Breaking the Silence

@schnitzelater said in #682:
> 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.

No, we don't, because you seem to be completely misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that I believe people should be guilty by default. When did I claim that can you quote me?

> 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).

You are right that I previously stated it, and I hold that position. I do believe in law and order. I do not support vigilante justice.

> 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.

It seems to me based on what I know that they are most likely guilty of the offenses. Because I do believe in law and order and not vigilante justice, I am not taking matters into my own hands, neither I am advocating for that. I do not have that right or power. If they are to be charged or convicted, that has to come from the law clearly.

However, the point is that since the evidence is compelling and because there were multiple allegations, the chess federations should have handled it differently. That's how it all started. I don't understand why you seem to misrepresent my position even after I am clarifying it multiple times.

You are also using words like guilty, punishment, etc. These are quite strong words and should be reserved for the law. You need to understand that not everything has to be either black or white, most things are actually in between like a spectrum. I tried to demonstrate that even within the law by showing the differences between civil and criminal cases for sexual assaults.

The law is not the only thing that exists in real life, yet somehow you don't seem to understand that. Also, people make laws and they evolve over time, just like we do. Not the other way around. Vigilante justice or not respecting the law is another thing that I never claimed to advocate for.

@sgtlaugh said in #684:
> No, we don't, because you seem to be completely misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that I believe people have been proven guilty by default. But the opposite. When did I claim that can you quote me?
>

Okay so you think that they have not been proven guilty. So then why are you okay with them being punished? You like punishing innocent people? You already said that you did not support that. You are contradicting yourself again.

>
>
> You are right that I previously stated it, and I hold that position. I do believe in law and order. I do not support vigilante justice.
>
>
>
> It seems to me based on what I know that they are most likely guilty of the offenses. Because I do believe in law and order and not vigilante justice, I am not taking matters into my own hands, neither I am advocating for that. I do not have that right or power. If they are to be charged or convicted, that has to come from the law clearly.
>
> However, the point is that since the evidence is compelling and because there were multiple allegations, the chess federations should have handled it differently. That's how it all started. I don't understand why you seem to misrepresent my position even after I am clarifying it multiple times.
>
> You are also using words like guilty, punishment, etc. These are quite strong words and should be reserved for the law. You need to understand that not everything has to be either black or white, most things are actually in between like a spectrum. I tried to demonstrate that even within the law by showing the differences between civil and criminal cases for sexual assaults.
>
> The law is not the only thing that exists in real life, yet somehow you don't seem to understand that. Also, people make laws and they evolve over time, just like we do. Not the other way around. Vigilante justice or not respecting the law is another thing that I never claimed to advocate for.

You admit that you do not have the right nor power to take matters into your hands. But you are fine with USCF and STLCC having the right and power to take matters into their hands?

Seems a bit like Lichess jumping on the bandwagon a bit late: after universal condemnation and US chess already making positive changes. Would have been more meaningful to do something earlier. In general it seems, regarding this issue, the sooner action is taken the better for everyone.

@schnitzelater said in #685:
> Okay so you think that they have not been proven guilty. So then why are you okay with them being punished? You like punishing innocent people? You already said that you did not support that. You are contradicting yourself again.

Why are you using strong terms like "proven", "guilty", "punished" again? I don't know how many times do I have to clarify, at this point it feels frustrating and useless since I am just repeating myself.

Not everything has to be black and white. I think the evidence against them is compelling. It does not prove anything. Is that clear?

> You admit that you do not have the right nor power to take matters into your hands. But you are fine with USCF and STLCC having the right and power to take matters into their hands?

I also think the organizations involved did not handle the matter and allegations responsibly, as does Lichess and many other users. This in no way means they have the right or power to convict or punish the alleged attackers. These are terms reserved for the law and should be applicable in case of any legal action taken.

However, they failed to act responsibly, sincerely, and adequately. At least for a long period. They should not have brushed off the allegations. They should not have taken them lightly. They should have been more compassionate and supportive of the alleged victims. They should have been timely in their responses. They should not have denied taking accountability for the assault that happened right outside the tournament hotel based on technicalities. They should have taken more preventive measures once they got to know about the incidents. They should not have appointed Ramirez as the coach for female-only teams given that they KNEW about the allegations. And the list goes on. From an organizational point of view, this was their failure and Lichess simply took a stand against it because such a culture is not fair, safe, or supportive.

