chess.com has the tournament listed on their events page. There's a direct link to the lichess page for the tournament but there's no entry on the Broadcasts page. Is lichess being petty/passive aggressive or just sloppy (even though it's already the *6th* round)?
Ah, so even after the extensive statement from the STLCC Board lichess continues its boycott. Kinda begs the question, what exactly do they want? Or is it down to virtue signalling?
The least they could do is post a link to Hans Niemann interviews.
@GrandPatzerDave said in #1:
More likely you are projecting your own dirt from your mind.
Lichess isn't obliged to jump immediately after the press release. Maybe they are slow, maybe they want to wait if the statements are credible. What do we mere peasants know? But I'm also curious, maybe we get an official/semi-official statement from someone?
>Is lichess being petty/passive aggressive
More likely you are projecting your own dirt from your mind.
Lichess isn't obliged to jump immediately after the press release. Maybe they are slow, maybe they want to wait if the statements are credible. What do we mere peasants know? But I'm also curious, maybe we get an official/semi-official statement from someone?
A press release is not a policy change. The policy change, once created, may not be good or effective. Has both STLCC and USCF promised to do better, or just STLCC?
I would not call lichess's response a "boycott". A boycott is a coordinated denial by multiple actors. One person (or organization) is not enough.
I would not call lichess's response a "boycott". A boycott is a coordinated denial by multiple actors. One person (or organization) is not enough.
@mcgoves said in #6:
Blaming a whole organization because of one person doesn't solve the problem. Blaming two is twice as bad. Somebody did something very bad, and that one person needs to be dealt with. Alice Lee, Carissa Yip, etc... don't deserve to be silenced and muted because of one person. From the chat I see during these tournaments, this is never going to change. A bunch of chess nerdy guys are going to think a certain way when they see a female player. Female Twitch streamers are using this to their advantage. Are we silencing that? Are we speaking out against that? Why is it ok to flaunt your sexuality, but when you see it you can't comment on it? It's the inverse of wearing a hijab. Look but don't touch, look but don't speak. Just enjoy being teased.
Here are some productive suggestions:
1. Place more emphasis on the parents. Get them to be a responsible parent by picking up their underage child (boy or girl doesn't matter) after an event. If you must, hire a nanny/babysitter to do this. Some kind of trusted person who will look after the child/minor.
2. If there is to be any drinking of any sort, move it to a different venue. Adults only. Did someone do something wrong right at the club? Or were they at a different venue? This is one thing I admired about the pre-COVID Gibraltar tournaments. They took the men vs. women stuff elsewhere to drink and play (at least it looked that way, point is I never saw a minor in the shot compared to adults drinking alcohol next to minors at St. Louis.)
3. May not be preferable, but have the teacher teach 2 at a time, so there is a witness. If not, at least have a security camera on recording the lesson.
But to blame an organization which never promoted this behavior is overly excessive and not warranted.
>Has both STLCC and USCF promised to do better, or just STLCC?
Blaming a whole organization because of one person doesn't solve the problem. Blaming two is twice as bad. Somebody did something very bad, and that one person needs to be dealt with. Alice Lee, Carissa Yip, etc... don't deserve to be silenced and muted because of one person. From the chat I see during these tournaments, this is never going to change. A bunch of chess nerdy guys are going to think a certain way when they see a female player. Female Twitch streamers are using this to their advantage. Are we silencing that? Are we speaking out against that? Why is it ok to flaunt your sexuality, but when you see it you can't comment on it? It's the inverse of wearing a hijab. Look but don't touch, look but don't speak. Just enjoy being teased.
Here are some productive suggestions:
1. Place more emphasis on the parents. Get them to be a responsible parent by picking up their underage child (boy or girl doesn't matter) after an event. If you must, hire a nanny/babysitter to do this. Some kind of trusted person who will look after the child/minor.
2. If there is to be any drinking of any sort, move it to a different venue. Adults only. Did someone do something wrong right at the club? Or were they at a different venue? This is one thing I admired about the pre-COVID Gibraltar tournaments. They took the men vs. women stuff elsewhere to drink and play (at least it looked that way, point is I never saw a minor in the shot compared to adults drinking alcohol next to minors at St. Louis.)
3. May not be preferable, but have the teacher teach 2 at a time, so there is a witness. If not, at least have a security camera on recording the lesson.
But to blame an organization which never promoted this behavior is overly excessive and not warranted.
@LeftoverChessPieces said in #7:
What's going on bro? Have you really missed all the episodes or you just prefer to argue against something that nobody argued for?
No one blamed the US Chess Federation or the Saint Louis Chess Club for Ramirez' actions. They blame USCF and SLCC for their lack of actions to protect their members in the future once the problem came to surface and their actions thereof, like:
1) Hiring the guy for jobs even if there was alarming evidence that this may set members of the chess community in danger, like hiring him as a coach the US women's team in the chess olympiad.
2) Attacking and isolating the alleged victims or the persons that stepped up.
But there is much more than that for which I would suggest that you read more carefully Lichess' own take:
lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
and try to come up with relevant points to this report instead of arguing against your own fictional arguments.
