Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games

Lichess Will No Longer Cooperate With US Chess Federation, Saint Louis Chess Club (lichess.org) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the breaking-the-silence dept.
In a lengthy blog post today, the open-source internet chess server, Lichess, announced they will formally end all cooperation with both the U.S. Chess Federation and Saint Louis University Chess Club (STLCC), citing two high-profile, sexual misconduct cases involving grandmasters Alejandro Ramirez and Timur Gareyev. Here's a brief summary of the issue: In February, chess commentator and author Jennifer Shahade publicly accused grandmaster Alejandro Ramirez of sexual misconduct. Her allegations sparked a swift and severe backlash against Ramirez, who was forced to resign from the Saint Louis Chess Club (STLCC), before being permanently banned by the United States Chess Federation (US Chess). The allegations also exposed apparent failures at US Chess and STLCC. Yet, neither organization has faced any serious scrutiny or accountability for their handling of the case.

And Ramirez is not the only one. According to interviews and documents reviewed by Lichess, one other prominent American grandmaster has also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, raising further troubling questions about how chess organizations deal with such matters.

Lichess has decided to stop cooperating with both organizations due to serious concerns about their accountability. We will not provide them with support, and we will not advertise their events. Women and girls in chess already face an uphill battle. They deserve a safe and supportive environment. But too often, they encounter abuse, harassment or worse. And too often, they feel powerless to report it or seek justice. It's time to help break the silence. Lichess urges US Chess and STLCC "to publicly acknowledge their past mistakes, be more open with the public, and hold those who engage in misconduct accountable."

While they acknowledge US Chess has taken some steps to improve its processes, Lichess said "both US Chess and STLCC have failed to demonstrate an important aspect of accountability -- a willingness to acknowledge and address past shortcomings." They added: "We do not think that reconciliation will be possible without this acknowledgement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lichess Will No Longer Cooperate With US Chess Federation, Saint Louis Chess Club More

Lichess Will No Longer Cooperate With US Chess Federation, Saint Louis Chess Club

Comments Filter:

  • I think that Batman quote about living long enough to become the enemy applies to RedHat nowadays...

  • Difficult (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10, 2023 @06:25PM (#63757560)

    Sexual misconduct accusations are difficult. Somebody may make an accusation that is completely false and we're told to "always believe the woman/victim." Stories emerge where the "victim" was lying. I know a man who was accused of sexual harassment and only his work schedule saved him a lengthy prison sentence because it proved he couldn't have done anything when the accusers claimed he had. They were sent to jail after it was found they'd excused 11 other men of the same, some of whom were sent to jail for long sentences. Another guy I knew in high school was having relations with his girlfriend in the bathroom. When caught, she screamed, "Rape!" so she wouldn't get in trouble. He spent a night in jail until her friends came forward and told the school administrators that they'd planned on doing that in the bathroom. They didn't think he should have been treated that way by her. This is why guilty until proven innocent is not our standard. I was sexually assaulted when I was a kid and I know my attacker will never be prosecuted under our standard, but I feel it is better for me to move on with my life, as difficult as it was, then send innocent people to jail or death.

    Additionally, multiple people may make an accusation, but all are lying or being misleading. As I child, it wasn't unheard of for me to falsely accused of something by my so-called playmates because they knew they could get away with it. The man or woman may lack the maturity to properly understand sexuality, so something that may seem normal may be in error on the person advancing or the recipient of the advance. It's not uncommon for people who play chess to have a high IQ but not a high EQ.

    • Public Examples (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Thursday August 10, 2023 @08:57PM (#63757856)
      Knowing that the notion of "multiple accusers" coming forward instantly makes accusations sound more credible, three women accused Jian Ghomeshi of sexual crimes, having colluded beforehand to get their stories straight. It might have worked except that Ghomeshi still had old coversations and texts that flatly contradicted those stories. Yet even after his acquittal, the press still covers the trial as if the accusers are credible:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Summary: "The only interview they should be granted is to answer how it feels to be caught lying in court."

