Breaking the Silence

@StAndNOdraws said in #701:
> I read "alleged" all over the article, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence. I'm all for safety, protection, justice, etc. but you can't punish someone without evidence. Sad wokism...

"Alleged" does not mean 'un-substantiated' (that is w/out basis), it just means it isn't proven as fact.

(Proving something as fact is very difficult to do whether in Science or in the Courtroom.) Or in some cases, "alleged" may indicate that the reporter did not observe the incident directly. This is a convention in journalism to help maintain integrity and fair reporting, etc.

"Punishment" means "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense." (google / Oxford Languages)

There is nothing about 'punishment' here; merely taking steps to ensure that adults and children can have a reasonable expectation of accountability, conduct, and safety at chess events. This in line with expectations in both the larger chess world and other organizations w/in the US, esp where children take part.

@GeorgeZhuang said in #703:
> can someone shorten the article to the main point? pls?

Lichess will no longer work with (advertize events, endorse, host, etc.) the US Chess Federation or the St Louis Chess Club because Lichess (and Chess.com too) believe that these organizations have been mishandling issues of conduct and safety.

Therefore, they cannot recommend w/ clear concious these organizations or events hosted by them at this time.

> While the allegations in the article are deeply concerning and will be evaluated as part of US Chess’ ongoing investigation into this matter, we feel it is important to clarify several points.
>
>First, Mr. Ramirez is not employed by US Chess.
>
>Second, US Chess has no record of any reported allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct prior to 2020. In 2020, when US Chess learned of allegations regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct in years prior, it stopped engaging Mr. Ramirez in any capacity where he would come into contact with minors. Additionally, other than submitting freelance articles and appearing on a podcast, Mr. Ramirez has had no meaningful engagement with US Chess since the allegations were made to US Chess in 2020.
>
>Third, Mr. Ramirez was selected as the coach of the 2022 Women’s Olympiad Team; however, as is standard practice for our Olympiad teams, that decision was made by the team independently of US Chess.

new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-statement-misconduct-allegations

Please explain: how is this not reasonable?

@Pashut said in #707:
> new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-statement-misconduct-allegations
>
> Please explain: how is this not reasonable?

"we have not had the opportunity to investigate and consider those additional allegations. That process is underway. "

"We didnt want to investigate, but we already punished based on allegations!"

Great... :-/ Innocent until proven guilty was an outdated concept anyways...

@Pashut said in #707:
> Please explain: how is this not reasonable?

Because a lot of it is just false... They still employed him, he still coached women and they could have prevented this, they did have reports before 2020. It's like you didn't read the article at all because this is all covered.

@somethingpretentious said in #709:
> Because a lot of it is just false... They still employed him, he still coached women and they could have prevented this, they did have reports before 2020. It's like you didn't read the article at all because this is all covered.

It's like you didn't read the article properly. Particularly, note this remark below the "Supplementary timeline" heading.

> Dates in this timeline indicate when events and alleged incidents occurred, not when they were reported.

Please present *proof* that any alleged event was reported to USCF before 2020.

@Pashut said in #710:
> It's like you didn't read the article properly. Particularly, note this remark below the "Supplementary timeline" heading.
>
>
>
> Please present *proof* that any alleged event was reported to USCF before 2020.

So you don't read the article and you also forget that we already discussed this point exactly. lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=66#660 I'm not discussing this with you further as you are clearly not interested in the truth, just in arguing.

Edit: unless you mean you just don't believe the article is evidence? Obviously that would be unprofessional of Lichess to out a source.

@MagnesiumCarlsenol said in #14:
> Lichess doing what it is best at doing: virtue signalling!

Awww...look at you being wrong and dumb.

@GeorgeZhuang said in #703:
> can someone shorten the article to the main point? pls?
Learn to read.

@Viktoriusiii said in #708:
> "we have not had the opportunity to investigate and consider those additional allegations. That process is underway. "
>
> "We didnt want to investigate, but we already punished based on allegations!"
>
> Great... :-/ Innocent until proven guilty was an outdated concept anyways...

Not a sharp one, eh?