes a chess champion over becoming one, some women may make that choice due to harassment, so that's how they connect.

You're saying it as if raising a family that includes a chess champion was something you can just decide to do one day out of the blue

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #839:
> I don't see many people supporting the idea of putting barriers up for OTB play. Why is that? There are many players I'd rather not sit across from.

Who on their right mind would travel hundreds of km and book a hotel room for a week to play an OTB tournament that isn't actually OTB?

Chess is not an e-sport and nobody other than chess.com stakeholders want it to be.

@NatalijaFirenkova said in #861:
> You're saying it as if raising a family that includes a chess champion was something you can just decide to do one day out of the blue
>
>
>
> Who on their right mind would travel hundreds of km and book a hotel room for a week to play an OTB tournament that isn't actually OTB?
>
> Chess is not an e-sport and nobody other than chess.com stakeholders want it to be.

They wouldn't have to travel with an e-sport model.

OTB is fine if it can be done without giving girls PTSD by making them sit across from boys they can't stand who apparently don't know boundaries.

The current setup is not safe.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #862:
> They wouldn't have to travel with an e-sport model.
>
> OTB is fine if it can be done without giving girls PTSD by making them sit across from boys they can't stand who apparently don't know boundaries.
>
> The current setup is not safe.

So what you're saying is that we should "punish" everyone because there's a small minority of people who can't behave? That's like putting an entire city in jail because there was a murder in it.

People who want to play online already have the choice. There's no need to force it to everyone else.

@NatalijaFirenkova said in #863:
> So what you're saying is that we should "punish" everyone because there's a small minority of people who can't behave? That's like putting an entire city in jail because there was a murder in it.
>
> People who want to play online already have the choice. There's no need to force it to everyone else.

Live chess is more signficant to many, and giving each player their own booth in which to play, for privacy, is hardly punishment.

I'd think men would want to protect women here.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #839:
> If we're talking about women who play chess I mentioned using the e-sport model of playing in arcades rather than directly over the board. If we're talking about women who might choose raising a family that includes a chess champion over becoming one, some women may make that choice due to harassment, so that's how they connect.
>
> I don't see many people supporting the idea of putting barriers up for OTB play. Why is that? There are many players I'd rather not sit across from.
>
> Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand what people say here but why is it so bad to make the game safer without altering it and by making it easier for everyone to compete?
>
> When I start making the same point more than twice that's sealion territory and I conclude the goal is to waste my training time.

Or we could, you know, collectively decide as a community that it is not ok to sexually harass people, and live life normally.

Just a thought.

@eddiemccandless said in #865:
> Or we could, you know, collectively decide as a community that it is not ok to sexually harass people, and live life normally.
>
> Just a thought.

Unfortunately that causes a lot of preventable harm and telling women "deal with it if he can't obey the rules" fixes nothing for the victims.

E-sports protect women in the same way chess should.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #866:
> Unfortunately that causes a lot of preventable harm and telling women "deal with it if he can't obey the rules" fixes nothing for the victims.
>
> E-sports protect women in the same way chess should.

Deciding that it's not ok to harass people causes harm? That doesn't make any sense to me.

@eddiemccandless said in #867:
> Deciding that it's not ok to harass people causes harm? That doesn't make any sense to me.

So a rule against harassment makes women safe? It doesn't, apparently.

E-sports have booths for each player, the way chess should. Gee I'm repeating myself am I talking to a Sealion?

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #864:
> Live chess is more signficant to many, and giving each player their own booth in which to play, for privacy, is hardly punishment.
>
> I'd think men would want to protect women here.

But if your measures are introduced, it's no longer live chess.
I can protect myself by the way

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #868:
> So a rule against harassment makes women safe? It doesn't, apparently.
>
> E-sports have booths for each player, the way chess should. Gee I'm repeating myself am I talking to a Sealion?

I am not talking about rules against harassment. We have those already. I am talking about the fact that this behavior was well known for years and that nobody did anything about it. Which is the whole point of the blog post that a lot of people seem to be missing.

Also enough with this "sealion" nonsense... You are suggesting something that makes no sense and getting pushback on it from multiple people. That is how public discourse work.