Breaking the Silence

@CyberShredder said in #672:
> You stated previously himself that without providing any data I can't state or disapprove your claim about 2%-10%. In fact I can. I can make my own conclusions regarding these 44,9% cases. I can myself state that at least 15% out of those 45% is false, you can disagree and state that not, only 4% or any other number, because in fact we don't know, and will never know espesially now, when to the gray area above I can add another one, where people don't report to police at all and just shitpost on twitter

You are free to make your own conclusions, but without a valid rationale behind them, you can't assert those conclusions and expect others to follow your conclusions. That is irrational.

You can make your own conclusions and say at least 15%, 50%, or even 100% are false. But if there is no rationale behind them, it does not matter for everyone else.

Yes, I acknowledged it's a gray area. Acknowledged and explained why due to the nature of sexual allegations, and the ratio of these cases, how we can still estimate false allegation rates accurately from the data that we do have. The papers that I cited explained it in detail too. If you have any counter-arguments that all of us failed to see here, feel free to share and we can discuss. Otherwise, make up your own conclusions, you have every right to do so for whatever reasons you feel necessary. But there is no point in further debating in that case.

@sgtlaugh said in #610:

> Yet, I can't help but notice how in matters relating to sexual assaults, how some people are always jumping to defend the alleged attacker(s). Yes, people can lie, and yes false allegations happen too. But I don't see people doubting the alleged victims in case of other crimes. These people, when someone shares with them that their car got stolen, you don't see them consider false allegations due to profit, crime concealment, attention, or revenge. When someone's house burns down, they don't consider possible false allegations like insurance claims. But they are the first ones to help out these alleged attackers in the case of sexual assaults.

I agree that there is a double standard in many cases. I also believe in many cases people _genuinely_ believe they are merely applying fair standards or at least talk themselves into believing that, when in fact they're applying a level of logic below what they're actually capable of and may even apply in other areas, likely because they're clouded in emotions, which have a tendency to inhibit clarity.

To an extent that's just very human behavior - which doesn't make it any better, but means that there is no reason to think any of us wouldn't do something similar in other areas (or even in the same area in a different way).

Questioning oneself is hard work after all and changing one's views based on emotions by working with the thoughts instead of the emotions that cause them is incredibly hard next to impossible even, because then we're not looking at the actual thing that matters in the situation or only give it sideways glances.

At the same time I feel it's important to still take these ideas at face value for the sake of the debate even where we think they're caused by something else such as prejudice (for reasons of symmetrical power position in the debate as well as that there may be a valuable point somewhere in the expressed thoughts and we may discover being wrong about something), although for that to work it requires fairness from all sides and a restraint not to bring a rocket launcher to a knife fight so to speak. It also requires an understanding that openness to being wrong and general vulnerability are no weaknesses.

@sgtlaugh said in #674:

Okay, end of debate, it got stupid already. If we have a gray area in 35%-50% where you can't tell were allegations true or false, your claim that only 2%-10% is false, has the same rational as my claim that 25-35% is false. That is none, sunbjective.

@schnitzelater said in #673:
> But they already have come out and shared their experience. Otherwise we would not be talking about it.

I meant from a legal perspective, I should have clarified. It is difficult to come out socially. Making a legal case is challenging in other ways. Regardless, I will emphasize again that it is still necessary.

> The solution to this problem has already been answered. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." You are describing Blackstone's ratio and then taking the position of a dictator. This is basic philosophy that you are getting wrong.

I think you are confusing criminal law and what has been criticized here, specifically how these incidents were handled by the organizations. I repeat, no one is asking chess federations to take the role of law enforcement. Sure these are also criminal offenses, not denying that. That does not mean they should brush it off and provide no support from their end.

Also, it is interesting that you mention the Blackstone ratio :) I am not disagreeing with the general consensus, but I also believe it is an oversimplification. There are often other factors to consider. For instance, one recent study experimented and observed how the seriousness of the allegations or crimes actually decrease the ratio.

> By your own logic, because there is a non-zero chance that you are a murderer then you should be locked in jail so that you do not make any more murder victims. If you take what you are saying to its logical conclusion, then no one is innocent and we should all be locked in jail.

Say what? It doesn't work like that and I never said that. I am acknowledging the trade-offs and uncertainties. That is why the term "beyond reasonable doubt" exists in criminal law. To get a conviction, the prosecution needs to prove there was no other reasonable possibility other than the convict being guilty. Quite often you can never know for sure what really happened, with 100% certainty. Sure it can happen that sometimes innocent people are convicted wrongly too, even of murder. But it's the best you can do, and in criminal courts where the consequences are so severe, the burden of proof and the evidence bar is significantly higher. That's where the Blackstone ratio comes in as well.