      Another very recent and similar example is the SuperMega YT channel, where multiple people appear to have colluded to destroy the channel, with a sexual assault accusation as the lynchpin of their campaign:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      These are extremely long but highly entertaining; you might could get by with just watching the last one.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The statement that women should be believed doesn't mean there should be no process to determine guilt or innocence, it means that there should at least be an investigation. In the past the police have been unwilling to investigate, and dismissed complaints as regret or because they don't think that they will make a "good" victim in court. Because there is no investigation, the opportunity to collect evidence and build a case is missed.

        Of course there are liars, and I have a lot of sympathy with their victi

        • Stop blaming the victim saying they wouldn't have made a "good" victim! Police/prosecutors would fall over themselves to investigate/prosecute a sex crime, especially in today's climate. Such cases are dropped due to a lack of evidence, or the lack of a crime.

        • That's the defense of that statement offered to people who still possess a modicum of concern about silly things like due process and basic fairness, but the activists making it very much do not believe that. It's believe the woman, end of story. You can't "re-traumatize" the victim by doing something so horrible as to subject her claim to scrutiny. Just look at Title IX kangaroo courts for the model they want for the actual criminal justice system. There's no presumption of innocence, there's no right to h

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            This is a myth that some people have been spreading. It was never "just believe everything they say". It was always "believe them just enough to actually investigate, look for evidence, take witness statements". That first hurdle of coming forward, and getting law enforcement to give a damn, was the issue being addressed.

            I don't know how it is where you live, but around here the cops are mostly disinterested in most non-violent crime. If you get burgled they will tell you to put it through your insurance. O

            • I believe that any credible report of any crime, especially rape, should be investigated. With that said, "believe women" is a garbage slogan, because it is so easily taken to mean something other than what you said.

            • that's what it was like when I lived in Massachusetts, the officers in the towns where I lived (Stoughton, Falmouth) were completely disinterested in anything other than violent crime, and then, they pretty much made a mess of things... I had cars broken into in both towns and in both cases the cops were only there to give me documents to file with insurance, they didn't give a damn about arresting the perp's... in one case, a newbie cop (read: zealous) apprehended the perp, caught him read handed, and the

        • Re:Public Examples (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday August 11, 2023 @07:07AM (#63758526) Journal

          I disagree strongly. Exactly nobody should be "believed" without some level of evidence. The nature of human mating is such there will ALWAYS be cases of undesired attention for others.

          If that actually rises to the level of crime, there should be some evidence of it. Its hard to harass someone 'privately' for any extended period. Work place sexual harassment usually there is something, an e-mail history witnesses over period, etc. Memory isn't very good especially when it comes to people someone may dislike for other reason. Its really easy to rewrite history in ones head to vilify someone and perhaps turn what was perhaps boorish behavior into something that was a real infraction by changing a few words, order of events, and time frame, all easy things to do especially with the passage of time.

          The other issue is the mere claim, however baseless can be devastating, personally, professionally, financially. I think the harm from the claim alone is often far greater than many of the crimes alleged and that makes false reporting just a little to appealing.

          So no I don't care man or woman, you come to me some sexual rape/sexual assault/harassment claim etc - you'd better be prepared to show me some kind of material evidence or you will be dismissed out of hand. You say all claims should be investigated, well what is there to investigate if your claim is such and such made a lewd comment to me while we were alone in an elevator. The MOST I can do is ask them if its true? When they deny it, dead end, why should anyone especially the police bother with such nonsense?

          The real issue is society just needs to accept what we have always know about human behavior.

          The Graham rule should always be followed without exception. - This would eliminate 99.9% of issues.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            I disagree strongly. Exactly nobody should be "believed" without some level of evidence.

            The point is to believe them as far as bothering to look for evidence. All too often the cops dismiss sexual assaults without even administering a rape kit or taking a statement.

            you come to me some sexual rape/sexual assault/harassment claim etc - you'd better be prepared to show me some kind of material evidence or you will be dismissed out of hand

            Maybe people should start carrying their own rape kits, along side a bottle of mace and a taser.