No one has asked the chess federations to get their head on a pike. Why is that so hard to understand? I really fail to understand why you keep on bringing law and order into everything.

@sgtlaugh said in #687:
> Why are you using strong terms like "proven", "guilty", "punished" again? I don't know how many times do I have to clarify, at this point it feels frustrating and useless since I am just repeating myself.
>
> Not everything has to be black and white. I think the evidence against them is compelling. It does not prove anything. Is that clear?
>

I guess I just take sexual harassment more seriously than you do. I think it is a serious thing, you think it is fine to do. But I think you are wrong.

>
>
> I also think the organizations involved did not handle the matter and allegations responsibly, as does Lichess and many other users. This in no way means they have the right or power to convict or punish the alleged attackers. These are terms reserved for the law and should be applicable in case of any legal action taken.
>
> However, they failed to act responsibly, sincerely, and adequately. At least for a long period. They should not have brushed off the allegations. They should not have taken them lightly. They should have been more compassionate and supportive of the alleged victims. They should have been timely in their responses. They should not have denied taking accountability for the assault that happened right outside the tournament hotel based on technicalities. They should have taken more preventive measures once they got to know about the incidents. They should not have appointed Ramirez as the coach for female-only teams given that they KNEW about the allegations. And the list goes on. From an organizational point of view, this was their failure and Lichess simply took a stand against it because such a culture is not fair, safe, or supportive.
>
> No one has asked the chess federations to get their head on a pike. Why is that so hard to understand? I really fail to understand why you keep on bringing law and order into everything.

I bring law and order into it because I view sexual harassment as a serious thing that should be punished. You seem to be fine with it however. I guess that is were we are different.

@schnitzelater said in #688:
> I guess I just take sexual harassment more seriously than you do. I think it is a serious thing, you think it is fine to do. But I think you are wrong.

No, don't guess. You can simply ask. I am stating multiple times and clarifying my position, yet you don't seem to understand. It is a serious thing. When did I say it is fine to do so or claimed to take it less seriously?

> I bring law and order into it because I view sexual harassment as a serious thing that should be punished. You seem to be fine with it however. I guess that is were we are different.

Yes, I believe it should be punished too. You don't seem to understand any of my points and keep bringing the same old legal terms into the discussion. I am not denying the legal aspects, but there are other factors and dimensions to consider here. You do not seem to realize that. There is no point engaging in this discussion further and so I will stop replying to you. Cheers!

@sgtlaugh said in #689:
> No, don't guess. You can simply ask. I am stating multiple times and clarifying my position, yet you don't seem to understand. It is a serious thing. When did I say it is fine to do so or claimed to take it less seriously?
>
>
>
> Yes, I believe it should be punished too. You don't seem to understand any of my points and keep bringing the same old legal terms into the discussion. I am not denying the legal aspects, but there are other factors and dimensions to consider here. You do not seem to realize that. There is no point engaging in this discussion further and so I will stop replying to you. Cheers!

Well I guess after you have changed your position multiple times you are giving up. That is good to hear. I hope that you one day reflect on your contradictory positions and come to believe in a logical and consistent ideology.

Best regards to you.

Nice read

www.nzz.ch/sport/erwachsene-schachspieler-haben-mir-als-junges-maedchen-gruppensex-angeboten-ld.1751453

So... a lot of "alleges"...
I allege that I was molested by every woman in existence and demand repremandation.

I will never EVER stand for abuse. But as much as it hurts victims of silent crimes:
If there is no evidence, there should not be consequences. And I skipped over some seemingly unimportant parts...
but nowhere in this long essay did it ever say anything about evidence of convictions... right?

@schnitzelater said in #690:
> Well I guess after you have changed your position multiple times you are giving up. That is good to hear. I hope that you one day reflect on your contradictory positions and come to believe in a logical and consistent ideology.
>
> Best regards to you.

Both US chess and STLCC eventually took action against one or both of the accused. We can agree on that?

Do you believe they didn't have a justifiable reason to do that? If so, they have made themselves liable? worth millions of dollars, I would imagine.

Why haven't the accused filed lawsuits? Shouldn't we be demanding they file them?