@sgtlaugh said in #677:
> I meant from a legal perspective, I should have clarified. It is difficult to come out socially. Making a legal case is challenging in other ways. Regardless, I will emphasize again that it is still necessary.
>
>
>
> I think you are confusing criminal law and what has been criticized here, specifically how these incidents were handled by the organizations. I repeat, no one is asking chess federations to take the role of law enforcement. Sure these are also criminal offenses, not denying that. That does not mean they should brush it off and provide no support from their end.
>
> Also, it is interesting that you mention the Blackstone ratio :) I am not disagreeing with the general consensus, but I also believe it is an oversimplification. There are often other factors to consider. For instance, one recent study experimented and observed how the seriousness of the allegations or crimes actually decrease the ratio.
>
>
>
> Say what? It doesn't work like that and I never said that. I am acknowledging the trade-offs and uncertainties. That is why the term "beyond reasonable doubt" exists in criminal law. To get a conviction, the prosecution needs to prove there was no other reasonable possibility other than the convict being guilty. Quite often you can never know for sure what really happened, with 100% certainty. Sure it can happen that sometimes innocent people are convicted wrongly too, even of murder. But it's the best you can do, and in criminal courts where the consequences are so severe, the burden of proof and the evidence bar is significantly higher. That's where the Blackstone ratio comes in as well.

Wow, how do you not get this. I am saying that because it has not been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", then they should not be punished. You claim to understand what I am saying but then end up at the complete opposite of a logical conclusion. If there is reasonable doubt, then why is this action okay?

Why are you okay with the punishment of innocent people?

@sgtlaugh said in #663:

> Thank you for this wonderful comment @Pashut. And I think we can finally find some common ground here.

I hear you and thank you as well. And indeed, we do find some common ground. I guess where we diverge is our confidence in the legal system and how close we deem it to be from the "ideal".

Yes, we're not there yet. Perhaps we'll never be. The legal system is not perfect, or universally accessible, or convenient, or even 100% fair / unbiased to all. Sometimes it fails. There are miscarriages of justice. The legal system is made of people, who have feelings, they miss things, they mess up sometimes...

But it remains the BEST system we have. It remains a system stronger and with wider reach and recognition than any private institution. Especially in a case like this. What the police has at its disposal (expertise, training, resources) far exceed those of a chess club or federation. Investigation is at the core of police work 365 days a year. By contrast, chess clubs / federations (thankfully!) have to deal with cases like this maybe once every 365 years... :)

To be clear: I don't mind that the victims went to USCF or STLCC for help. It's normal, convenient and quick. But I do mind that they went *only* to USCF / STLCC. Especially when they filed a report with the club/federation that did not yield the results they were hoping for. Do victims want justice? Then they have to pursue it! Vigurously. With a formal legal complaint, to the proper authorities. Not in a tweet and a couple of media interviews.

Re. your last paragraph -- Yes, we should expect clubs / federations to investigate and intervene. But they have intervened. The only question is whether they did enough and in a timely manner? Did they do what they could have done? Was their intervention (or declination of responsibility) reasonable, given the information they had, the role they felt they could play, their expertise in such cases, the resources they had at their disposal etc. ? That question is the crux of the dispute here. We can find arguments either way. And personally, though I am inclined to say that they did act correctly under the circumstances, I don't feel qualified to 100 % settle it, absent police work and court verdicts.

Re. "this decision did not sit well with everyone at US Chess" -- I've addressed this previously. This is what Wikipedia would call "weasel words". :) Even if *one* person at USCF (out of thousands) didn't approve, the statement would still be technically true, though obviously meaningless. Unanimous approval is almost never achieved, even in much more clear cut situations.

Re. "cracking jokes about alleged attackers liking young girls" -- That is yet another allegation. Unproven as of now. It might have happen as they say (which would be worrisome). Then again, she might have misheard, misunderstood or taken a comment out of context. Even if it happened precisely as alleged, this would have been comment between a couple of staff members. And yet, it's being construed in the article (without any proof!) as an indication of an official position of malicious negligence by USCF as a whole. I don't think that is the case.

Thanks again for your comments, opinions and participation in this conversation. All the very best!

@schnitzelater said in #678:
> Wow, how do you not get this. I am saying that because it has not been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", then they should not be punished. You claim to understand what I am saying but then end up at the complete opposite of a logical conclusion. If there is reasonable doubt, then why is this action okay?

Perhaps our definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is different. Because I find the evidence and witnesses listed in the blog post to be rather compelling. At least to take some action by the chess federations. That was the main point of the blog post, that they failed to take ownership and didn't provide a safe and secure environment for the women even after they were informed of the allegations.

By the way, I don't know if you know about the differences between making a civil case vs making a criminal case when it comes to sexual assaults. From the evidence that was presented, it is highly likely that the accusers can make a civil case against the alleged attackers and win. For a criminal conviction, matters get complicated. This alone should tell you that different scenarios demand different approaches. More details here - jsberrylaw.com/blog/the-difference-between-civil-sexual-assault-and-criminal-sexual-assault/

I don't know why we are arguing. Let me summarize my thoughts:

1. I am not suggesting that innocent people get punished.

2. The blog post simply pointed out how these organizations mishandled the allegations (doesn't matter if they are true or not)

3. The evidence presented is quite compelling. If you disagree, please do tell me what kind of evidence would you find compelling in this case.