            For harassment that doesn't leave physical traces, it's often extremely difficult to build a case. Corroboration from other victims helps, but often the effort to find each other and come forward together is enough for the defence to show

            • Maybe people should start carrying their own rape kits, along side a bottle of mace and a taser.

              A gun is an even BETTER equalizer....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jefftp ( 35835 )

        Thanks for this post. I was a huge fan of Moxy Fruvous back in the 90s and was disappointed by the accusations against Jian. I'm relieved that Jian was able to refute the accusations--I wish he could be fully exonerated.

      • Knowing that the notion of "multiple accusers" coming forward instantly makes accusations sound more credible, three women accused Jian Ghomeshi of sexual crimes, having colluded beforehand to get their stories straight. It might have worked except that Ghomeshi still had old coversations and texts that flatly contradicted those stories. Yet even after his acquittal, the press still covers the trial as if the accusers are credible:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        That's one way to view what happened.

        Though instead of "collusion" the other possibility is that people who went through a traumatizing experience wanted to talk to someone else who went through a similar experience.

        And I never heard about their stories being "flatly contradicted". What I did hear is they were originally acting quite friendly with Ghomeshi after the incidents, which is actually pretty damn common, but they probably thought it was bad for the case so they left it out / denied it in their tes

    • Beware of false dichotomy: why no investigation? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KWTm ( 808824 ) on Friday August 11, 2023 @12:50AM (#63758108) Journal

      I think the main thing seems to be that no one did investigating; e.g. the STLCC said "This is not our concern."

      It would be one thing to have several people claim to be victims, and then the alleged perpetrator is immediately castigated. I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

      It would be an entirely different thing to have several people claim to be victims, and then people say, "Well, there was this case where the accusations were false. So every such case must be due to false accusations," and not investigate anything.

      The fact that people are willing to come forward despite having to go through the distress and shame of making their ordeal public lends weight to the fact that they must have a strong motivation to do so. The fact that Jennifer Shahade was a public chess figure, but no longer, does not seem to be because she chose to malign someone else in cooperation with other chess players.

      Here on Slashdot, we support people who go through as simple ordeals as losing an YouTube account without adequate explanation. I would say that people who admit details of being victim of a sexual assault, supported by a WSJ article, are more credible than this.

      • Re: Beware of false dichotomy: why no investigatio (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Friday August 11, 2023 @01:18AM (#63758126) Journal

        >The fact that people are willing to come forward despite having to go through the distress and shame of making their ordeal public lends weight to the fact that they must have a strong motivation to do so.

        Maybe in the past, but there is now a clear incentive to make such accusations. Rather than a shameful victim, accusers will be lauded for their bravery.

        • Not just that, there's a financial incentive now too, as some will get paid speaking gigs to talk about how brave they are and how important the issue is when the accusations are by or about someone well known. And since the burden is now on the accused to affirmatively *disprove* the allegation beyond reasonable for purposes of employment, college education, and other things that matter a whole lot besides criminal conviction (though it's more true there now too, since pure 'he said she said' with no other

        • "accusers will be lauded for their bravery"

          It's bravery only in the face of the negative consequences.

        • >The fact that people are willing to come forward despite having to go through the distress and shame of making their ordeal public lends weight to the fact that they must have a strong motivation to do so.

          Maybe in the past, but there is now a clear incentive to make such accusations. Rather than a shameful victim, accusers will be lauded for their bravery.

          Occasional crackpots maybe, but if you think this is a common pattern you have a very, very weird understanding of human nature.

          • Occasional crackpots? Did you sleep through the Me Too movement? Duke Lacrosse? Brett Kavanaugh? I include Kavanaugh because there was never any proof of the allegations, and plenty to draw them into question. Mattress girl?

            Most of these don't end like Duke Lacrosse. In most cases it's one person's word against the other, the establishment being more likely to believe the accuser. With no clear way of proving a negative, accused live with stigma while their accuser receives sympathy and celebration.

            Even if

            • Occasional crackpots? Did you sleep through the Me Too movement?

              Nope, I remember lots of serial offenders getting outed.

