So you boycott the federation but still maintain coverage of the big events that attract views. Meanwhile the justice system is working So with who exactly are you showing solidarity? "Hey there is a charity chess in France that boycotts the Federation but not the big events, feeling better kids"?
Seriously either you boycott everything or nothing. Because what is boycotted? As a player I will enjoy all the chess organised by the US federation on your website while you... Don't pick up the phone when they call you? I would kindly suggest you take courses on law and victimology, yes it is a discipline and yes it is serious it is about helping victims, and people using child abuse cases that are being resolved as a way to signal some virtue has no effect on the aggressor and prevents the victims to enjoy again chess because you have a giant pinned blog post. I know absolutely zero victim who wants that people keep the solidarity AFTER justice is/has been served. Anyway,
I can say after an altercation with her, Jen is a horrible human being. However, I dont doubt her stories on her being hounded by these clowns, esp after knowing Timur while i lived in Las Vegas while he did for some yrs. The truth is always more complicated than whats reported but sample size matters in these complicated situations.
@Sandbucket said in #80:
> It is not that anyone expects the chess organization to dole out punishments or in any way be the mediator of this happening. It is that, among others, when the abuse of UNDERAGED MINORS is brought up it was not seriously handled and/or forwarded to those who should have policed this.
>
> If a teacher turned out to do the unspeakable to your own children and it is brought up with the school who promptly dismisses it, you don't go "oh well we should've just gone to the police, the school did nothing wrong". Especially when children and parents put trust in the fact that the school takes responsibility for what happens while you entrust your kids to them.
>
Bad example, not only out of context because as other have said him was not a teacher nor affiliated with the private party involved.
But AFAIK in my country at least if a teacher is accused of such behaviour, law mandate a preventive suspension of the teacher.
Literally as I said plenty of time, when you are arrested a judge evaluate your risk level, and apply restriction accordingly (at least in my country).
No one expects it's school duty evaluate and choose if it's the case to apply so essential safety measures. How others teachers know how to handle such situations?
Theirs duty is to report to the police, and this make senses, teachers are not legal experts nor are experts to handles this kind of complex situations.
As I said before I didn't know the details of what happened here, but highly doubt the organisation know or have to know (at the time) what happened and refused to report.
If otherwise the organisation knows and stay silent (highly doubt) that obviously changes everything.
But again I highly highly doubt this is the case.
@Sandbucket said in #80:
> People who say "oh the judge didn't put him in jail for 50 years so it must not be that bad" don't seem to realize that the current justicial system is woefully unequiped to address something that can be so hard to prove, especially years after the fact.
>
Never said or thinked anything close to that.
@Sandbucket said in #80:
> To note. One of the major failures was that after MULTIPLE sexual assault allegations towards minors. The USCF claimed to have understood and heard about the issues any promised to not put him in a coaching position anymore. Then they put him in the position to coach over a 100 kids for the Olympiad, putting him in positions where he coached women's teams.
Really? so if I understood what you said there was a formal allegations made against him molesting minors and they ignored that?
You are talking about USFC so it's based in US as I understand.
AFAIK in US not report such kind of allegations to law enforcement is a felony, if your information are correct I am surprised on why a boycott is needed instead to a plaintiff.
Personally I find that hard to believe, can you point me to some news articles? (I didn't find any up to now that describes what you said about USFC knowing without reporting)
This is peak internet: decentralized community power holding corrupt institutions accountable without waiting for governments or corporations to do something.
Lichess is literally doing what the internet was supposed to do before it became a corporate hellscape.
@BadumTsch said in #85:
> This is peak internet: decentralized community power holding corrupt institutions accountable without waiting for governments or corporations to do something.
> Lichess is literally doing what the internet was supposed to do before it became a corporate hellscape.
How so? Lichess is literally the worst chess site shadow banning and muting people for free speech.
@uamcua said in #15:
> This is not a political issue. Nor have I have seen anything on the site that claims to be apolitical.
>
> They are not deciding what we should watch but are deciding which broadcasts to host/mirror on their platform. I would yield your point would have more traction if this site was more about media, press, commentary on free speech, etc. But that is far from the case here and it's not as if there's some kind of monopolization this site has on chess.
Agreed. Though this site has never been apolitical. In fact say something lichess doesnt approve politically and you are muted or banned.
Excellent work by lichees team!!
@BadumTsch said in #85:
> This is peak internet: decentralized community power holding corrupt institutions accountable without waiting for governments or corporations to do something.
> Lichess is literally doing what the internet was supposed to do before it became a corporate hellscape.
I'm totally with you there, but Lichess Off-Topic is not ready for this kind of comments XD
Half of the people here see "political" as a swear word, so be weary when you come close to the big bad A word :p
@is_impossible said in #86:
> How so? Lichess is literally the worst chess site shadow banning and muting people for free speech.
In Europe, we don't consider Hate speech as being protected by freedom of speech. Maybe that's why you are confused.
@is_impossible said in #87:
> Agreed. Though this site has never been apolitical. In fact say something lichess doesnt approve politically and you are muted or banned.
They said, criticising Lichess freely and for free on Lichess ;)
@TurtleMat said in #90:
> In Europe, we don't consider Hate speech as being protected by freedom of speech. Maybe that's why you are confused.
No thats not what i am referring to. Well aware of the Hate speech laws in Europe. Basically almost anything is Hate speech. You dont have free speech, you have limited speech.
> They said, criticising Lichess freely and for free on Lichess ;)
No way you can criticize lichess without being banned or moderated to some extent.