@hangmysack said in #56:
>> All I will say is that allegations are just that, allegations. I find changing from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" quite concerning. Even after due process and lengthy trials, some innocent people are still wrongfully incarcerated. Drawing a verdict and lynch mobbing people (or assassinating their character) based solely on accusations, I would not call that progress. The proper venue to litigate alleged S.A. is in a court of law, not a chess club/organization. <<
I think I agree with you. Still, in this case Lichess has not put anyone in jail, nor gathered a mob to hang someone to death. It looks like they took issue with these organizations' policies and conduct not aligning with their own. Lichess has every right to address that, including removing from their site any party not meeting site/organization standards. It is also within their purview to participate in discussions about standards and conduct relating to the larger chess community of which they are a part.
As for character assassination, it would seem that sexual predation (and other bullying or explotative behavior) is now more a bragging point than an impediment to success in some places.
What if Shahade was lying and she was just bent on ruining Ramirez's career for no reasons at all. Remember, all the had were claims and no video evidence.
What I notice is that many people take offense at the idea that LiChess boycotts some organisations and that they would draw the line elsewhere (evil flags f.i.).
I'm not so interested in these abstract discussions about "cancel culture".
What matters here is that the boycott of SLCC was paramount in helping to fight sexual abuse (of minors), for example by having better reporting systems in place. This is good; completely independently of the law suit. For all those "innocent until proven innocent" guys out there. Okay, let's say the individual is innocent (despite mountains of evidence), why are you against better safety protocols.
It's like being against lifeboats on ships.
lmao how about just be a chess website
Haha! stay in your lane. lame
@Hipproprotramus said in #63:
> What if Shahade was lying and she was just bent on ruining Ramirez's career for no reasons at all. Remember, all the had were claims and no video evidence.
Good question!
It seems to me that Lichess has made it pretty clear that they took issue with how the organizations in question handle such situations. Lichess took actions in line with perserving community standards on its site as well as addressing related concerns in the broader chess community.
What you are talking about is more a matter for criminal court. Unfortunately in the United States it is notorious for mishandling situations of sexual abuse and assault; even with 'video evidence' (which is rare and increasingly unreliable) men tend to be excused or given minimal penalties especially when the victim is female. These situations are vastly undereported and even among cases reported are rarely prosecuted because the whole criminal justice system from police to courtroom are prohibitive, traumatic (on top of the significant trauma of the incident), and the chances for justice to be accurately carried is pretty low.
Typically it is normal to suspend someone accussed of abusive behavior (particularly when they may be working with minors) until the situation is investigated. If accusastions are unfounded (legally, on the level of the relevant organization, and by individual conduct and reputation) a temporary suspension should not destroy a career.
This isn't to say that the possibility of false accusations is theoretically impossible but is extremely unlikely. Given how difficult it is to successfully prosecute legitimate claims, it would seem nearly impossible to make such accusations stick for someone of legitmately good character, conduct, and reputation. I imagine that a truly innocent person would want to cooperate with investigations to get to the bottom of what has happened (perhaps some misunderstanding) and to clear their name - as well as wanting to do their part to support the reputation, standards, and quality of the community to which they belong.
@Hipproprotramus said in #63:
> What if Shahade was lying and she was just bent on ruining Ramirez's career for no reasons at all. Remember, all the had were claims and no video evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence for Ramírez hacing sexually assaulted others. He has not been criminally charged for various reasons (statute of limitations, assaults outside the USA,, other reasons knowns only tioo well to SA victims).
While I again note that lichess is, in my opinion, dealing with US’Chess unfairly, I appreciate the strong stand lichess is taking in this matter.
@CRHer700 said in #10:
> This is great and all, but don't you think this has gotten out of hand? The offenders were punished, and yet people are still saying that justice hasn't been served and that USCHESS needs to bow down to someone that they didn't actually do anything to. This should be about the people you committed the acts, not their employer, who could have been completely unaware of the situation.
That's the problem, they should be aware. There should be checks and balances where things like this don't happen. And if they aren't instituting such precautions I don't think the boycott should end, even if the accused is found innocent. There shouldn't be any more room than absolutely necessary given for something like this to happen. Glass walls and lots of cameras would go a long way.