              Duke Lacrosse?

              Probably a false accusation.

              Brett Kavanaugh? I include Kavanaugh because there was never any proof of the allegations, and plenty to draw them into question.

              If you're including the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, that included allegations from multiple people, and witness who heard about said incidents at the time [wikipedia.org] as a false allegation then you've got some serious bias.

              Mattress girl?

              I hadn't heard of her, but it looks like she made the accusation, had it dismissed, then became "mattress girl [slashdot.org]" after she found out that the person had multiple other accusations against them.

              That actually se

              • You're joking, right? Witnesses who weren't actual witnesses, their 'evidence' focussed on stating belief in their friend. Some of them even denied knowing the accuser. One of the accusers admitted lying, while another recanted significant allegations in a TV interview.

                Your idea is terrible. Sexual assault is difficult to prosecute because it tends to be one person's word against another. Multiplying accusers doesn't multiply the evidence - only the accusations. Effectively what you're proposing is a bill o

                • You're joking, right? Witnesses who weren't actual witnesses, their 'evidence' focussed on stating belief in their friend. Some of them even denied knowing the accuser. One of the accusers admitted lying, while another recanted significant allegations in a TV interview.

                  In the case of Ramirez multiple people on campus heard about the incident at the time.

                  Your idea is terrible. Sexual assault is difficult to prosecute because it tends to be one person's word against another. Multiplying accusers doesn't multiply the evidence - only the accusations.

                  You don't think multiple independent people coming up with the same story better evidence than a single person's story?

                  Effectively what you're proposing is a bill of attainder. Your great idea is essentially what happened during the Kavanaugh hearing, the house and the FBI then investigating the claims.

                  I don't see the similarity.

                  Another difficulty with prosecuting cases is the delay in coming forward. Although DNA evidence doesn't prove rape, it at least establishes sexual contact took place. Also, by delaying interviews you'd significantly harm both the quality of recall and the ability to corroborate claims.

                  You can still do a rape kit (if that's the accusation) and take some initial statements. It's not as strong a case as if done immediately, but as we saw with Harvey Weinstein it's not impossible.

                  Besides, it's better than the alternative of them staying silent or complaining to th

                  • >In the case of Ramirez multiple people on campus heard about the incident at the time.

                    Heard about the incident? Four witnesses she named denied Kavanaugh was involved. When she contacted former classmates, she is claimed to have told them that she couldn't herself be certain it was Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter if people heard some gossip - that's not how due process works.

                    >You don't think multiple independent people coming up with the same story better evidence than a single person's story?

                    Sure, in c

                    • >You don't think multiple independent people coming up with the same story better evidence than a single person's story?

                      Sure, in context. Multiple independent witnesses to a single incident is evidence. If independent witnesses in various parts of a city observe a suspect's movements, associating them with the crime then that's certainly useful. But that's not what you proposed.

                      Your idea would entail single witnesses to separate incidents, each one needing to be evaluated in isolation.

                      Still far better than the current scenario of them saying nothing, or reporting to some organization that doesn't really record anything.

                      And depending on the incident they could ask a few other people for the record.

                      If we have multiple witnesses then go to the police! Don't wait decades before making an accusation before the media.

                      Then why aren't they doing that now? Why do we repeatedly find out about predators who have been operating for decades with dozens or even hundreds of victims [wikipedia.org]?

                      I recommend you look into Loftus to learn how memory is unreliable, particularly over time and when involving emotive circumstances. Simply recalling and discussing an event alters the memory.

                      Yes, I understand how memory works, which is why I propose collecting information at the time.

                      The gold standard is to speak with the complainant as quick as possible, ideally before they've discussed the matter with others. It's not easy for a victim as even speaking with a therapist risks altering the memory. This is why police seek to gather testimony as quickly as possible.

                      Again, why I propose collecting statements

          • Occasional crackpots maybe, but if you think this is a common pattern you have a very, very weird understanding of human nature.

            Except they are very high profile. Accusing Trump, accusing Biden, accusing Kavanaugh... not to mention a lot of the college ones. It's like all the people who wrote racist slurs on their own doors: being a victim gets you attention.

