Breaking the Silence

@schnitzelater said in #642:
> From what I read they are doing this over allegations, which are not proven and could potentially be false. Do I have that right?

Yes, there is always that possibility theoretically. Matters of sexual harassment is difficult to prove often. In case of penetration, sometimes you have DNA or medical samples. Even then, it often gets very tricky.

However, the main point of the article is how USCF and STLCC handled these allegations and incidents. Please read the full article to get a better overview.

@schnitzelater said in #642:
> From what I read they are doing this over allegations, which are not proven and could potentially be false? Do I have that right?

Both US Chess and STLCC found the evidence compelling enough to act, so no. The problem was that they did nothing and ignored it for so long.

@dankdane said in #641:
> Uh yes, that was... the point.... reddit is not really known for its neutral, level headed takes on anything.

I'm very confused then but it's not important.

@somethingpretentious said in #645:
> Both US Chess and STLCC found the evidence compelling enough to act, so no. The problem was that they did nothing and ignored it for so long.
>
>
>
> I'm very confused then but it's not important.

But was it proven in a court of law? If not then there is not enough proof.
What if it turns out to not be true? Will these organizations be able to undo the damage they have done by assuming it was true?
If it is true, then let the men be found guilty and sentenced to death by a real court. Not US Chess and STLCC, those organizations are not the justice system.

@sgtlaugh said in #644:
> Yes, there is always that possibility theoretically. Matters of sexual harassment is difficult to prove often. In case of penetration, sometimes you have DNA or medical samples. Even then, it often gets very tricky.
>
> However, the main point of the article is how USCF and STLCC handled these allegations and incidents. Please read the full article to get a better overview.

So Lichess is upset that USCF and STLCC overreacted to unproven allegations? Good for Lichess.

@schnitzelater said in #646:
> But was it proven in a court of law? If not then there is not enough proof.
> What if it turns out to not be true? Will these organizations be able to undo the damage they have done by assuming it was true?
> If it is true, then let the men be found guilty and sentenced to death by a real court. Not US Chess and STLCC, those organizations are not the justice system.

So you have issues if these men are suspended over multiple allegations. Or if any action is taken against them by US Chess and STLCC. You also seem to have issues with the fact that Lichess protested against how they handled the matter. But you seem to have no issues if these men are found guilty of sexual assaults and sentenced to DEATH by a court? Good for you. Contradictory logic and morality much? What do you think, the court is god? It can never make any mistake? Do you think the death penalty is justified for sexual harassment or assault? FYI, false conviction rates are 5% in the US.

@sgtlaugh said in #648:
> So you have issues if these men are suspended over multiple allegations. Or if any action is taken against them by US Chess and STLCC. You also seem to have issues with the fact that Lichess protested against how they handled the matter. But you seem to have no issues if these men are found guilty over sexual allegations and sentenced to DEATH? Good for you. Contradictory logic and morality much? What do you think, the court is god? It can never make any mistake. FYI, false conviction rates are 5% in the US.

There is no logical contradiction. I am saying if you prove they are guilty then punish them. If not assume they are innocent. What is the contradiction there?

Also, are you saying punish them because of multiple allegations. And then in the next couple sentences saying don't punish people who are found guilty because there is a 5% chance that they are actually innocent? So no proof punish, proof don't? That seems backwards to me. I think that is an actual logical contradiction.

Wonder what the false allegation rate is? If it was 5% then would you say don't punish them?

@schnitzelater said in #649:
> There is no logical contradiction. I am saying if you prove they are guilty then punish them. If not assume they are innocent. What is the contradiction there?

If you say that, then we are on the same page. There is no contradiction.

Please read this comment on #593 - lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/blog-ZNTniBEAACEAJZTn?page=60#593

The point is, you can never know for sure when physical proof is absent. Not in courtrooms, not outside it. While I do not support vigilante justice, at the same time, not every matter can or should be resolved in a courtroom. In this case, allegations of sexual assault are a very concerning matter. The sexual assault itself is a crime. Ideally, the victims should also have reported this to the police and the authorities. But due to various reasons, such is not the case for most sexual assaults. As such, when USCF or STLCC was notified, they had a moral responsibility to take some sort of countermeasures which they failed to do so for a long time. No one is asking them to take the role of law enforcement.

In a court, usually the stakes are higher and so the burden of proof and assessment is more critical. Outside the court, these variables change. So not everything can or should be argued from a law and order perspective.

> Also, are you saying punish them because of multiple allegations. And then in the next couple sentences saying don't punish people who are found guilty because there is a 5% chance that they are actually innocent? So no proof punish, proof don't? That seems backwards to me. I think that is an actual logical contradiction.

I am arguing about the possibilities, also the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty for sexual harassment seems extreme to me. You need to consider all these variables when deciding the actions. Apologies if that felt like a contradiction. I am not against punishing perpetrators.

@sgtlaugh said in #643:
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.

These studies don't deal with hige missing values, unfounded reports. These studies shows only percent of accusations that was proven to be false. They don't take unfounded cases into consideration. I thought we discussed it. I checked your link, they mention only those reports, that was classified to be false, they don't deal with unfounded. They mention that some police reports that classified to be false, actually should be classified as unfounded, but they don't mention what percent of unfounded reports classified as false. It's actually vague.

> 3. What is your main point or argument here?
Main point that big corporations need court-level evidence to take action

> 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.
I think that what USCF did is an overreation under social pressure. How this article is one-sided? Dunno, read it, to me it's obvious, just the way it's written. Alleged attackers here not treated with respect, because as some people stated there, "All these innocent until proven guilty messages are misogyinistic"

> 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?
Oh, I get it. So it's not innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty until proven innocent now

> 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.

Best route sometimes is not to name and shame but to silence and wait. Or if you want to share a story of an alleged victims, at least do it respectfully to an alleged attackers.

@sgtlaugh

> As such, when USCF or STLCC was notified, they had a moral responsibility to take some sort of countermeasures which they failed to do so for a long time. No one is asking them to take the role of law enforcement.

According to USCF (declaration dated March 9, 2023), they have only been notified of some allegations in 2020. Formal complaints were made in 2022, and apparently in those complaints, there was no "sufficient information" (This coroborates STLCC's statement to CNN (last entry in timeline in 2020): "However, the [club] said it was unable to initiate an investigation into Ramirez due to the individuals not being identified."

Note that Lichess doesn't dispute that no complaints were made before 2020. Note the clarification Lichess added to the timeline: "Dates in this timeline indicate when events and alleged incidents occurred, not when they were reported." Note that women accounts don't seem to dispute that fact either. (For example, I personally don't recall anyone claiming, much less proving (e.g. with the copy of an email) that events were *reported* to anyone back in 2011 when they allegedly first occured.)

So, all we're talking about is what USCF and STLCC did about this since 2020. Here is what they say about it:

> 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.
>
> US Chess’s investigation of the two formal complaints received in September 2022 regarding Mr. Ramirez’s conduct is ongoing. [...] In the meantime, Mr. Ramirez’s US Chess membership has been suspended.

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

Please explain why you believe that the measures USCF took once allegations and formal complaints were made are wrong or insufficient.

@hpqd said in #624:
> Thx. @Sarg0n
> Short Post.
> Full Point.
> On the Spot.

Yeah, feel like reposting it everyday^^ Those misogynistic dudes should learn.