Breaking the Silence

@CyberShredder said in #632:
> @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.

What exactly is your argument? Please, do clarify.

When did I say that "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 the case was dropped due to lack of evidence"?

Please read my post again #631. I will try to summarize it:

1. False allegations can and do happen, research estimates this to be around 4 to 10 percent.

2. They are classified mostly either when the investigation proves or concludes with a high probability that they were false, or sometimes when the accusers themselves confess to making false allegations.

3. I never said it is possible to quantify, that's a very strong term. This is why we make estimates considering all the factors with an error margin. That's how research and maths work and it's the best that we can do.

4. I am not concluding anything. But if these were to be false allegations, then what would be the odds for that considering everything that we know and what research tells us. That's the argument. It is not a conclusion. Neither of us nor anyone can know what really happened since there is no physical proof. Any possibility is possible theoretically. But not all possibilities are equally likely considering the data.

@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.

Yeah, if you turn back pages from the first to now, you're gonna see a lot of people with contrary opinions to the exposed in the article, many of them suddenly stop commenting because they got shadow banned.

You'd expect smarter than average people in a chess forum, able to dialogue rather than censor, specially in a topic called breaking the silence. This is so ironic.

@sgtlaugh You made a claim in #611. That only 2%-10% allegations are false based on your statistics. I replied to you in #616 that it's impossible to quantify actual rate of false allegations, because your statistics can't and do not take into consideration cases where assault/rape was reported but police investigation didn't conclude anything and dropped a case due lack of evidence. Because it's a big gray area for your studies and statistics since you can't make a conclusion were these allegations true or false in such cases. You replied to me in #631 but didn't answer to this point. I wrote this point again in #632

You can't quantify not because error margin, but because you have whole a lot of unfounded cases where you can't make a conclusion, were allegations true or false.

@CyberShredder said in #636:
> @sgtlaugh You made a claim in #611. That only 2%-10% allegations are false based on your statistics. I replied to you in #616 that it's impossible to quantify actual rate of false allegations, because your statistics can't and do not take into consideration cases where assault/rape was reported but police investigation didn't conclude anything and dropped a case due lack of evidence. Because it's a big gray area for your studies and statistics since you can't make a conclusion were these allegations true or false in such cases. You replied to me in #631 but didn't answer to this point. I wrote this point again in #632
>
> You can't quantify not because error margin, but because you have whole a lot of unfounded cases where you can't make a conclusion, were allegations true or false.

Okay, I think I understand what you are trying to say now. You are talking about unfounded or inconclusive cases, isn't it? And your argument is that we can't estimate the actual rates because of that? Actually, we can.

First, let's be clear about the fact that we can never know for sure the exact rate or exact number. I think that's what you mean when you use the term "quantify". That is impossible.

We can however get a pretty good estimate. In classification terms, what you describe is known as missing values. Data where the class labels are not known. There are quite a few different kinds of methods to handle this scenario. The simplest one is to ignore these and get a reduced sample set from the known records. If that reduced sample size is not small, then that usually yields a good rough estimate but usually there are better approaches. Alternate approaches usually impute or predict missing values using various algorithms and then the classification is done.

Ideally, it'd have been best if there were no missing values. But that doesn't prevent us from calculating an estimate in this case. If you read the studies I've linked in #612, hopefully, you will have a better idea of how these cases were handled.

@CyberShredder, also if the police dropped a case, it is most likely due to insufficient evidence for the crime. This should generally imply that no reasonable evidence was found and it is more likely that the charges were false. Hence, this would be categorized as a false allegation in many cases. Although that's not how it should be.

This fact doesn't help your argument because it'd make false allegation rates higher, not lower.

@FORA__DILMA said in #635:
> Yeah, if you turn back pages from the first to now, you're gonna see a lot of people with contrary opinions to the exposed in the article, many of them suddenly stop commenting because they got shadow banned.
>
> You'd expect smarter than average people in a chess forum, able to dialogue rather than censor, specially in a topic called breaking the silence. This is so ironic.

If people are getting shadowbanned for sharing different opinions, then I don't support that. And I agree that it is hypocritical. Some comments in this thread really made me angry, but still, people should be able to say what they feel.

If someone is violating the ToS, they should be warned or banned. Shadow banning is not cool and extremely unfair for just sharing different opinions without violating the ToS.