      • It would be an entirely different thing to have several people claim to be victims, and then people say, "Well, there was this case where the accusations were false. So every such case must be due to false accusations," and not investigate anything.

        Except that nobody is saying that.

        What we are saying is - keep in mind that accusations could be false. It's possible, it happens.

        Which is why in civilized countries, you are innocent until proven guilty. It's almost as if there were some kind of history of figuring out how to fairly handle accusations ...

        • "in civilized countries, you are innocent until proven guilty. "

          If the accusation is dismissed out of hand, then the accuser is being presumed guilty of fraud without it having been proven.

        • It would be an entirely different thing to have several people claim to be victims, and then people say, "Well, there was this case where the accusations were false. So every such case must be due to false accusations," and not investigate anything.

          Except that nobody is saying that.

          Correct; I'm not . . . but I do want to note that these cases do carry a little more weight than everyone might realize, because false accusations appear to be underreported by the MSM, which often only does so "by accident," as it did with Jussie Smollett and Bubba Wallace.

          Pretty much all the public individual cases brought up so far (like Duke lacrosse, Jian Ghomeshi, and SuperMega--i.e. all except Grant Neal's) were originally pushed aggressively into the spotlight by the "Listen and Believe"-type of

      • It isn't a chess club's responsibility to investigate crime.

        • It isn't a chess club's responsibility to investigate crime.

          I would disagree. It is absolutely the responsibility of the chess club to investigate crime/potential crime that is committed by someone operating under the auspices of that chess club. Same with any other organization, no matter how far removed from law enforcement. At the least, there is an obligation to contact the appropriate authorities who do investigate crime.

          In this particular case, the potential criminal may have access to more victim

          • We don't know if those things happened or not. All we know is that the accuser and this chess software company are upset because the chess club has not sufficiently punished the accused to their liking. In a he said she said with no other evidence what would you have them do? The chess club making a statement either way puts them in legal jeopardy regardless. It's a no-win situation for them. The only principled thing for them to do is exactly what it appears they've done: make no statement at all and

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bsolar ( 1176767 )

      we're told to "always believe the woman/victim.

      Nobody should believe anyone at face value for any important decision. Nobody in their right mind would advocate for a "believe at face value" approach for any important decision affecting their lives: it's being successfully advocated because it affects someone else's life instead, which is disgustingly hypocritical.

      Victims need to be taken seriously, but believing needs corroborating evidence.

      • When a victim goes to the internet instead of the relevant authorities it is a reasonable reaction to not take them very seriously.

    • Sexual misconduct accusations are difficult. Somebody may make an accusation that is completely false and we're told to "always believe the woman/victim." Stories emerge where the "victim" was lying. ...

      What you say anecdotally is correct, but the likelihoods are way off. Yes, false accusations exist and continue to exist. However, the implication is that the likelihood of false accusation is significant. How significant is a crucial question but also unfortunately not an easy question to answer. Are we talking mostly true or false accusations? And how do those likelihoods look when accounting for non-reported accusations that are squelched due to an assumption that the system won't do anything.

      The ot

    • The problem with your statement is context. If we're talking about the case of Aziz Ansari for example, he was accused of sexual misconduct by one woman, but when it was described what he did it sounded more like Aziz Ansari flirting and she decided later she didn't want it; many women disagreed with her using that term.

      This case is far more nuanced. First, the woman who started these accusations is a reporter. She has a level of integrity required by her profession; she's not a nobody seeking fame o

  • Undead sexual harassment? (Score:3)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Thursday August 10, 2023 @07:17PM (#63757676)

    Didn't know liches cared that much about sexual misconduct.

  • So you're telling me a bunch of autists, people with underdeveloped social skills, and emotional growth delays.... are having trouble with social behavior and personal boundaries? What a shocking turn of events.
    • Alejandro Ramirez is by all accounts charming and extroverted. He used those social skills to get himself into positions of trust as a coach of teenage girls, and to maintain those positions despite multiple complaints about him over the years.

