Breaking the Silence

@Sarg0n said in #620:
> Everytime I read „innocent until proven guilty“ in this particular context the misogyny counter will rise. The perpetrator-victim reversal speaks volumes about some users here.
>
> The silence had to be broken because of such patterns.

Thx. @Sarg0n
Short Post.
Full Point.
On the Spot.

'No society is better than bad society'

@Pashut said in #594:
> @svensp -- Yes, you are correct that the standard of proof is different in court vs. other forums.
>
> However, let's start with this: please point to me in the Lichess article where even ONE WITNESS, to even ONE alleged incident is mentioned. Please.
>
> The only time the word "witness" is mentioned in the article is here:
>
>
>
> (word "witness" capitalized above for emphasis)
>
> ---
>
> Also, please explain what you make of this declaration by USCF?

Wow. Again, intelligence seems to have been missing. How many sexual assaults are witnessed? Keep clicking on those Tate videos.

Did lichess ban A FUCKIN LOT of people or what happened? Chess community used to be pretty level headed, slightly skeptic people, now this debate reads like something off reddit.

123

the

@dankdane said in #627:
> Did lichess ban A FUCKIN LOT of people or what happened? Chess community used to be pretty level headed, slightly skeptic people, now this debate reads like something off reddit.

Actually the Reddit thread was very positive about the article and the action Lichess has taken.

@CyberShredder said in #616:
> Define a false allegation first. If case wasn't reported to police at all or was dropped due lack of evidence, does it constitutes a false allegation? Or it constitutes a true allegation? How can you know in such cases. That's why it's impossible to quantify actual rate of false accusations.

I think it's obvious what a false allegation is. Perhaps you mean to say how false allegations are classified? Because in many cases, it is impossible to know exactly what happened. Which is why we estimate with a probabilistic error margin.

Quoting from www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/sexual-assault-dating-violence/myths-about-sexual-assault-reports,

"A false report of sexual assault is a reported assault that was never attempted. A report can only be determined to be false if an investigation finds evidence that it is more likely than not that no assault occurred, or if the complainant directly admits that the reported assault did not occur. A false report is not the same thing as an 'unfounded' or 'recanted' report, and many assaults are misclassified as false reports by law enforcement and the media."

To add a few more points, misclassifying can happen in both cases. A valid case of sexual assault can be misclassified as a false allegation. An invalid case of sexual assault that was wrongly accused can be misclassified not as a false allegation. However, the former is more prevalent than the latter due to various reasons as research on this topic has also shown. If you want to know more about this just ask and I can elaborate, but I am trying not to deviate from the main point.

> Truth is that people lie. That's why we have evidence-based justice system and such ethical principle like "innocent until proven guilty".

No one is arguing against that. That was not the point of the blog post and there are multiple corroborating evidences for the harassment and assault. Why are you ignoring all of it? There are also people coming in and posting they've known the alleged attackers personally and found their attitude toward women aggressive and disrespectful. Why should we ignore all of that as hearsay or rumors? Especially in sensitive matters like sexual harassment where often there is a lack of proper evidence as @qu0thraven also mentions in #614. How would you feel if someone harrassed you but there is no proof for that? Just like it is important not to unfairly condemn or punish an innocent person, the opposite is also true, isn't it? To protect the victims in such cases, to provide a safe environment for them to come out, to not doubt or question their motifs more than what you'd do for other crimes and allegations, and to not be prejudiced or biased or discriminate against them. Regardless of gender, race, appearance, or attire.

Innocent until proven guilty. Yes of course. But you kinda contradict yourself here when you say it is impossible to quantify the actual rate of false allegations in many cases. Otherwise, we wouldn't need jury trials. The more appropriate and practical term is "Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

@sgtlaugh You didn't understand my argument. Your claim that only 2%-10% allegations are false is fallacious, due to the fact that there whole a lot of cases where assault supposedly happen but wasn't reported to the police at all or where case was dropped due lack of evidence. So in cases like this (unfounded) you can't conclude were these allegations true or false. That's why it's impossible quantify actual rate of false allegations.

@somethingpretentious said in #623:
> @sgtlaugh said in #611:
> > I agree with the overall point that more allegations increase the odds. But from a statistical point of view the calculation that you're using requires events to be independent.

Thank you for mentioning this even though you seem to agree with my points. You are right of course, and I was well aware of this when I wrote it. It is an oversimplification with assumptions quite simply put. Perhaps I should have made it clear to avoid confusion. The events may not necessarily be independent. In case of false allegations, there can be two possible causes behind them:

1. Deliberate deception - For some kind of gain, revenge, denial, guilt and shame or other motifs
2. Non-deliberate - False memories, not remembering, psychological issues

In the case of deliberate deception, there always has to be a motif. What would be the motif of 6 different women accusing a titled player of sexual harassment and assault? I can't think of any. What do they have to gain? I can't think of any. Is there any personal vendetta or revenge factor? Could be, but seems very unlikely as don't have any reason to believe so.

In the case of non-deliberate deception, the events will have to be independent. Where the probability calculation gives us a rough estimate of the error margin.

Of course, to make matters more complicated, it can be a combination of deliberate and non-deliberate allegations. Some allegations could be true, some could be false and deliberate, and some could be false and non-deliberate. But let's not make things so complicated :)

> @friggidyfrank said in #615:
> > I see that you're passionate, but that isn't a substitute for wisdom and knowledge. I'd love to see the 'evidence' that people have reviewed. Evidence and allegations are not the same thing. Hearing that one person accused another of an act does not constitute a shred of evidence. The evidence is what corroborates the allegation.

> Please don't patronise me, or indeed insult me for lacking wisdom and knowledge. Witness testimony (even of the accuser) is frequently used as evidence.

Agreed and thank you for a very well-thought and articulate post in #584.