>Blaming a whole organization because of one person doesn't solve the problem. Blaming two is twice as bad. Somebody did something very bad, and that one person needs to be dealt with. Alice Lee, Carissa Yip, etc... don't deserve to be silenced and muted because of one person. From the chat I see during these tournaments, this is never going to change. A bunch of chess nerdy guys are going to think a certain way when they see a female player. Female Twitch streamers are using this to their advantage. Are we silencing that? Are we speaking out against that? Why is it ok to flaunt your sexuality, but when you see it you can't comment on it? It's the inverse of wearing a hijab. Look but don't touch, look but don't speak. Just enjoy being teased.
What's going on bro? Have you really missed all the episodes or you just prefer to argue against something that nobody argued for?
No one blamed the US Chess Federation or the Saint Louis Chess Club for Ramirez' actions. They blame USCF and SLCC for their lack of actions to protect their members in the future once the problem came to surface and their actions thereof, like:
1) Hiring the guy for jobs even if there was alarming evidence that this may set members of the chess community in danger, like hiring him as a coach the US women's team in the chess olympiad.
2) Attacking and isolating the alleged victims or the persons that stepped up.
But there is much more than that for which I would suggest that you read more carefully Lichess' own take:
lichess.org/blog/ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn/breaking-the-silence
and try to come up with relevant points to this report instead of arguing against your own fictional arguments.
@LeftoverChessPieces said in #7:
Concerning your "productive" counter-suggestions.
1) So, you are proposing that every parent hires a person of trust following their kids everywhere they go during the olympiad for example. One would argue that the coaches themselves should be a person of trust. Otherwise, we need to hire one person of trust to monitor the interaction of our kids with the previous person of trust in an infinite chain. I see already what you mean by "productive suggestions"
2) How is this any relevant when we are talking about a coach harassing a student for example??
3) You understand that it can happen in the corridors of the hotel??
You are really being productive mate. But still why didn't you propose the following:
4) USCF and SLCC should take into account undisclosed complains when hiring a coach or broadcaster.
5) USCF and SLCC should reproach people who come with complains concerning their personnel.
6) To address 5 and 6 whoever has been in charge so far should be dismissed as untrustworthy and a new body should be formed for handling such situations.
So, to sum up, instead of demanding the organization that hires the coach for our children representing their country to take seriously into account undisclosed complains, you counter propose that is up to the parents to monitor if their kids got harassed... How does this help? Even if the parent complains to the organization for harassment the organization is going to dismiss it and keep hiring this coach for future events. And why do you insist that the organization bears no responsibility and that they should take no action? Even when SLCC themselves decided that they should take some action??
Are you serious??
>Here are some productive suggestions:
>
>1. Place more emphasis on the parents. Get them to be a responsible parent by picking up their underage child (boy or girl doesn't matter) after an event. If you must, hire a nanny/babysitter to do this. Some kind of trusted person who will look after the child/minor.
>
>2. If there is to be any drinking of any sort, move it to a different venue. Adults only. Did someone do something wrong right at the club? Or were they at a different venue? This is one thing I admired about the pre-COVID Gibraltar tournaments. They took the men vs. women stuff elsewhere to drink and play (at least it looked that way, point is I never saw a minor in the shot compared to adults drinking alcohol next to minors at St. Louis.)
>
>3. May not be preferable, but have the teacher teach 2 at a time, so there is a witness. If not, at least have a security camera on recording the lesson.
>
>But to blame an organization which never promoted this behavior is overly excessive and not warranted.
Concerning your "productive" counter-suggestions.
1) So, you are proposing that every parent hires a person of trust following their kids everywhere they go during the olympiad for example. One would argue that the coaches themselves should be a person of trust. Otherwise, we need to hire one person of trust to monitor the interaction of our kids with the previous person of trust in an infinite chain. I see already what you mean by "productive suggestions"
2) How is this any relevant when we are talking about a coach harassing a student for example??
3) You understand that it can happen in the corridors of the hotel??
You are really being productive mate. But still why didn't you propose the following:
4) USCF and SLCC should take into account undisclosed complains when hiring a coach or broadcaster.
5) USCF and SLCC should reproach people who come with complains concerning their personnel.
6) To address 5 and 6 whoever has been in charge so far should be dismissed as untrustworthy and a new body should be formed for handling such situations.
So, to sum up, instead of demanding the organization that hires the coach for our children representing their country to take seriously into account undisclosed complains, you counter propose that is up to the parents to monitor if their kids got harassed... How does this help? Even if the parent complains to the organization for harassment the organization is going to dismiss it and keep hiring this coach for future events. And why do you insist that the organization bears no responsibility and that they should take no action? Even when SLCC themselves decided that they should take some action??
Are you serious??
@LeftoverChessPieces said in #7:
How about blaming an organization that took no action when they received multiple complains concerning their personnel and instead kept putting the alleged perpetrators in a position that would expose even more members of the community to their allegedly harmful behaviour??
>But to blame an organization which never promoted this behavior is overly excessive and not warranted.
How about blaming an organization that took no action when they received multiple complains concerning their personnel and instead kept putting the alleged perpetrators in a position that would expose even more members of the community to their allegedly harmful behaviour??
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.