      • Why haven't any of these people gone to the police? Seems odd to complain to the publisher of chess software instead of pressing charges with law enforcement.

        • What do you mean "complain to the publisher of chess software"? Who has done that?

          Anyway, if you actually want to learn more about why children and their parents often don't go to the police in situations like this, the final reports [childabuse...ion.gov.au] of the Australian Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse are informative reading. They interviewed thousands of victims and the representatives of dozens of organizations, and they found some common patterns that institutions use to protect abuser

          • Why aren't the victims going to the police instead of Lichess? From Lichess' official statement:

            "And Ramirez is not the only one. According to interviews and documents reviewed by Lichess, one other prominent American grandmaster has also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women"

            Accusations such as these destroy lives. If laws were broken then law enforcement needs to be involved. If no laws were broken then these accusers should face serious consequences of their own.

            WTF is "sexual misconduct

            • Why aren't the victims going to the police instead of Lichess? From Lichess' official statement: "And Ramirez is not the only one. According to interviews and documents reviewed by Lichess, one other prominent American grandmaster has also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women"

              Nobody went to Lichess. Lichess read the publicly available material, like this article from the Wall Street Journal:

              How Sexual Assault Allegations Against a U.S. Chess Grandmaster Went Unaddressed for Years [wsj.com]

              It's also possible that mere "misconduct" could mean a nerd flirted with a girl who was offended that someone so beneath her thought they had a shot. Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be a thing. Anonymous gossip on the internet isn't good enough.

              It would be useful for you to familiarize yourself with the facts of the case. Even the most awkward of nerds should know that it isn't right as an adult coach to get your 15 and 16 year old students drunk and shove your dick in their mouths.

              • This is from Lichess' statement linked in the summary:

                "According to interviews and documents reviewed by Lichess, one other prominent American grandmaster has also been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, raising further troubling questions about how chess organizations deal with such matters."
                https://lichess.org/blog/ZNTni... [lichess.org]

                Unless the WSJ shared interviews and documents with Lichess then someone else got them involved (instead of the police).

                • You know that you can review documents and interviews without anyone sending them to you, don't you? I reviewed the WSJ interview myself, and you can, too!

                  And then if you want to contact any of the parties involved, you can reach out to them to ask more questions. And you probably should, if you're closely involved with an organization that appears to have completely inadequate processes for keeping children coached by the organization safe despite - especially in the case of the St. Louis Chess Club -

                  • OK, where can I find these interviews and documents to personally review? Those aren't provided in the WSJ story.

                    • OK, where can I find these interviews and documents to personally review? Those aren't provided in the WSJ story.

                      I really don't understand what you're asking here. You read the WSJ interviews. You read the material that Lichess obtained. I'm sure you also read all the documents that Lichess linked to. You've already found what you're looking for...?

                    • "You read the material that Lichess obtained."

                      Why aren't the police involved?

                    • I would seriously, seriously recommend reading as much of the Australian Royal Commission reports that I linked to if you have an actual interest in learning about the dynamics of these kind of cases.

                      Or, for a case closer to home, find out why 200+ children were abused by Larry Nassar before the police got involved.

                    • The Larry Nasser stuff was 20+ years ago. Much has changed since then. Accusers are celebrated now, for one. It can't be because the victims don't want attention otherwise why make these public accusations instead of going to the police?

                    • The Larry Nasser stuff was 20+ years ago. Much has changed since then. Accusers are celebrated now, for one. It can't be because the victims don't want attention otherwise why make these public accusations instead of going to the police?

                      Larry Nasser was only charged in 2015, 8 years ago. Most of the victims in this case were afraid to say anything for years (or were talked out of saying anything publicly), and some of them are still afraid to come out publicly. You might think that we're now giving victims ticker-tape parades, but they obviously don't see it that way.

                      One thing that I learned reading the Royal Commission reports and case studies is that coaches and the organizations behind them have some extra tools to keep victims sile

                    • The point is these victims don't seem afraid or ashamed since they're taking their story to the media and being very public about it. These are serious criminal accusations and it's odd that they're taking it to the internet instead of the police. I don't understand how that is a controversial take but here we are. Maybe they have and that just isn't mentioned anywhere which would make all this even odder.

