Why isn't the US Championship on the Broadcasts page?

@Loosy said in #8:

>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.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion. I feel you have your resources, and I should have mine when referring to "evidence". If this evidence ends up as proof masquarading as evidence, then may the mightier debater win.

I have never heard of "alarming evidence" as justification for discriminating. In order to PROVE something, that evidence has to be enough to convince those in power. What "alarming evidence" beyond an accusation was provided to St. Louis or the USCF?

The accusation alone is not enough to take action. That would turn things into a he said she said situation. Other people talked to someone, and that person then announced the "alarming evidence". After that, something WAS done. The person accused, even probably before being found guilty in a court of law, resigned and is no longer affiliated with St. Louis. I don't know what their standing is with the USCF. If it is the same, then it looks like the most stringent actions were taken.

I point my finger to the parents, those adults who used adult behavior in front of minors (and they aren't barred in any way to my knowledge), and any peer that might think, "Hey this isn't right."

Let's stop being Forrest Gump and get help for Jenny (and I am not referring to any chess Jenny).

The second part I don't quite know are the details. Where did the offense take place? After tournaments (maybe celebration), in lessons, at a hotel, outside like in a park, or even on a street? We need more details to know the nature of the possible crime. I am not seeing that being divulged to anyone.

People have the presumption of innocence UNTIL proven guilty. It looks like Ramirez did something bad. He resigned quickly, and he is no longer in the chess scene. What does that mean? Is he defending himself in court and can't speak out? Does he know he is guilty and is just biting the bullet?

In order for St. Louis or the USCF to take any action, they need credible proof and not just accusations. Where is the credible proof if you want to blame this on St. Louis and USCF?

@Loosy said in #9:

>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"

I don't quite understand why you would want a coach to do other duties than coaching. I remember as a kid I was in band class and we had competitions. Parents chaperoned us. My mother and another mother led another type of competition. When I was a teenager, I became a camp counselor. The rule was two people had to be with the children. And guess what? When I was 28 (yes 28) we had 3 chaperones who were not teachers when I studied abroad through my college.

Not seeing any good reason to send a child out with only 1 person to do it all. Think about it. State governments give financial assistance to single parents for a reason. It's not because the money grows on trees. You can use that money for a babysitter. You could team up with other parents and look after your own children. But what I am seeing is this, a situation of the rich not actually parenting their children. Someone else can do it.

Not my son, not my daughter.

>2) How is this any relevant when we are talking about a coach harassing a student for example??

I don't know what the details of harassment are. Please expound.

>3) You understand that it can happen in the corridors of the hotel??

And so now the 1 coach that can do all in public, now has to monitor all in the hallways of a hotel? Why don't we just have the coach broadcast the event also, do commentary, interview players, video record the boards, run the DGT boards making sure they relay the moves, and taxi drive all the kids around, etc... etc...

Are you seeing how silly this is to place all the burden on one person like a teacher at a public school who has to parent kids properly while mommy and daddy are at work so they can keep up with Joneses next door?

>4) USCF and SLCC should take into account undisclosed complains when hiring a coach or broadcaster.

A complaint isn't a basis for discrimination. If proper measures are in place like a camera at minimum we can see the interactions.

>5) USCF and SLCC should reproach people who come with complains concerning their personnel.

Not sure what you are saying there. You want them to "reproach" people who have the complaints? When I look up "reproach" it says to "express disapproval or disappointment". Why would that be the case? Don't you mean the opposite?

>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, this is just a power grab? There are people who want to take advantage of this situation in order to put in their flavor of leadership?

>you counter propose that is up to the parents to monitor if their kids got harassed...

You sum up very well. YES!!!

>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.

There is nothing that convinces me all participants have to have the same coach. Where is that law in place? If you don't like Coach A, hire Coach B. I see players regularly come with their respective coaches. Melik is the current coach I think. At least I think he was in Poland recently. Great awesome guy. I emailed him once.

I decided I wouldn't pay him $100/hour to coach me. It was a financial decision. It had NOTHING to do with him, but if it did I would have the same right to hire another coach. I am not seeing how we have to only follow one sensei.

>And why do you insist that the organization bears no responsibility and that they should take no action?

That's false. They did take action. The accused is gone even though I see NO shred of evidence he had a fair trial. He "excused" himself after promptly being called out.

@Loosy said in #10:

>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??

Logical fallacy. Saying the same thing multiple times doesn't make it true or more true.

@LeftoverChessPieces said in #11 & #12:

>What "alarming evidence" beyond an accusation was provided to St. Louis or the USCF?

Several accusations. Read the report.

>The accusation alone is not enough to take action. That would turn things into a he said she said situation. Other people talked to someone, and that person then announced the "alarming evidence".

The accusation alone may not be enough to take a disciplinary action, but it is more than enough to:
1) Start an investigation.
2) Put the person on hold till the investigation is resolved in the case of a serious incident. In that case the risk of unfairly restraining that person may be considered by the authorities smaller than the risk of repeating this harm on another person.

To make this more clear to you, let's assume that someone in your neighborhood tells you that your roommate went on a killing spree and now is hiding in your apartment. Will you treat it just as a "he said she said" situation and just head home with your kids or you will try to investigate the situation first, just to make sure that you don't set your kids in danger, even if that means that you need to be suspicious with your roommate based on minimal evidence. If it is other people's kids the responsibility is just the same.

>I don't quite understand why you would want a coach to do other duties than coaching.

Not harassing the students is a necessary condition for coaching.

