Thank you for bringing attention to this often taboo and 'swept-under-the-rug' topic. No chess player regardless of sex or race should feel unsafe at a chess venue or event, and I support a zero tolerance policy for such behavior.
@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #812:
> He is presumed innocent until tried. This is a more informal process and he can file civil lawsuits if he beleives he's been wrongfully accused.
This is definitely true, but why should these organizations put themselves at risk of these potential lawsuits, all on the basis of an accusation? Him being barred from organizations and tournaments doesn't embody the principle of "presumed innocent" at all.
> My post was about the changes I'd like to see to OTB chess to make it safer for women.
@sgtlaugh was actually correct that I misquoted you thinking you had made a different argument. That's my bad.
@sgtlaugh said in #827:
> Jokes apart, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to quote another user and misquoted someone else instead.
This was the case, so I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.
>Secondly, I never said I don't support "innocent until proven guilty". Suggesting otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation. This is a legal term and all that I advocated for was to provide some sort of countermeasures by the chess organizations to protect potential future victims. Notice how Lichess also focuses on how the organizations failed to act sensibly.
The disconnect here is what it is to "act sensibly". Someone who thinks that its sensible to take action against someone based on allegations alone, regardless of how many, cannot also say that they support the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". He has not been proven guilty by any definition, and therefore should be presumed innocent.
>Thirdly, I fail to see your rationale when you drag my country into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? You are right that oftentimes most basic human rights are not granted here, but when did I personalize or brought them into the discussion? We are not there yet by miles, but we are getting there slowly, there is progress. There are good and bad everywhere. For instance, Guantanamo Bay exists in the country you tend to glorify, and conversely, the country you look down on has a noble price in peace. But what does that achieve when I mention this in an unrelated discussion?
I actually hate my argument that I made previously; it was condescending, and I regret saying it the way I did. I apologize.
The reason I brought up country was because Bangladesh is known to **not** have a culture of "innocent until proven guilty", and it's easy to assume that your views on this particular topic may be informed by that culture. Conversely, if you had asked about my views on Guantanamo Bay, I would have told you that I despise the fact that a loophole like Guantanamo Bay (which is in Cuba, not the US) exists to circumvent the due process that criminal defendants are entitled to in the United States.
As a note: Guantanamo Bay is used by the US military to avoid criminal due process. While the US assumes jurisdiction over the land that the military base is on, Cuba is still technically the sovereignty over that land. Cuba calls it an "occupation", which I can't dispute. Since it's technically in Cuba, due process laws of the Unites States do not apply there.
It's sickening for the same reason that presumption of guilt in this thread is sickening. If this guy is proven guilty, then fry him. Otherwise, why risk civil lawsuits as an organization?
> Lastly, on a serious note, this is borderline racism and microaggression 101. I couldn't care less honestly, but you shouldn't speak to people like this in general. How come someone from Bangladesh knows this, but you, from a first-world country, don't? What's the point of living there with all the amendments in that case?
Race has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with a country which is ranked among the worst in the world for human rights violations by the government, and for adherence to the rule of law. It's the exact behavior that you and others in this thread are cheering for.
> He is presumed innocent until tried. This is a more informal process and he can file civil lawsuits if he beleives he's been wrongfully accused.
This is definitely true, but why should these organizations put themselves at risk of these potential lawsuits, all on the basis of an accusation? Him being barred from organizations and tournaments doesn't embody the principle of "presumed innocent" at all.
> My post was about the changes I'd like to see to OTB chess to make it safer for women.
@sgtlaugh was actually correct that I misquoted you thinking you had made a different argument. That's my bad.
@sgtlaugh said in #827:
> Jokes apart, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to quote another user and misquoted someone else instead.
This was the case, so I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.
>Secondly, I never said I don't support "innocent until proven guilty". Suggesting otherwise would be a gross misrepresentation. This is a legal term and all that I advocated for was to provide some sort of countermeasures by the chess organizations to protect potential future victims. Notice how Lichess also focuses on how the organizations failed to act sensibly.
The disconnect here is what it is to "act sensibly". Someone who thinks that its sensible to take action against someone based on allegations alone, regardless of how many, cannot also say that they support the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". He has not been proven guilty by any definition, and therefore should be presumed innocent.
>Thirdly, I fail to see your rationale when you drag my country into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? You are right that oftentimes most basic human rights are not granted here, but when did I personalize or brought them into the discussion? We are not there yet by miles, but we are getting there slowly, there is progress. There are good and bad everywhere. For instance, Guantanamo Bay exists in the country you tend to glorify, and conversely, the country you look down on has a noble price in peace. But what does that achieve when I mention this in an unrelated discussion?
I actually hate my argument that I made previously; it was condescending, and I regret saying it the way I did. I apologize.
The reason I brought up country was because Bangladesh is known to **not** have a culture of "innocent until proven guilty", and it's easy to assume that your views on this particular topic may be informed by that culture. Conversely, if you had asked about my views on Guantanamo Bay, I would have told you that I despise the fact that a loophole like Guantanamo Bay (which is in Cuba, not the US) exists to circumvent the due process that criminal defendants are entitled to in the United States.
As a note: Guantanamo Bay is used by the US military to avoid criminal due process. While the US assumes jurisdiction over the land that the military base is on, Cuba is still technically the sovereignty over that land. Cuba calls it an "occupation", which I can't dispute. Since it's technically in Cuba, due process laws of the Unites States do not apply there.