> Why are you okay with the punishment of innocent people?

Again, I am not. I simply stated that it can and it does happen. There is no way to prevent it all the time, although I'd love to. We should focus on minimizing it, but multiple factors and complexities makes it difficult to do so.

@CyberShredder said in #676:
> Okay, end of debate, it got stupid already. If we have a gray area in 35%-50% where you can't tell were allegations true or false, your claim that only 2%-10% is false, has the same rational as my claim that 25-35% is false. That is none, sunbjective.

Sure, end of debate then. No point in arguing if you don't understand the simple difference between unfounded cases (i.e. missing data) vs false alleged cases (i.e. classified as false with a high probability). Even after I explained and cited multiple times.

Once we put aside the missing data, this is just a reduced sample size and unless there are good reasons to assume otherwise, the false alleged vs correctly alleged ratio should roughly be the same for these situations. That's why they can be discarded. If you create another distribution ratio for the missing data, you are free to do so but it is not logical because you have not presented any good rationale for doing so.

In any case, peace and best wishes to you.

@sgtlaugh said in #680:
> Perhaps our definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is different. Because I find the evidence and witnesses listed in the blog post to be rather compelling. At least to take some action by the chess federations. That was the main point of the blog post, that they failed to take ownership and didn't provide a safe and secure environment for the women even after they were informed of the allegations.
>
> By the way, I don't know if you know about the differences between making a civil case vs making a criminal case when it comes to sexual assaults. From the evidence that was presented, it is highly likely that the accusers can make a civil case against the alleged attackers and win. For a criminal conviction, matters get complicated. This alone should tell you that different scenarios demand different approaches. More details here - jsberrylaw.com/blog/the-difference-between-civil-sexual-assault-and-criminal-sexual-assault/
>
> I don't know why we are arguing. Let me summarize my thoughts:
>
> 1. I am not suggesting that innocent people get punished.
>
> 2. The blog post simply pointed out how these organizations mishandled the allegations (doesn't matter if they are true or not)
>
> 3. The evidence presented is quite compelling. If you disagree, please do tell me what kind of evidence would you find compelling in this case.
>
>
>
> Again, I am not. I simply stated that it can and it does happen. There is no way to prevent it all the time, although I'd love to. We should focus on minimizing it, but multiple factors and complexities makes it difficult to do so.

Okay we have found common ground. The only difference is that you believe that the people have been proven guilty and I do not. I think that if they were guilty it could be proven in a court of law and you think that they are guilty before even entering the court.

You just don't believe in law and order but rather support vigilante justice. (Which I think you previously said you did not support but clearly do anyway).

It is also strange to me that you think that they are guilty but are not demanding a more harsh punishment. Either you are okay with sexual harassment or you know that they are actually innocent.

@svensp said in #675:
> I agree that there is a double standard in many cases. I also believe in many cases people _genuinely_ believe they are merely applying fair standards or at least talk themselves into believing that, when in fact they're applying a level of logic below what they're actually capable of and may even apply in other areas, likely because they're clouded in emotions, which have a tendency to inhibit clarity.

Thanks for mentioning this, indeed this is very prevalent, and most often, I don't think people are entirely aware of it. As humans, we can never be fully unbiased. On a subconscious level, different forms of biases already exist in all of us. Quite often, we tend to jump to a conclusion because of our own inclinations and emotions, then try to reverse engineer and find data that validates them. Cognitive dissonance or the hasty generalization fallacy could be examples of this behavior.

> To an extent that's just very human behavior - which doesn't make it any better, but means that there is no reason to think any of us wouldn't do something similar in other areas (or even in the same area in a different way).

Yes, precisely. For instance, in this case, even many people who are praising Lichess' decision to stop collaboration are doing the same thing ironically :)

> Questioning oneself is hard work after all and changing one's views based on emotions by working with the thoughts instead of the emotions that cause them is incredibly hard next to impossible even, because then we're not looking at the actual thing that matters in the situation or only give it sideways glances.

Neatly expressed. I agree completely. It is impractical to even fully understand our own thoughts and biases that can yield this sideways glance on situations.

> At the same time I feel it's important to still take these ideas at face value for the sake of the debate even where we think they're caused by something else such as prejudice (for reasons of symmetrical power position in the debate as well as that there may be a valuable point somewhere in the expressed thoughts and we may discover being wrong about something), although for that to work it requires fairness from all sides and a restraint not to bring a rocket launcher to a knife fight so to speak. It also requires an understanding that openness to being wrong and general vulnerability are no weaknesses.

We may never achieve perfection, but it discussing and critical thinking is often key in order for us to understand and improve ourselves. Unfortunately, our emotions and ego are a big thing here. It is quite common to see people arguing incoherently. Rare to find people who can admit that they learned something in a debate or change their views or even come to a middle ground understanding what the other party is saying. But again, I believe this is a part of our human nature that we developed due to various reasons that we should try to overcome :)

I agree with your points completely and thanks for the eloquent and wonderful comments.