@CRHer700 said in #10:
> This is great and all, but don't you think this has gotten out of hand? The offenders were punished, and yet people are still saying that justice hasn't been served and that USCHESS needs to bow down to someone that they didn't actually do anything to. This should be about the people you committed the acts, not their employer, who could have been completely unaware of the situation. Instead, it reads as a classic lawsuit where the prosecuting party is seeking attention and compensation from an un-responsible party even though the problem has been dealt with.
I also have mixed feelings about what happened.
Maybe I am too naive, but how exactly and organization should or have to police participants behaviour (during events) is something I am not sure about.
I mean, in case of criminal behaviour catch in the act (regardless of kind of criminal behaviour) should end up with a police call, but I don't think is the case here (or maybe I have lost something).
And in general, in case of allegations, I never liked the paradigm of guilt until proven innocent; IMHO even the worst criminal should be considered not guilty until sentenced (not only by law but also by society).
If there is risk of reiteration usually a judge applies some constraints to criminal's freedom, even if trial is not ended, but if a judge didn't do that why blame a private organisation to haven't done the judge job?
If private parties start to consider allegations as sentence the paradigm "innocent until proven guilty" will simply shift, because in the eye of society you are already guilt, based only on allegations.
Obviously as I said there are blatant cases where this doesn't apply, because allegations are so convincing that a judge (and Judge is the key part) choose to restrict the alleged criminal freedom.
Preemptively putting the criminal in jail or giving him restriction orders or so on.. not random private party a judge.
@Ender88 said in #70:
> And in general, in case of allegations, I never liked the paradigm of guilt until proven innocent; IMHO even the worst criminal should be considered not guilty until sentenced (not only by law but also by society).
You bring up an important point, but I believe there is a place for society to react to acts separately and independently of a legal judgment. Provided these reactions are within the confines of the law themselves.
A court is the place to determine whether a law has been violated or not. Society is the place to determine how to react to alleged or real violations of social norms.
Organizations have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for participants in their events, especially where these are in vulnerable settings or positions. They also have a responsibility not to enable predatory behavior by people in positions of power and influence.
Society as well as private organizations don't have to follow the same standards as a court of law when deciding how to react to alleged activities and whether they think they occured. They are not officers of any court, they can think and choose as they see fit as long as it is legal.
They can for example apply a standard of truth on the balance of probabilities (as opposed to one of reasonable doubt), they can weigh the damage that occurs should the allegations be true and no action taken vs should the allegations be false and action taken and so on. They can do what they like as long as it's within the law. Of course, their action will also be judged by other members of society by their own standards in return, for example on whether it was just or unjust.
To give an example: If a store employee sees another person beating somebody up they can just ban the guy from the store, they don't need to wait for a court sentence, neither should they (you could argue: yeah, but they called the police, didn't they? - They should have, but even then the person is legally presumed innocent if they have been charged at all).
If that person then feels that their rights under the law have been violated by that action by the store, they are free to bring it before a court.
Another example: If a person perceives that another person is behaving dishonorably, they may choose to cut off contact. That is their free choice, they don't need to wait for any judge. Of course if that amounts to bullying or criminal damage of reputation, the cut off person is free to sue them in a court of law or to file a criminal complaint.
Individuals, organizations and society can act and react to activities freely without having to wait for a judge, even if the alleged activities they react to are also relevant from the point of view of the law.
> If private parties start to consider allegations as sentence the paradigm "innocent until proven guilty" will simply shift, because in the eye of society you are already guilt, based only on allegations.
> Obviously as I said there are blatant cases where this doesn't apply, because allegations are so convincing that a judge (and Judge is the key part) choose to restrict the alleged criminal freedom.
> Preemptively putting the criminal in jail or giving him restriction orders or so on.. not random private party a judge.
I agree with all of these points, because they refer to people assuming judicial judgment where there hasn't been any or taking actions only a judge should take. I believe this doesn't apply here.
It's very important to have the rule of law and judges, but there is also such a thing as civil society and interactions between people and social norms. There's morals, religion, politics, commercial interests,... basically a million things. At the same time, actions informed by those are also subject to the law. It's part of having a living, breathing society under the rule of law.
Private parties in a democratic society are not subordinate to judges, only where they violate the law or are accused of such.