                    • There's a quirk of human psychology that I don't have an explanation for - maybe somebody else does? - that when we're harmed by an unconnected stranger we'll take the matter to the police, but when we're harmed by someone who's part of the same organization we are we'll do everything we can to handle it within the organization. I don't know why, but it's there again and again (and again and again) in the Royal Commission case studies. If a teacher abuses a kid, the victims expect the school to solve it.

            • And, more to the immediate point: If you're an organization that's responsible for providing coaches, and especially if you're responsible for providing coaches for children, you make sure that you have adequate processes in place to ensure that abuse doesn't get covered up, doesn't get laughed off, doesn't happen to multiple children over many years, and isn't perpetrated by multiple respected members of your organization.

              That's what Lichess is reacting to here, and it's why the Royal Commission reports

              • This is the second or third comment here implying the accused aren't just guilty of sexual assault but also pedophilia. Those are serious criminal accusations. Many states recognize the ruinous nature of that accusation and consider calling someone a pedo 'defamation per se', meaning if you can't show that to be true (not just an assumption) then you're automatically guilty of defamation.

                Why aren't the police involved?

                • It's not my comments implying anything. It's what multiple people told the WSJ happened to them. Presumably Ramirez and his lawyer have been busy preparing defamation cases since February, if it's all false.

                  Why aren't the police involved?

                  That's a good question. Does Missouri not have mandatory-reporter laws?

    • The point of this protest action and the news story is that no action was taken. Even if "a bunch of autists, people with underdeveloped social skills, and emotional growth delays.... are having trouble with social behavior and personal boundaries", their actions need to be looked into, and this wasn't done. If being socially underdeveloped gives a free pass to unquestioned sexual assault, people would live in fear of the socially underdeveloped.

      In this case, victims came forward in private to accuse ches

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vbdasc ( 146051 )

        The point of this protest action and the news story is that no action was taken.

        Who should've taken action? Chess clubs and chess federations have not the power to investigate, prosecute and issue verdicts, and neither are they obliged to engage in any of these.

      • What is a chess club supposed to do? Kick people out over a he-said, she-said? A chess club is not a law enforcement or criminal investigative body... it's a chess club. People are supposed to have a presumption of innocence and due process in the US. If they kick people out without any evidence, especially well-known prominent people with valued reputations then they'll have much bigger problems.

      • First of all, unless the company had a pattern of falling victim to exploits and poor security, or the vulnerability resulted from some egregious oversight, nobody would be shredding the entire company. Vulnerabilities are inevitable. If a company is generally responsible, the fuck else would we want beyond fixing the reported vulnerability? The only companies I see get shredded for it (and shredding in comments and canceling contracts and boycotting purchases are worlds apart) have long histories of seriou

  • What does "sexual misconduct" actually mean, exactly?

    If it was a crime, why wasn't it prosecuted? Or if it wasn't a crime, WTH does it have to do with playing chess?

  • Wonder what his opening Chess move was ? Was gambit was used ?
  • Some unknown entity drops ties with organizations overseeing games to protest their insufficient moral outrage, aka generate publicity for nothing, and I'm supposed to care why?

  • I've always felt the current justice system is very poorly suited to dealing with sexual misconduct.

    The victim (usually a woman) feels something very wrong/inappropriate was done, but they doesn't know if it was a one-off thing or part of a pattern, and if they report it to the police.

    - They new have to go through a series of very awkward and uncomfortable interviews.
    - If it goes to trial their name is potentially entering the record. Not many people want "was sexually assaulted by X" to be one of the most

  • Hello, sports souls! Recently came across a site that is just created for real adrenaline fans - sports betting and online casinos under one roof. He was initially skeptical, but I must admit that this resource has struck me. It’s like it was created by other players, not by someone in business https://fairplays.in/app/ [fairplays.in] . Insanely fascinating, and most importantly - honest.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close