It's sickening for the same reason that presumption of guilt in this thread is sickening. If this guy is proven guilty, then fry him. Otherwise, why risk civil lawsuits as an organization?
> Lastly, on a serious note, this is borderline racism and microaggression 101. I couldn't care less honestly, but you shouldn't speak to people like this in general. How come someone from Bangladesh knows this, but you, from a first-world country, don't? What's the point of living there with all the amendments in that case?
Race has nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with a country which is ranked among the worst in the world for human rights violations by the government, and for adherence to the rule of law. It's the exact behavior that you and others in this thread are cheering for.
The word 'allegation' is mention 26 times in that article.
'Evidence' is mentioned once (and in relation to US chess).
That should tell anyone all they need to know about the level of substance therein.
'Evidence' is mentioned once (and in relation to US chess).
That should tell anyone all they need to know about the level of substance therein.
wise words being quoted
Thanks
Is an allegation enough these days ? Somwhere a long time ago I read something about a thing called "presumption of innocence". I do not approve the eagerness in proving to belong to the "good and careful side". What have the USCF and that Club done wrong ?
@Tante_Reinhilde said in #836:
> Is an allegation enough these days ? Somwhere a long time ago I read something about a thing called "presumption of innocence". I do not approve the eagerness in proving to belong to the "good and careful side". What have the USCF and that Club done wrong ?
He could sue for libel if the allegations are false, so it is legit to act on them. There is recourse.
> Is an allegation enough these days ? Somwhere a long time ago I read something about a thing called "presumption of innocence". I do not approve the eagerness in proving to belong to the "good and careful side". What have the USCF and that Club done wrong ?
He could sue for libel if the allegations are false, so it is legit to act on them. There is recourse.
@ClappingQueens said in #832:
> This is definitely true, but why should these organizations put themselves at risk of these potential lawsuits, all on the basis of an accusation? Him being barred from organizations and tournaments doesn't embody the principle of "presumed innocent" at all.
>
They can be sued for "failure to warn" or "negligent hiring."
> This is definitely true, but why should these organizations put themselves at risk of these potential lawsuits, all on the basis of an accusation? Him being barred from organizations and tournaments doesn't embody the principle of "presumed innocent" at all.
>
They can be sued for "failure to warn" or "negligent hiring."
>
> Likewise the question of Bobby Fischer’s mother is completely unrelated to the topic. As far as I know she had little interest in the game of chess and as such it was not a decision for her between raising a child or becoming a chess player.
>
> Maybe I am not bright enough to get your points or you don’t manage to write them in a way that is easy to understand. Maybe it is a bit of both. To me your comments read like you try to find ways how everything can stay as is in the world of chess and to suggest alternatives to women to better deal with it rather than addressing the issues.
If we're talking about women who play chess I mentioned using the e-sport model of playing in arcades rather than directly over the board. If we're talking about women who might choose raising a family that includes a chess champion over becoming one, some women may make that choice due to harassment, so that's how they connect.
I don't see many people supporting the idea of putting barriers up for OTB play. Why is that? There are many players I'd rather not sit across from.
Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand what people say here but why is it so bad to make the game safer without altering it and by making it easier for everyone to compete?
When I start making the same point more than twice that's sealion territory and I conclude the goal is to waste my training time.
> Likewise the question of Bobby Fischer’s mother is completely unrelated to the topic. As far as I know she had little interest in the game of chess and as such it was not a decision for her between raising a child or becoming a chess player.
>
> Maybe I am not bright enough to get your points or you don’t manage to write them in a way that is easy to understand. Maybe it is a bit of both. To me your comments read like you try to find ways how everything can stay as is in the world of chess and to suggest alternatives to women to better deal with it rather than addressing the issues.
If we're talking about women who play chess I mentioned using the e-sport model of playing in arcades rather than directly over the board. If we're talking about women who might choose raising a family that includes a chess champion over becoming one, some women may make that choice due to harassment, so that's how they connect.
I don't see many people supporting the idea of putting barriers up for OTB play. Why is that? There are many players I'd rather not sit across from.
Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand what people say here but why is it so bad to make the game safer without altering it and by making it easier for everyone to compete?
When I start making the same point more than twice that's sealion territory and I conclude the goal is to waste my training time.
@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #837:
> He could sue for libel if the allegations are false, so it is legit to act on them. There is recourse.
Very correct. There are false allegations. I do not know the percentage but there are some. What I mean is the spread of a bandwagon effect that in the end will affect all of us because everyone must be aware not to miss the appropriate exhibiton of good intentions and good moral at a certain point in order to avoid drawbacks. What kind of society or world would that be ? Not the one I would like to live in.
I mean: Leave it to law enforcement and the courts. May the uscf take measures be that as it may. But is it necessary for lichess to brag the way they do ? It is not a tad more than that, I don't buy it for a second from them. Only posture. Sorry.
> He could sue for libel if the allegations are false, so it is legit to act on them. There is recourse.
Very correct. There are false allegations. I do not know the percentage but there are some. What I mean is the spread of a bandwagon effect that in the end will affect all of us because everyone must be aware not to miss the appropriate exhibiton of good intentions and good moral at a certain point in order to avoid drawbacks. What kind of society or world would that be ? Not the one I would like to live in.
I mean: Leave it to law enforcement and the courts. May the uscf take measures be that as it may. But is it necessary for lichess to brag the way they do ? It is not a tad more than that, I don't buy it for a second from them. Only posture. Sorry.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.