That being said, I don't see how you come to that conclusion though. Do you or anyone you know get shadow banned? There could be alternate explanations for not commenting further. Most people who seem to agree or disagree only posted one or two times here in any case.

@sgtlaugh said in #638:
> @CyberShredder, also if the police dropped a case, it is most likely due to insufficient evidence for the crime. This should generally imply that no reasonable evidence was found and it is more likely that the charges were false. Hence, this would be categorized as a false allegation in many cases. Although that's not how it should be.
>
> This fact doesn't help your argument because it'd make false allegation rates higher, not lower.

I doubt that if police dropped case due lack of evidence, they classify allegation as false. They can classify it as false if the accuser either admitted himself that accused falsely or if somehow there will be a proof that assault didn't happen. My argument is exactly that false allegations can probably happen more often that 2%-10% though it doesn't matter, it can be even 0.01% but main point would stay the same

You said earlier, that it's not wrong to ban someone from playing chess if there are a lot of rumors etc.. I don't think so just because it's better to have potential criminals to walk freely (by free i also mean free from internet bullying by trolls and from corporate discrimination, at least from big chess organisations like USCF or FIDE) than to punish a person who can be actually innocent. Even this article is extremely one-sided. That's why before taking action, it's better to wait for a trial.

@somethingpretentious said in #630:
> Actually the Reddit thread was very positive about the article and the action Lichess has taken.

Uh yes, that was... the point.... reddit is not really known for its neutral, level headed takes on anything.

From what I read they are doing this over allegations, which are not proven and could potentially be false? Do I have that right?

@CyberShredder said in #640:
> I doubt that if police dropped case due lack of evidence, they classify allegation as false. They can classify it as false if the accuser either admitted himself that accused falsely or if somehow there will be a proof that assault didn't happen.

You present vague arguments and conclusions which seem based on personal belief, and not on substantiated evidence. I've shared several studies that show how allegations are incorrectly classified as false due to a lack of evidence. Here is one again - www.brown.edu/campus-life/health/services/promotion/sexual-assault-dating-violence/myths-about-sexual-assault-reports

The correct classification should be unfounded. Again, quite often there can be no way to prove or disprove an allegation with 100% certainty.

> My argument is exactly that false allegations can probably happen more often that 2%-10% though it doesn't matter, it can be even 0.01% but main point would stay the same

How does this sentence make any rational sense?

1. What makes you conclude false allegations can happen more often than 2% to 10%? Offer logical arguments or research done on this, otherwise your personal beliefs don't have any values.

2. Research has shown and estimated this to be between 4 to 10% roughly. These statistics DO matter. Your personal beliefs don't. My personal beliefs don't either.

3. What is your main point or argument here?

> You said earlier, that it's not wrong to ban someone from playing chess if there are a lot of rumors etc.. I don't think so just because it's better to have potential criminals to walk freely (by free i also mean free from internet bullying by trolls and from corporate discrimination, at least from big chess organisations like USCF or FIDE) than to punish a person who can be actually innocent. Even this article is extremely one-sided. That's why before taking action, it's better to wait for a trial.

I didn't say it is not wrong to ban someone from playing chess if there are allegations or rumors. Kindly stop misquoting me. I said the standard of evidence is not as high as in courts. To investigate the matter and protect future victims, it could be necessary to restrict or ban the alleged attacker if reasonable evidence is found for that. Sure, there is a possibility of wrongdoing even then. There is a possibility of wrongdoing even in criminal courts. You do understand that.

Your points are not clear and very vague. Can you tell me how is this article one-sided? Did the alleged attackers have anything to say that the article failed to mention? The article even shares Timur's social media post where he vaguely brushed off these as rumors and badmouths.

The main point of this article was to criticize the roles of USCF and STLCC, in not being able to provide a reasonably safe environment for women and not acting adequately. It is not a trial of these alleged attackers. And there is plenty of supporting evidence. You can't ignore that.

No one stopped these alleged attackers from explaining their position. Why are they silent? This also is a public forum. They can sue the alleged victims or Lichess for slander too, why aren't they doing it?

I agree with your last point that it is better to wait before taking action. Impulsivity and vigilante justice are not something I approve of. But I don't see how that happened here considering everything. Matters of sexual harassment are sensitive topics, most people who do face them don't go to court for various reasons. Even when they do, there are various obstacles and issues. Understand all of these, understand that sometimes silence or doing nothing is also an action, and that's the worse route to take sometimes.