>Not seeing any good reason to send a child out with only 1 person to do it all. Think about it. State governments give financial assistance to single parents for a reason. It's not because the money grows on trees. You can use that money for a babysitter. You could team up with other parents and look after your own children. But what I am seeing is this, a situation of the rich not actually parenting their children. Someone else can do it.

I already responded to it. Let's hire a person to monitor the person we hired to monitor the person we hired to monitor... in an infinite chain. You decided to ignore the counter argument.

>I don't know what the details of harassment are. Please expound.

Proclaiming ignorance about a topic you publicly express opinion on is not something to be proud of and not something that should weigh on your interlocutors. I may decide to enlighten you, I may not. But it is mainly up to you to inform yourself.

>And so now the 1 coach that can do all in public, now has to monitor all in the hallways of a hotel? Why don't we just have the coach broadcast the event also, do commentary, interview players, video record the boards, run the DGT boards making sure they relay the moves, and taxi drive all the kids around, etc... etc...

No, the coach needs just to not harass their student in the hallways of the hotel or anywhere else. Keep pretending to be stupid...

>A complaint isn't a basis for discrimination. If proper measures are in place like a camera at minimum we can see the interactions.

A complaint is not a basis for discrimination but a basis for investigation. Two complaints even more and so on...

>Not sure what you are saying there. You want them to "reproach" people who have the complaints? When I look up "reproach" it says to "express disapproval or disappointment". Why would that be the case? Don't you mean the opposite?

Finally, you show your comprehension abilities here! Indeed, I meant the opposite.

>So, this is just a power grab? There are people who want to take advantage of this situation in order to put in their flavor of leadership?

It can be. But it can also be not. The conclusion seems totally arbitrary but I would pretentious if I acted surprised at this point.

>There is nothing that convinces me all participants have to have the same coach. Where is that law in place. If you don't like Coach A, hire Coach B. I see players regularly come with their respective coaches.

Acting crazy again?? Any national team in any sport hires some coach that coaches the whole team. It's not up to the team members to choose the person that coaches them for the national team. Sure they can also have their personal coach but this wouldn't replace the national team coach.

I guess you are proudly showing off your ignorance again...

>After that, something WAS done. The person accused, even probably before being found guilty in a court of law, resigned and is no longer affiliated with St. Louis. I don't know what their standing is with the USCF. If it is the same, then it looks like the most stringent actions were taken.

After that, NOTHING was done. I guess wandering around again showing off your ignorance... For years nothing happened. Only after the issue made it to the mainstream media, Ramirez quit and several months later SLCC made a statement that they will change their policy. Still we will see what they will actually do. From USCF nothing so far.

>That's false. They did take action. The accused is gone even though I see NO shred of evidence he had a fair trial. He "excused" himself after promptly being called out.

Please do yourself a favor and stop exposing your ignorance. I have already provided you the link of Lichess' report. You can find even more if you google it.

@LeftoverChessPieces said in #11:

>Thank you for engaging in this discussion. I feel you have your resources, and I should have mine when referring to "evidence". If this evidence ends up as proof masquarading as evidence, then may the mightier debater win.

Look, this is not a game and I am not here to debate with you. I don't choose a position and then try to just justify it. My position is shaped by the justification and changes according to the evidence.
You came to this thread claiming repeatedly ignorance about everything related to this case but somehow providing counter arguments. I don't feel any burden to educate you on the topic. The only reason I responded is so that other users are not mislead by your ignorant claims.
By now, you must have enough leads in order to be able to refute your arguments yourself if you have honest intentions. If on the other hand you just want a debate, you can keep claiming ignorance forever and demand the interlocutor to provide more and more evidence. But I am not willing to play this game.

what are lichess' demands?

@Loosy said in #14:

>Several accusations. Read the report.

NO, YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. If it is proof masquarading as evidence, you have a won argument. But I will not do your homework.

>To make this more clear to you, let's assume that someone in your neighborhood tells you that your roommate went on a killing spree and now is hiding in your apartment. Will you treat it just as a "he said she said" situation and just head home with your kids or you will try to investigate the situation first, just to make sure that you don't set your kids in danger, even if that means that you need to be suspicious with your roommate based on minimal evidence. If it is other people's kids the responsibility is just the same.

There is no evidence of guilt here. What is your point? Fiction? Fluffy stuff?

>I already responded to it. Let's hire a person to monitor the person we hired to monitor the person we hired to monitor... in an infinite chain. You decided to ignore the counter argument.

No, you fail to see WE CAN SEE THE SECURITY FOOTAGE.

>No, the coach needs just to not harass their student in the hallways of the hotel or anywhere else. Keep pretending to be stupid...

Why is the coach and student in a hotel hallway? Where is that an essential MCO opening?

>Acting crazy again?? Any national team in any sport hires some coach that coaches the whole team. It's not up to the team members to choose the person that coaches them for the national team. Sure they can also have their personal coach but this wouldn't replace the national team coach.

Then, tell that to Magnus Carlsen and his father. Tell that to Jeffrey Xiong and his father. Tell that to the Polgar sisters and their father. Apparently, Laszlo had superhuman dad/father strength to protect his three daughters.

>Please do yourself a favor and stop exposing your ignorance. I have already provided you the link of Lichess' report. You can find even more if you google it.

Yes, you provided a link. Can I provide a link to you too that will prove everything?

www.yourethemannowdog.com/

@LeftoverChessPieces
I see you closed your account. That's sad man. Everyone has ridiculed themselves at some point but that's not a reason to disappear. Just try to do better next time. I wouldn't have held it against you!

It was a new account. I believe they created it just for this argument.