Breaking the Silence

@LFC2020 said in #47:
> Because cheating at chess is not a criminal offence? Whereas the other is?

So because it is a crime that mean LESS action should be taken? lol.

What I do not understand is why there is no criminal proceedings?
If it is for a lack of evidence, then surely the lack of evidence would also apply to any disciplinary action that USCF is expected to undertake?

In any case, surely revoking a chess membership is hardly adequate repercussions for the heinous acts alleged? A jail term is the norm for such crimes.

Besides, if USCF were to do as suggested, and if no case was brought against the accused, would the accused not be able to sue them for defamation, given the fact that there is no indictment, let alone conviction, yet the USCF has taken some disciplinary action against them?

I am not defending USCF or the accused, I am simply stating that it must be looked at from a logical point of view. USCF could do a lot more for women's safety in chess, but that is as a preventive measure. After it has already occurred, then it is a matter of the law, and none of their business until a court rules one way or another.

I do agree with what Lichess is trying to emphasize here, but what is the USCF to do when it is simply a he-said-she-said situation? They must resort to undertaking mild disciplinary action, which neither serves any real purpose nor actually punishes the accused.

I reiterate, It is not the job of the USCF to handle this, it is the job of the legal system.

@ChaeDoc said in #44:
> If you cheat at chess, repeatedly, your membership of a chess organisation can be revoked without the need for your cheating being proven in court, so why do some of you seem to think that multiple credible and independent accusations of sexual assault would require a court to prove guilt before an organisation is allowed to revoke membership?
>
> Does it really make sense that a chess cheater should be suspended/banned but not a credibly accused rapist or sexual abuser?
>
> C'mon now guys. Think

If I may say something. “If” at the start of your sentence means that they are guilty. And if they are proven guilty then yes their membership can be revoked. But if there’s no evidence, and it is merely an accusation - like Carlsen accusing Niemann, there is no ground to revoke the membership because there is no evidence.
Niemann can still play chess.. and he still does..

@ChaeDoc said in #44:
> If you cheat at chess, repeatedly, your membership of a chess organisation can be revoked without the need for your cheating being proven in court, so why do some of you seem to think that multiple credible and independent accusations of sexual assault would require a court to prove guilt before an organisation is allowed to revoke membership?
>
> Does it really make sense that a chess cheater should be suspended/banned but not a credibly accused rapist or sexual abuser?
>
> C'mon now guys. Think.

What people often forget is... if a chess organisation wants to ban a player, or suspend cooperation with a player or organisation, any reason will do. Nothing needs proof. It's not a criminal court case.

It's like your uncle who constantly insists on being a very unpleasant person... you don't need to prove he broke the law to not invite him to birthday parties.

Moral thinking is so much more than criminal justice.

@ChaeDoc said in #44:
> If you cheat at chess, repeatedly, your membership of a chess organisation can be revoked without the need for your cheating being proven in court, so why do some of you seem to think that multiple credible and independent accusations of sexual assault would require a court to prove guilt before an organisation is allowed to revoke membership?
>
> Does it really make sense that a chess cheater should be suspended/banned but not a credibly accused rapist or sexual abuser?
>
> C'mon now guys. Think.

That's the whole point, the cheating inherently falls within the domain of the tournament's organiser. SA falls into the domain of the police.

Also the whole point of the legal process is to ensure the "credibly accused" are guilty, they decide based on facts. How can a common person define the credibility of an accuser or of an accused, when we have the law for it?

@LFC2020 said in #54:
> The problem with morality is of course that there is no objective morality or a universal set of rules that guide us. Of course Lichess with its heavily Western liberal outlook leans towards to cultural liberalism (a universal set of rules) compared to relativism. In this case, I would hope that most people want to see the right outcome both in a moral and judicial sense and not just some hopping onto a bandwagon because x said this therefore they must be right.

The fact that there are no absolute truths in moral philosophy is of course the biggest problem in moral philosophy. I'm not a sceptic though. Moral thinking is important. It's good that Lichess takes a stand, even if it's not absolute undisputable truth.

Lichess is a much more serious organization compared to ChessDotCom.

They actually deal with allegations about certain individuals, not promoting the idea that all chess players are sexual abusers. Lichess actually made some decisions and followed through. Bravo!

@LFC2020 said in #49:
> I'm saying that the accused SA'er should be tried in court which I think is a harsher course of action than a simple chess ban lol

What you're (accidentally) implying is that a simple chess ban is appropriate for an accused cheater without a conviction in court, but too severe for an accused sexual assaulter unless they are convicted.

What I'd like to understand is why you think cheating should be punished without a court but not sexual assault. If either accusation is false then the same defamation laws apply to both, so why does it matter if one accusation is a crime or not?

But the overall mistake people are making is the believe that US Chess or STLCC are bound by the absence of criminal convictions when deciding employment or membership issues. They're not. No one is.

@LFC2020 said in #56:
> Is it right that Lichess the organisation takes a stand and uses their undoubtedly large voice in the chess community to add more pressure on the accused?

Yes.